Lunar Water

[Sanguis]

Ultimately, everything arrived on Earth from space.

As dying stars explode, they leave behind heavier elements (Stars are basically huge fusion reactors, which produce heavier elements from H and He.), which starts orbiting other stars, and eventually forms planets.

Meteors are mostly made up entirely of ice water, water is made from the most common element (H) and the 3rd most common element (O), water is very common throughout space.

As with anything on Earth, or the moon, or any other planet that has water, the possibility of that water arriving there in the same way iron does, or helium does, or zinc does, or carbon does,, through the gravitational pull of these atoms (Created from other, dead stars.) is a lot higher than any other possibility.

Of course, water molecules not being very heavy means that once water enters the atmosphere of a planet, that water very, very rarely leaves the atmosphere of that planet. It simply accelerates too fast towards the mass of the planet to escape.

But to say that all of the water would've arrived on Earth in the same way is absurd. There are lots of possible ways water could've easily arrived on Earth (Without the need for supernatural entities.), such as meteors, it being there when the planet formed, etc, that it's much more likely that it's a combination of them all.

 

[dad]

Ultimately, everything arrived on Earth from space.

No. Not at all. More arrived in space from earth than the other way round.

As dying stars explode, they leave behind heavier elements (Stars are basically huge fusion reactors, which produce heavier elements from H and He.), which starts orbiting other stars, and eventually forms planets.

Funny you should preach as if you know. I actually think you have the whole thing wrong. You should phrase your comments better. 'If our theroies are right, then...blah blah' Of course if your theories were worth a nickel, most of the universe would not be unknown, and declared dark. Neither would you have to run scenarios after the fact, backwards in imaginary time, to explain what we see. The rings of 1987a were not known or theorized, if I recall, for example. Neither did any neutron star appear as you predicted! Etc etc etc. Your faith based explanations, however elaborate, are NOT the only ones, and are ridiculous for the most past.

Meteors are mostly made up entirely of ice water, water is made from the most common element (H) and the 3rd most common element (O), water is very common throughout space.

Right, and some Christian theorists say that all or most of the meteors originated on earth. Why would they not contain water traces??

As with anything on Earth, or the moon, or any other planet that has water, the possibility of that water arriving there in the same way iron does, or helium does, or zinc does, or carbon does,, through the gravitational pull of these atoms (Created from other, dead stars.) is a lot higher than any other possibility.

Except it is all in your theory, not reality. How much gravitational pull has done this to any great degree since Galileo lived?

Of course, water molecules not being very heavy means that once water enters the atmosphere of a planet, that water very, very rarely leaves the atmosphere of that planet. It simply accelerates too fast towards the mass of the planet to escape.

So...flood water remnants should still be there. Lo and behold, that is no shocker.

But to say that all of the water would've arrived on Earth in the same way is absurd. There are lots of possible ways water could've easily arrived on Earth (Without the need for supernatural entities.), such as meteors, it being there when the planet formed, etc, that it's much more likely that it's a combination of them all.

Boy, to fill up the Atlantic and Pacific oceans alone, that is a lot of meteors. I think the little boy with a spoon makes a lot more sense, as far as foolish fables go.

Just think, all the earth, and Jupiter, and Saturn, and all planets, and all galaxies, and suns, and stars all fitinto a lot less than a spoon long ago, in the fables of so called science. Quite a squeeze, really.

By the way, better issue the warning planet wide fast. Move away from the coasts, the sea will rise and kill us all. Those darn ice pellets keep falling so fast. Hardly safe to take a walk at night.

Your fables must be supported each step of the way if you want to present them here. You won't get away with scatter shot tales, and waving a bunch of fables together in story telling fashion, as if it had some meaning.

 

[Nathan Poe]

Space, yes, the theories from science admit that much, but have earth as the source first.

Only one does -- you've dismissed the rest.

Bottom line, we don't know, but science accepts earth as a real possibility.

One of many -- a fact you can't handwave away no matter how hard you try.

I find it funny evos are willing to accept space as long as it doesn't involve God.

Doesn't really seem like His M.O., does it?

They waft in a mysterious planet to smash with earth from 'space' they waft in ice pellets (or whatever) enough for the oceans from space.

Um... no, we're not talking about the oceans, we're talking about ice crystals on the Moon.

No, I saw them, but they are foolish. At least with earth, they have a nearby actual known source.

Foolish because you're omniscient?

Right, .....and..?? Point? If they are right about that wind hitting earth, and taking water, one imagines that it could also produce wind in our atmosphere, at least near where it was focused.

The point is it's not "wind," any more than "Capt'n Crunch" is a naval officer.

Obviously in space, it would not be wind as we think of it.

