Are scientists any closer

[Dan From Smithville]

Except for the ancient Chinese.

Sanitation and Nutrition
http://ila.ilsl.br/pdfs/v53n2a17.pdf
A comparison of ancient parasites as seen from archeological contexts and early medical texts in China - ScienceDirect

Or those that did not write them down for us to know about.

 

[SkepticThinker]

OK, wow. The Bible, however, has been preserved, passed around, and spoken about by many, many people. And interestingly, rather than center on the basic concepts right now (such as the health laws even for those ancient people in the middle east), it is interesting for me to note that these writings were held specifically and recorded specifically by a group of people, AND have been preserved in their basic integrity until now for mankind's edification. That includes the enlightening discussion of sequestering oneself from the possibility of getting infected by a diseased person. May I ask what other writings you may be referring to?

Preserved in their basic integrity? How do you know that? There are no originals in existence to compare anything too in order to determine that anything was in fact, preserved in their basic integrity.

The Bible was originally written down from oral tradition (already a problem) decades after the purported events occurred, then copied, and copied and copied again, translated and translated again and again into all kinds of different languages and different versions that don't all agree with each other. Based on this information, your view is baffling.

 

[Subduction Zone]

London is at sea level already ... The Thames Barrier won't be much good if sea level rises over one meter.

I would like to live to see our home on a tidal island, my wife could make that with luck but not me.

I would have to make it through this century and then some to see beach front property even with the worst projections. That would make me . . .(just a second, running out of fingers) . . .(Okay, now not enough toes) . .. hmm. That would make me a lot!

 

[Subduction Zone]

OK, wow. The Bible, however, has been preserved, passed around, and spoken about by many, many people. And interestingly, rather than center on the basic concepts right now (such as the health laws even for those ancient people in the middle east), it is interesting for me to note that these writings were held specifically and recorded specifically by a group of people, AND have been preserved in their basic integrity until now for mankind's edification. That includes the enlightening discussion of sequestering oneself from the possibility of getting infected by a diseased person. May I ask what other writings you may be referring to?

The Bible is not nearly as old as most believers think that it is. Biblical scholars date a good part of it to the Babylonian captivity. All that appears to exist before that were fragments of some parts of the Old Testament. Genesis was thought to have been written during the captivity. It brings together two different creation tales.

Scholars have identified three literary traditions in Genesis, as in Deuteronomy, usually identified as the Yahwist, Elohist, and Priestly strains. The Yahwist strain, so called because it used the name Yahweh (Jehovah) for God, is a Judaean rendition of the sacred story, perhaps written as early as 950 BCE. The Elohist strain, which designates God as Elohim, is traceable to the northern kingdom of Israel and was written 900–700 BCE. The Priestly strain, so called because of its cultic interests and regulations for priests, is usually dated in the 5th century BCE and is regarded as the law upon which Ezra and Nehemiah based their reform. Because each of these strains preserves materials much older than the time of their incorporation into a written work, Genesis contains extremely old oral and written traditions.

Genesis | Old Testament

The traditions of Genesis as you see are older than the captivity, but they were separate stories at that time. They came together during the Babylonian captivity (also called the Babylonian exile). The following is from a Christian site:

This essay is limited in scope. It is mainly a descriptive historical survey of some issues surrounding the question of when the Pentateuch was written and how that question was answered. There will always be some differences of opinion on how that question is answered specifically, but there is a strong, general consensus today among biblical scholars that is important to grapple with in trying to understand Genesis: the Pentateuch as we know it is the end product of a complex literary process—written, oral, or both—that did not come to a close until the exile (586-539 BC) and postexilic period. The Pentateuch as we know it is a response to the crisis of exile, and much of the Old Testament as a whole seems to be explained in a similar way. Understanding something of why we have a Bible at all will help Christian readers today think more theologically about how best to engage Genesis as God’s Word when the topic turns to the compatibility of Genesis and evolution.



When was Genesis Written and Why Does it Matter? - Articles

It is rather clear that Genesis is not history. It is more of the beliefs of the ancient Hebrews united in an attempt to make them a whole.

The Exodus story has been well refuted. If one goes by the dating using ancestry at the time of the Exodus the Egyptian empire extended past the present state of Israel. I would not give any credence to any site that says that "Moses wrote Genesis". They are ignoring the work of those that have refuted them.

 

[oldbadger]

I would have to make it through this century and then some to see beach front property even with the worst projections. That would make me . . .(just a second, running out of fingers) . . .(Okay, now not enough toes) . .. hmm. That would make me a lot!

Yes .... same here.
But then, these last decades have been so exciting, with so many scientific 'miracles', that I won't complain. The idea of a kid on a mobile having a zoom conversation with his granny at thousands of miles distance, or wandering around a city high street in foreign country on virtual reality or google street view. .... And so much more. That was fantasy when I was middle aged!

