“This could change how science perceives the life on earth began and how the planet has evolved”

[GospelS]

There Was a Time When Earth Was All Water, With no Continents And no Coronavirus

 

[BobRyan]

There Was a Time When Earth Was All Water, With no Continents And no Coronavirus

great post! thanks.

 

[createdtoworship]

There Was a Time When Earth Was All Water, With no Continents And no Coronavirus

I think in genesis there was water before mass if I am not mistaken. But I may be completely wrong about that, I haven't debated genesis for awhile.

 

[muichimotsu]

The planet "evolving" seems like an unnecessary term to refer to development of geological formations.

And sure, it focuses on abiogenesis, but I feel like this concept hasn't been entirely unlikely in consideration of how planets formed in the first place in our understanding that it wouldn't be a solid mass necessarily and we have examples of gas giants and such, so a planet that was mostly water, minus the core and crust and such isn't unreasonable.

 

[createdtoworship]

The planet "evolving" seems like an unnecessary term to refer to development of geological formations.

And sure, it focuses on abiogenesis, but I feel like this concept hasn't been entirely unlikely in consideration of how planets formed in the first place in our understanding that it wouldn't be a solid mass necessarily and we have examples of gas giants and such, so a planet that was mostly water, minus the core and crust and such isn't unreasonable.

oh you are just talking biological evolution, the OP is talking about chemical evolution. And you were referring to stellar evolution, that is three entirely separate types of evolution.

 

[46AND2]

oh you are just talking biological evolution, the OP is talking about chemical evolution. And you were referring to stellar evolution, that is three entirely separate types of evolution.

Chemical and stellar evolution, as well as all the other Hovind inventions, are...not a thing. At least, not in scientific terms. Sure they have gone through changes, and can colloquially be expressed as having evolved, but they are not recognized in the same sense as biological evolution.

 

[46AND2]

There Was a Time When Earth Was All Water, With no Continents And no Coronavirus

Since you posted this in the Creation & Evolution forum, it seems you are offering this as support of creation. It isn't. Not in any way, shape, or form.

 

[GospelS]

Since you posted this in the Creation & Evolution forum, it seems you are offering this as support of creation. It isn't. Not in any way, shape, or form.

Thanks for your comment but that was not my purpose of this post, to offer a support of creation. Or may be it is. Let it seem to the reader as they see. I know this message and the creation itself will speak/reveal the truth in this message to those that it needs to reach. Not everyone has same hearing ears and seeing eyes. Let the reader think and find out and reason with it.

 

[pitabread]

That article title is pure click bait since it has absolutely nothing to do with coronavirus. In fact, that whole site looks kind of sketchy.

 

[BobRyan]

I think in genesis there was water before mass if I am not mistaken. But I may be completely wrong about that, I haven't debated genesis for awhile.

There is water " the surface of the deep" and "the surface of the waters" in Genesis 1

"In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth. 2 The earth was formless and void, and darkness was over the surface of the deep, and the Spirit of God was moving over the surface of the waters."

So there you have a "Water world" with no land mass - just something below the water called "the surface of the deep" -- probably rock/solid-mass

The conditions for that O18 rich water world - in your article/link

But don't expect the atheist-view-of-origins to approve of the facts they present in that article.

 

[Ophiolite]

Chemical and stellar evolution, as well as all the other Hovind inventions, are...not a thing. At least, not in scientific terms.

That's an odd thing to say. A search on Google scholar for " Stellar Evolution" generated about 1,040,000 results. There really isn't any question that stellar evolution is part of the scientific vocabulary and constitutes an important field of astronomical research.

Chemical evolution, likewise is a commonplace in scientific papers. Unlike stellar evolution the term is used in a variety of contexts: chemical evolution of galaxies, chemical evolution of atmospheres, chemical evolution of magmas, chemical evolution as a prelude to abiogenesis. That is likely why a Google Scholar search for "chemical evolution" has over 4,000,000 hits.

 

[46AND2]

That's an odd thing to say. A search on Google scholar for " Stellar Evolution" generated about 1,040,000 results. There really isn't any question that stellar evolution is part of the scientific vocabulary and constitutes an important field of astronomical research.