It wouldn't be wind at all.

A pattern exists. It is a link. The only question is how long that time was.

not a question at all if you get your pre-split magic pixies to work on it.

 

[dad]

Only one does -- you've dismissed the rest.

One does, in two ways. But the point is they do not know, and admit it. The reason it is interesting that earth water is possible according to scientific theory, to get to the moon by solar wind. Flood waters were abated by a wind.

One of many -- a fact you can't handwave away no matter how hard you try.

Right, in other words they agree with the bible as one scientific possibility. What else they imagine doesn't matter to me, as it is not remotely close to the bible, and they do not know.

Doesn't really seem like His M.O., does it?

What doesn't seem like whose MO?

Um... no, we're not talking about the oceans, we're talking about ice crystals on the Moon.

No. I exampled several so called science 'explanations' for unknown things, that involved invoking space.

Foolish because you're omniscient?

Foolish to suggest it.

The point is it's not "wind," any more than "Capt'n Crunch" is a naval officer.

Focus it on some spot on earth, and tell me it would not create wind?

not a question at all if you get your pre-split magic pixies to work on it.

Since the so called science crowd can't do anything but use same state belief, it behooves us to look to the God that has the plan.

 

[Nathan Poe]

No. Not at all. More arrived in space from earth than the other way round.

That's nice, dad.

 

[Nathan Poe]

One does, in two ways. But the point is they do not know, and admit it.

Which puts them one up on yourself, who cannot admit to not knowing anything.

The reason it is interesting that earth water is possible according to scientific theory, to get to the moon by solar wind.

Again, one possibility of many, because they are stuck in their non-pixie box.

Flood waters were abated by a wind.

You don't know that, and won't admit it.

Right, in other words they agree with the bible as one scientific possibility.

You mean they have one scientific possibility which you're desperately trying to twist to fit into the Bible as you want us to interpret it.

What else they imagine doesn't matter to me, as it is not remotely close to the bible, and they do not know.

neither do you -- you're only looking at the possibilities that you can fit into what you want/need to believe, and ignoring everything else.

What doesn't seem like whose MO?

You're trying to say that God would do anything without first flying recon on his Sapphire Throne? C'mon dad, you used to be more consistent than this.

No. I exampled several so called science 'explanations' for unknown things, that involved invoking space.

Considering that both the Earth and the Moon are floating in space, how could you not?

Foolish to suggest it.

More foolish to dismiss it.

Focus it on some spot on earth, and tell me it would not create wind?

Focus it on some spot on Earth, and it would microwave the planet like a potato.

Besides, focus it how? That's where your magical pre-split pixies fly in to save the day, right?

Since the so called science crowd can't do anything but use same state belief, it behooves us to look to the God that has the plan.

Which is not the God you're proposing -- the Split has no plan.

 

[dad]

That's nice, dad.

I agree, since it means that the earth was here first, and God created all things. Far better than imagining everything was wafted in from nowhere for no reason, as so called science claims. Yet at the same time, they admit they don't know. Basically, they knock themselves out of the ring, and admit they never could fight worth a darn to begin with.

 

[Nathan Poe]

I agree, since it means that the earth was here first, and God created all things. Far better than imagining everything was wafted in from nowhere for no reason, as so called science claims. Yet at the same time, they admit they don't know. Basically, they knock themselves out of the ring, and admit they never could fight worth a darn to begin with.

Who are they fighting against? God, or you?

 

[dad]

Who are they fighting against? God, or you?

Doesn't matter who the contender may be, if they can't fight. Seems to me they did all right fighting strawmen. But either they can fight to defend their position or not. The position they have is an unproven far past universe and laws and state, as a very foundation.

 

[dad]

Which puts them one up on yourself, who cannot admit to not knowing anything.

If I knew what I didn't know, I would tell you. No one knows by science the time of creation. It is when they lie, and make like they do, that their ignorance becomes glaring. While I do not know much, I do have the bible. And, more importantly, the stuff I do not know, I do not pawn off as science.

Again, one possibility of many, because they are stuck in their non-pixie box.

Doesn't matter if there are other scientifically based theories. The fact is that the water coming from earth is a scientific theory. It also happens to be a distinct biblical liklihood! None of the other possible theories meet that criteria. When science and the bible are on the same page, I pay attention. You should be so lucky.

You don't know that, and won't admit it.

Oh yes I do! I know the bible says so.

You're trying to say that God would do anything without first flying recon on his Sapphire Throne? C'mon dad, you used to be more consistent than this.