 

[nPeace]

Thank-you for your message. In reply, there are six or seven facts, which are listed below, that are best explained by the giant impact/planetary collision hypothesis. For this purpose, the planet that collided with the early Earth will be called Theia. My sources for these facts are The Moon: A History for the Future, by Oliver Morton (published 2019), The Moon: A Biography by David Whitehouse (published 2001), and Book 2 of the Open University S281 course in Astronomy and Planetary Science (first published 1994). I expect that any modern book about the Moon will provide similar information.

1) The Moon does not have an iron core, unlike the other terrestrial planets. This implies that the collision occurred after the Earth had differentiated into a nickel-iron core and a silicate mantle, so that the Moon was formed from the material of the terrestrial mantle, which did not contain enough iron to form a core. The co-accretion hypothesis does not explain this difference between the Earth and the Moon.

2) The isotopic ratios of various elements, and particularly the oxygen isotope ratios, of terrestrial and lunar material are almost identical, whereas the oxygen isotope ratios of common meteorites (derived from asteroids) and Martian meteorites are different both from those of lunar rocks and from one another. This implies that the Moon was formed from the same material as the Earth, or from the early Earth itself. The capture hypothesis cannot explain these similarities.

The fact that the isotope ratios of terrestrial and lunar rocks are almost identical suggests that a very-high-energy impact was required to form the Moon, and that both the Moon and the Earth's present mantle were formed from an orbiting torus of molten and vaporised material from both Theia and the mantle of the primitive Earth.

3) The primitive crust of the Moon consisted of the plagioclase-rich igneous rock anorthosite. This is consistent with the planetary collision hypothesis, which implies that the Moon was formed as a hot body with a deep surface ocean of molten magma. Plagioclases would have been the first minerals to crystallise from this magma ocean, thereby explaining the primitive anorthosite crust. Other hypotheses cannot explain this hot origin; indeed, during the 1960s some scientists thought that the Moon was formed as a cold body.

4) There is hardly any water on the Moon, and the Moon is deficient in volatile elements. These facts are again explained by the Moon having formed as a hot body as a result of the collision between the Earth and Theia.

5) The planetary collision hypothesis explains the rapid rotation of the Earth as a product of the angular momentum of Theia. It may also explain the obliquity of the Earth's rotation; the Earth was literally knocked sideways by the oblique impact that also ejected the material that formed the Moon.

6) The collision hypothesis also explains why the Moon's orbit is inclined to the Earth's equator. According to The Moon: A Biography (pp. 254-6), when the Moon was formed, near to the Earth, its orbit was inclined by about 10° to the Earth's equator, whereas most other planetary satellites have i < 1-2°. The Moon's large orbital inclination was acquired through a gravitational resonance between the Moon and material in a residual debris disc left over from the impact. This resonance was able to increase the Moon's inclination to the required 10° if the disc contained 0.25-0.5 lunar masses and persisted for several decades. None of the other hypotheses explain the Moon's orbital inclination.

7) This last point is not mentioned by my sources, but I may add that the collision hypothesis may explain the comparatively small Earth-Moon mass ratio (81.30:1); the mass ratios between the giant planets and their satellite systems are much larger, from about 4050;1 for Saturn to 4830:1 for Jupiter, and about 9530:1 for Uranus. Computer simulations suggest that the giant impact ejected about 1/40 of the Earth's mass into space, about twice the present mass of the Moon and a much larger proportion of the planet's mass than the masses of the satellite systems of the giant planets.

I hope that you find this explanation helpful.

Why may I ask, do you hope I find the impact hypothesis helpful? Are you hoping I believe it?

I honestly find these stories to be more science fiction, but not as good as Star Trek, because they usually have flaws which make them cartoonish entertainment, imo, and story bookish.

They are a lot of problems* with the idea, so I am interested in why you think it's a better explanation than special creation.

Spoiler: Problems

Difficulties
This lunar origin hypothesis has some difficulties that have yet to be resolved. For example, the giant-impact hypothesis implies that a surface magma ocean would have formed following the impact. Yet there is no evidence that the Earth ever had such a magma ocean and it is likely there exists material that has never been processed in a magma ocean.

Composition
A number of compositional inconsistencies need to be addressed.

1. The ratios of the Moon's volatile elements are not explained by the giant-impact hypothesis. If the giant-impact hypothesis is correct, these ratios must be due to some other cause.
2. The presence of volatiles such as water trapped in lunar basalts and carbon emissions from the lunar surface is more difficult to explain if the Moon was caused by a high-temperature impact.
3. The iron oxide (FeO) content (13%) of the Moon, intermediate between that of Mars (18%) and the terrestrial mantle (8%), rules out most of the source of the proto-lunar material from the Earth's mantle.
4. If the bulk of the proto-lunar material had come from an impactor, the Moon should be enriched in siderophilic elements, when, in fact, it is deficient in them.
5. The Moon's oxygen isotopic ratios are essentially identical to those of Earth. Oxygen isotopic ratios, which may be measured very precisely, yield a unique and distinct signature for each solar system body. If a separate proto-planet Theia had existed, it probably would have had a different oxygen isotopic signature than Earth, as would the ejected mixed material.
6. The Moon's titanium isotope ratio (50Ti/47Ti) appears so close to the Earth's (within 4 ppm), that little if any of the colliding body's mass could likely have been part of the Moon.