Chemical evolution, likewise is a commonplace in scientific papers. Unlike stellar evolution the term is used in a variety of contexts: chemical evolution of galaxies, chemical evolution of atmospheres, chemical evolution of magmas, chemical evolution as a prelude to abiogenesis. That is likely why a Google Scholar search for "chemical evolution" has over 4,000,000 hits.

Hmm, well, perhaps I'm just a bit put off by Hovind's list of "6 different types of evolution" and how he presents it. Typically when I see these types of evolution presented by theists...poor arguments follow.

 

[Ophiolite]

Hmm, well, perhaps I'm just a bit put off by Hovind's list of "6 different types of evolution" and how he presents it. Typically when I see these types of evolution presented by theists...poor arguments follow.

Creationists routinely equivocate over evolution, playing a shell game with the various applications of the term, so I reluctantly give Hovind some credit for being honest enough to distinguish them.

 

[46AND2]

Creationists routinely equivocate over evolution, playing a shell game with the various applications of the term, so I reluctantly give Hovind some credit for being honest enough to distinguish them.

Except for the fact that he doesn't stick to it, being just as guilty of the same equivocation in other videos as any of his advocates.

 

[createdtoworship]

Chemical and stellar evolution, as well as all the other Hovind inventions, are...not a thing. At least, not in scientific terms. Sure they have gone through changes, and can colloquially be expressed as having evolved, but they are not recognized in the same sense as biological evolution.

Try looking up stellar evolution and chemical evolution on google scholar. You will see that are common terms used in the scientific world.

 

[46AND2]

Try looking up stellar evolution and chemical evolution on google scholar. You will see that are common terms used in the scientific world.

Already mentioned by Ophiolite.

Suffice to say; The problem is 1. Equivocation and 2. if one is to use the term in that sense, ANYTHING that changes over time could be said to evolve.

If one can avoid those problems, then fine. Scientists are perfectly capable of defining the distinction between them....The general populace?...not so much...hence the reason you brought up the topic in the first place.

 

[createdtoworship]

Already mentioned by Ophiolite.

Suffice to say; The problem is 1. Equivocation and 2. if one is to use the term in that sense, ANYTHING that changes over time could be said to evolve.

If one can avoid those problems, then fine. Scientists are perfectly capable of defining the distinction between them....The general populace?...not so much...hence the reason you brought up the topic in the first place.

did you look it up? Try it. You will see it's not a fabrication of creation believers. (that is just away to avoid the issue). These are terms scientists use every day. Now instead of going on this entire red herring, trying to catch the OP on a technicality do the honest thing and debate the facts of the OP. The point is that chemical evolutionary theory on abiogenesis is changing. And it is changing because abiogenesis has no observable data to back it up. I mean think logically, does it make sense that a special recipe of certain non living material, can become alive? Sounds like a remake of Frankenstein.

 

[Jonathan Walkerin]

So there you have a "Water world" with no land mass - just something below the water called "the surface of the deep" -- probably rock/solid-mass

And according to the article earth was 3,2 billions of years old at that point. So do we cherrry pick the article to pieces or do we concede earth with selflife of billions of years ?

 

[GospelS]

And according to the article earth was 3,2 billions of years old at that point. So do we cherrry pick the article to pieces or do we concede earth with selflife of billions of years ?

Thanks for your inputs. We do not know for how long the Spirit of God was hovering over the surface of waters. So we have no idea of that time gap between creation in the beginning and appearance of dry land. First day started when God created light and dry land appeared on day three. We may be able to trace the age of the dry land but we cannot know for long it was all just covered by water. Now, as per the article, they claim to have studied a 3.24-billion-year-old hydrothermally altered oceanic crust. That does not refer to anything about the age of the dry mass of earth or exclude the possibility of a water world even just 6000 years ago.

 

[Jonathan Walkerin]

That does not refer to anything about the age of the dry mass of earth or exclude the possibility of a water world even just 6000 years ago.

Indeed. It does not even exclude the possibility we were created this morning with all the imbedded memories and evidence pointing to it.