No. But I am also accepting the absolute fact that God has appeared to man in the mobile throne, the wheels of Ezekiel! It is also a fact that the Christmas Star over the Son of God, did things that no star in the modern sense could ever do! The wise men knew that a star would rise over Israel (Jacob) Baal prophesied that long ago, if I recall, and many feel that this is the record the wise men knew of, when they saw it and knew they had to follow it!

Considering that both the Earth and the Moon are floating in space, how could you not?

The earth and moon existing in space does not mean that space Fedexed all things on the heavenly bodies!

Focus it on some spot on Earth, and it would microwave the planet like a potato.

No present solar wind was focused anywhere before the split! Whatever cosmic foorce was focused, on earth, we had a lot of wind as a result.

Besides, focus it how? That's where your magical pre-split pixies fly in to save the day, right?

We were not told how. Maybe God didn't want to blow your little mind.

Which is not the God you're proposing -- the Split has no plan.

The universe change is not a person, of course it had no plan. God had the plan. Just likje He has when He brings in the new heavens, and this temporal heavens will be no more!

 

[Nathan Poe]

Doesn't matter who the contender may be, if they can't fight.

Why is it a fight?

 

[Nathan Poe]

If I knew what I didn't know, I would tell you. No one knows by science the time of creation. It is when they lie, and make like they do, that their ignorance becomes glaring. While I do not know much, I do have the bible. And, more importantly, the stuff I do not know, I do not pawn off as science.

And do you know what the Bible is for?

No. But I am also accepting the absolute fact that God has appeared to man in the mobile throne, the wheels of Ezekiel!

Well, not much more needs to be said here.

 

[thaumaturgy]

It is when they lie, and make like they do, that their ignorance becomes glaring.

Dad, you really need to dial back on the accusation of lying here. Unless you know the scientists are not simply mistaken but are acting with malice aforethought you cannot say they are lying.

End of story.

Lying is a willful act of giving information the giver knows is incorrect.

Get your evidence in order or drop this line of attack. (You certainly don't want to start bearing false witness!)

Thanks.

 

[Hespera]

Dad, you really need to dial back on the accusation of lying here. Unless you know the scientists are not simply mistaken but are acting with malice aforethought you cannot say they are lying.

End of story.

Lying is a willful act of giving information the giver knows is incorrect.

Get your evidence in order or drop this line of attack. (You certainly don't want to start bearing false witness!)

Thanks.

Note too that scientists talk in terms of theory and probabilities not 'facts" or knowing things.
I wonder if failure to do due diligence before making an accusatory or other statement of fact is essentially the same as lying.

Anyone doing anything resembling due diligence would know that scientists dont talk about "knowing", say, the origin of the universe. Nobody claims they "know by science the time of creation".


Stating an baseless opinion / accusation against someone is not showing responsible due diligence, it is the opposite.

If there is a moral difference between that and deliberate lying, I'd need the nuances pointed out to me. i think the whole "false witness' deal is about morality in any case.

Pointing to someone and saying "he did it' when you have only personal opinion based on a total lack of due diligence would sure be bearing false witness.

 

[dad]

Why is it a fight?

Life is a struggle. People ought to be able to defend their positions, when they say it is science.

 

[dad]

Dad, you really need to dial back on the accusation of lying here. Unless you know the scientists are not simply mistaken but are acting with malice aforethought you cannot say they are lying.

End of story.

Lying is a willful act of giving information the giver knows is incorrect.

Get your evidence in order or drop this line of attack. (You certainly don't want to start bearing false witness!)

Thanks.

So called science is a lie. The people that are involved deeply in it are involved in a lie. One that cannot be supported, and is opposed to the bible. They did not like to retain God in their knowledge, and end up believing a lie. Knowingly or not, when they tell the fables opposing creation, and the future of the bible, they are lying. End of story.

 

[dad]

Note too that scientists talk in terms of theory and probabilities not 'facts" or knowing things. ....

False! They almost always present old age fables and present universe only based prophesies of the future, etc etc etc etc as if it were fact.

 

[dad]

And do you know what the Bible is for?




Well, not much more needs to be said here.

Great. It's been a slice.

 

[sandwiches]

So called science is a lie. The people that are involved deeply in it are involved in a lie. One that cannot be supported, and is opposed to the bible. They did not like to retain God in their knowledge, and end up believing a lie. Knowingly or not, when they tell the fables opposing creation, and the future of the bible, they are lying. End of story.

Great op-ed.

However, none of it stops science from producing verifiable results, practical applications, and testable predictions.

 

[Doveaman]

Note too that scientists talk in terms of theory and probabilities not 'facts" or knowing things.

Then why do they present their theories as if they know all the facts. Why say "The universe was formed from a Big Bang", a matter of fact statement? Why not say "We think the universe was formed from a Big Bang", a probability statement?