Have you grasped the concept of reading a post?
The Bible according to AV1611VET states that God stopped creating things out of nothing. Thus God cannot have created the flood waters out of nothing and we have may have doubts abut returning the flood waters to nothing. So God must have got the water from somewhere.
Personally, I believe that people who have faith in an all-powerful God should not assume that there are limits on the power even if written in the Bible.
Which is why I asked if you understood the difference between using what already existed and creating out of nothing was. The waters existed at day one, remember? Were separated above and below, remember? Were brought back by opening the floodgates and springs of the earth remember? Went back where they came from 3 ocean's worth of water, remember?????
Justatruthseeker, a rhetorical question: Do you think God is not powerful enough to keep track of every atom of added flood water and remove those added atoms? The answer is no, an all-powerful God can do that. So God can get water from any source and remove it leaving the oceans as is. That leaves comets and rocky asteroids as credible sources. For that matter why restrict God's powers to the Solar system? There is water in interstellar space. Exoplanets exist. etc.
Also, why restrict God's powers to comets incompatible with Earth's oceans when we know that Kuiper Belt comet 103P/Hartley 2 matched our oceans?
So one out of 10 flasifications match and you choose to accept the one and discard the other 9 that falsified the theory??????
Why create more when your finished creating when you simply have to use what you already created by bringing it up from below?
No, the answer is yes, an all powerful God could do that. He can do anything. But He didn't, He used what He already created instead. So your problem is He didn't exercise His Godly power by creating more water?
26 July 2018 Justatruthseeker: An ignorant statement about a
Most of Earth's Water Came from Asteroids, Not Comets article
Read what you cite:
The oceans from asteroids theory is not about todays asteroids, it is about asteroids shortly after the formation of the Solar System.
Which would have been rocky bodies, just like they are today. Oh I am sorry, do you have an asteroid to show us from shortly after the formation of the solar system? No, but perhaps older?
Why, yes, why yes we do
https://www.popularmechanics.com/sp...roid-like-nothing-astronomers-have-ever-seen/
"The dark red color is a result of millions of years of irradiation from cosmic rays, and it suggests that the object is incredibly dense and rocky, or possibly high in metal content. The lack of activity or expelled debris as `Oumuamua made its close pass to the sun in September suggests the object lacks significant water or ice, classifying it as an
asteroid rather than a comet as originally suggested."
What formation theories would those be? The ones already falsified?
* List of Problems with Solar System Formation: Taken together, the impressive scientific discoveries that completely falsify the nebular hypothesis of solar system formation include these:
-
exoplanets contradict the predictions of the nebular hypothesis theory
- our
Sun is missing nearly 100% of its predicted spin
- our
Sun's rotation is seven degrees off the ecliptic
-
planets would not form because as admitted in
Nature in 2013, "according to standard theory, dust grains orbiting newborn stars should spiral into those stars rather than accrete to form planets”
- even when dust grains and small rocks collide gently they
break apart instead of accreting to form planetesimals
- even if the laws of physics enabled planet formation 4.5 billion years is
far too little time to build large planets
- the
missing predicted uniform distribution pattern of solar system isotopes
- the other rocky planets don't have a lot of radioactivity in their crust as Earth does
- the
missing expected uniform distribution of Earth's radioactivity
- the contrary-to-expectations
fine-tuning of the solar system
- the many contrary-to-expectation
transient events in the solar system
- as it would have been evolving, a
faint young Sun can't explain the early Earth's warm climate
- that proponents are catastrophists trying to prop up the theory by claiming
ubiquitous planetary catastrophism
-
star formation has seemingly intractable physics problems (consider the
Philae landing)
- contrary to an Oort or Kuiper origin, comets contain Earth-like minerals and
rounded boulders
- short-period comets still exist even though they have
lifespans of only thousands of years
- the 1,346 trans-Neptunian objects with known orbits
reach perihelion at the ecliptic
- the MNRAS published analysis showing simulations can
never demonstrate both planet and asteroid formation
- peanut-shaped asteroids present a deep, unsolved mystery to secular astrophysicists
-
Mercury has greater density than can be accounted for by evolutionary accretion
- NASA's
45-year lunar dust data collector shows that miles, not inches, should have accumulated in billions of years
- the rocky planets Mercury, Venus, Earth, and Mars would
rotate far more slowly if accreted
from a condensing nebula
- the origin of the gas giants Jupiter and Saturn has no "
satisfying explanation" as per the journal Science in 2002
- of the 170+ moons, as with others generally, those that would be explained as forming with their planets should have orbits lying near their equatorial plane but many do not
- 30 moons
orbit retrograde (backwards)
- that
Uranus rotates perpendicularly,
Pluto rolls, and
Venus rotates backwards.
And last but not least, and most important of all, stars forming along filimentry strings with not enough material under theory to even form stars.....
"The most striking discovery that emerged from these extensive surveys was a vast and intricate network of filamentary structures weaving their way through the Galaxy.
Finding filaments per se was not a novelty – similar structures had already been detected in previous decades – but their ubiquitous presence was definitely remarkable.
Herschel was the first observatory to reveal filaments nearly everywhere in the interstellar medium, from small ones, only a few light-years long, to giant threads extending over hundreds of light-years.
Such structures were spotted in all types of clouds, also in those with no ongoing star formation. Astronomers wondered: why do some filaments produce stars, while others do not?
The bounty of new data revealed not only that filaments are omnipresent, but also that they seem to have very similar properties, at least in our local neighbourhood. Regardless of their length, all filaments observed in nearby clouds have a universal width – about one third of a light-year."
But of course one and all ignore how filiments are formed in plasma, instead trying to imply that gravity now forms filimentary shapes instead of globes. Sad, Sad, Sad times for science...
https://www.plasma-universe.com/Filamentation
Your theories are dying one by one RC. It's time to step out of the gas light era and into the age of electric lights.
