Where did all this wet stuff come from?

H20 bud. That's how.
the early Earth was a ball of molten rock and hot steam.
when all of that cooled down the earth was formed and thethe steam condensed into water.

reply to post by randyvs

If scientists are going to deny history and call it myth? They need to have more than a hypothesees. That's where I'm at. Are we clear?

Lol, and the bible leaves you with more than that?

I don't think you are in position to judge science because it is obvious you don't understand key concepts and your benchmark is a mythical book.

It's very clear where you are at.

You could just explain yourself, instead of of responding with a smart S reply, but since you are obviously unable to see that there is no logical connection between an occurrance described in a 2000 year old text and a situation that occured billions of years ago, which a previous poster already pointed out, I guess it was too much to ask.

reply to post by ProdigalSonofa


Definitely was not a smart s answer. You didn't describe where you didn't understand or failed to see.
when I tried to make it obvious.

I don't think you are in position to judge science because it is obvious you don't understand key concepts and your benchmark is a mythical book.

Ha ha, then that's why I fail to see the problem you're having. As
I referred to more than just the Bible in the damn OP pal.
seems I know exactly who to take serious and who is out to attack
from the get go. Huh?

reply to post by randyvs


But now that you have qouted my post where I did point out the problem with your post, and after directing you to a previous post doing the same, you have no excuse left for not explaining yourself.

reply to post by randyvs

Science postulates that when the earth was magically forming,

The bible postulates that a magical god magically created the Earth.....in seven days.

Are those Earth days?

reply to post by ProdigalSonofa


Steam turns to water is a key concept? Really!
There's a new one.

Are those Earth days?

I fail to see anything on topic.

reply to post by randyvs

Ha ha, then that's why I fail to see the problem you're having. As I referred to more than just the Bible in the damn OP pal.

My question was what your biblical reference(the flood) had to do with the rest of your post.

You still fail to explain it.

reply to post by randyvs


The point people are trying to make is that 2000 year old texts are not "ancient", nor are they "history" when you are talking about the formation and development of a planet that goes back billions of years.

Water came about literally billions of years prior to this "big flood".

Therefore, attempting to utilize the biblical flood with "how the wet stuff came about" makes no sense, and is the reason why we can't make head nor tail of what it is your trying to say.

How can you possibly link 2000 years ago with 4 billion years ago ?!

It's an illogical connection.



ETA: Or are you trying to say that the planet had no water until 2000 years ago ?

reply to post by randyvs

Steam turns to water is a key concept? Really!

I never mentioned steam.

A key concept would be that the Earth formed billions of years ago when there was no life around, so no humans either. You connect this with the concept of a flood that supposedly happened in a time when humans were around, so billions of years later.

reply to post by CranialSponge

The point people are trying to make is that 2000 year old texts are not "ancient", nor are they "history" when you are talking about the formation and development of a planet that goes back billions of years.

I guess I thought it was common knowledge that Genesis
was more than two thousand years old.

And no one considers the Bible a modern day novel do they?

randyvs
reply to post by CranialSponge

 

The point people are trying to make is that 2000 year old texts are not "ancient", nor are they "history" when you are talking about the formation and development of a planet that goes back billions of years.

I guess I thought it was common knowledge that Genesis
was more than two thousand years old.

Genesis might be more than 2000 years old, but the flood wasn't... even if the flood happened 4000 years ago, or 6000 years ago... it still makes no logical connection.

Unless, you're saying there's been no water until this "big flood" happened 2000/4000/6000 years ago ?!

reply to post by randyvs

And no one considers the Bible a modern day novel do they?

They certainly don't consider it "ancient" or "historical" when you are talking in geological time scales !

It wouldn't even be the tip of the iceberg.

reply to post by randyvs


It is common knowledge that Genesis is not about the timeframe of billions of years ago.

This should be obvious to even you since it involves people living on a habitable Earth, so how could it be in the same timeframe where the Earh was so hot that there was no possibility of the presence of liquid water?

I think there is a lot of historical documentation in the bible that is often overlooked simply because it is in the bible.

I'm sure science is actually starting to notice these possible events in a scientific way.

Is it Sodom and Gomorrah that they are now attributing to a volcanic eruption, or even an airburst from a meteorite?

The parting of the red sea was probably a landslide or earthquake that caused the waters to recede?

Is it possible the biblical flood was maybe something simple like a rapid melting of the polar caps causing sea levels to rise? Maybe it was a localised event like the one that took out the land bridge between the UK and the rest of Europe?

Either way, I think it would be foolish for anyone of any serious scientific background to totally dismiss some of the events as portrayed in the bible....quite a lot have a perfectly logical reasoning that we in the modern age can see as natural events...that may have been seen as an act of God back then.

As for how the water got here in the first place? Probably a mixture of the comet theory and natural gases during Earths creation cooling down.

reply to post by randyvs

Scientists point to a lack of evidence and water available on
earth, in regards to the hundreds of ancient accounts, from diverse cultures
around the world, of an ancient deluge. A world wide flood, that wiped a previous
world, from the face of the planet and left few survivors. This is the Biblical account.
science scoffs at and says is just a myth. I often wonder why and can only
believe, it's because scientists have this big unwarranted, problem with the
Bible.

That's relative. I personally don't think old tales are so much "myth" as they are broken telephone. Sumerian texts have an account of a great flood. Which is probably where the biblical version came from.

However, "the entire world flooding", is relative to the time it happened.

This creationism website... claims the biblical event of the flood was sometime around 2348 BC.

Given the times, it's quite possible an area of land cut off from other areas being flooded, would indeed look like a worldwide flood. However, scientific evidence does not show any genetic drop off during those times (if I remember correctly) but do show genetic bottle necks thousands and thousands of years earlier.

So the idea that the entire world flooded and a handful of animals and people repopulated it is nonsense. (In literal interpretation.)

reply to post by woogleuk


I believe some biblical events like the flood actually happened, it just has nothing to do with the rest of the op in any way.

reply to post by ProdigalSonofa


Consider creation instead of " The Earth just magically forming by it self.
There's your source for all three.
Osean water.
Drinking water
The flood
Do you see?

We are in the O&C forum.

The dwarf planet Ceres holds more fresh water than is found on earth. The ice moon Europa has an ocean estimated to be at least 60 miles deep, as does the moon Enceladus. There are an estimated two trillion objects in the Oort Cloud primarily composed of ices such as ammonia, methane, and water. Two "Water World" planets orbit the star Kepler-62.... I would say its a safe bet that this is the norm right across the known universe.

What do you think about such things?

randyvs
reply to post by ProdigalSonofa

 

Cosider crweation instead of " The Earth just magically forming by it self.
There's your source for all three.
Osean water.
Drinking water
The flood
Do you see?

We are in the O&C forum.

I'm sorry but you start out with this notion,

Science postulates that when the earth was magically forming, billions upon quadzillions of years ago(sarcasm). The planet was very hot and then slowly began to cool

Then you start talking about the flood.

How does one discredit the other and how are they connected?

There is no logical progession in your post.

randyvs
reply to post by ProdigalSonofa

 

Consider creation instead of " The Earth just magically forming by it self.
There's your source for all three.
Osean water.
Drinking water
The flood
Do you see?

We are in the O&C forum.

edit on 27-1-2014 by randyvs because: (no reason given)

No we don't see.

Unless you're saying the flood happened 3 billion years ago and people were around to write about it.