​

​

Perhaps it's based on the reason mentioned here, by a professor of planetary science...
Origin of the Moon-The Collision Hypothesis

I haven't looked at the book, but from the introduction, some certainly think the impact hypothesis is not a very good idea.

There are a number of other ideas floating around out there, and who knows which one will speed forward, and take the lead.
That has happened before.

Aside from the fact that it's a case of anyone's guess, it can be considered just a modern day myth.
I often wonder why people believe them, while claiming the Bible to be full of myths because they cannot confirm some accounts.
It seems to me a case of choosing what one wants to believe.
So I wonder why such persons have a problem with people believing otherwise.

Like other scientists, I don't find your explanation helpful, nor better.
Like other scientist, I believe the universe is better explained by the idea of a creator - a first mover - a designer.

The thousands of necessary flukes and ideal coincidences proposed by scientists do not fit reality. I would think that you were playing with loaded dice, or someone was behind the scenes "pulling the strings".

It makes more sense to me, that someone indeed did pull the strings, to create / design wih a specific goal or purpose in mind. As is often famously quoted... "A common sense interpretation of the facts suggests that a superintellect has monkeyed with physics, as well as with chemistry and biology, and that there are no blind forces worth speaking about in nature. The numbers one calculates from the facts seem to me so overwhelming as to put this conclusion almost beyond question.” - Fred Hoyle

Many a scientist are on the side of the anthropic principle. Why? Because the evidence points to the fact that the universe seems fine-tuned for life.
I don't want to do any quite mining... I'll let someone else do that for me .... but many scientists have made similar expressions.
I've heard it said, 'There is now broad agreement among physicists and cosmologists that the Universe is in several respects ‘fine-tuned' for life.'
Not that that's conclusive, but what it does show, is that there is evidence supporting a creator, or designer.

So, right. There is no conclusion. No one has reached any. Or are there some here who have... Maybe.
It seems to me, you simply have chosen an opinion that appeals to you - not that it is any better... It might be accepted by most of the scientific community, but still a good few scientists accept the idea of a creator God, and him being responsible for the "fine-tuning" - including stabilizing the earth, by setting the moon in its location, and giving us refreshing seasons.

Along with that, there is a vast amount of evidence telling me that creation is more than an idea. It beats any story or idea man can come up with... imo.

 

[nPeace]

The Genesis "account" is confirmed?
You must be joking.

Discoveries have time and again confirmed the Genesis account. Not everything, of course.
Why would I joke about that.

 

[rational experiences]

Consciousness human was the Bible testimony.

Humans conning humans the theme.

Science the taught chosen human sin.

As original sin is discussed as gods O bodies falling destroying form in their hell as first human thesis in space conditions. To think created history.

Which you notify self was evil.

We live as humans on a holy earth. Sealed said science.

Science archaeology says seems like science had all life destroyed once. Evidence machine parts human built inside fused stone.

So they thesis today by conscious memory quoting I wonder how and what caused it. Knowing it was remembered. otherwise you wouldn't have chosen to dig up the evidence.

So they tell destroyer stories for their own conscious entertainment. Proving self destructive human personalities.

If science says as a healthy sexually conceived baby human that once I believe I was a Neanderthal. The conscious status says I believe.

Which owns no condition in life today. As you said expressed I believe.

Thinking does not displace how you exist elsewhere. Living now in the only form you own.

So if you compare a healthy life to what you say you once we're your conscious mind would ask what type of destruction would put our healthy life form back into that condition. Yet the Neanderthal is dead also.

Why talking about the dead was banned in the ancient science community in a human realisation. Self destructive theists.

Self destructive human behaviour.

If you want to live survive basic info says support the living conditions.

And you don't need to be an egotist to make that statement.

It's called human common sense.

 

[SkepticThinker]

Discoveries have time and again confirmed the Genesis account. Not everything, of course.
Why would I joke about that.

Science certainly doesn't back up the "order of creation."

So I'm curious, what parts of the "account" in Genesis have been discovered and what are they?

 

[nPeace]

Science certainly doesn't back up the "order of creation."

So I'm curious, what parts of the "account" in Genesis have been discovered and what are they?

You are curious... to hear what? What you have heard over and over again? For you to say what? What you have said over and over again... in a nut shell, "I don't see anything to convince me...? Really Skeptic?

 

[rational experiences]

Science human expressed looks and studies changed and what was changed.

Different says science. Was changed says science.

Science said once every state was one origin and it changed.

Change he says was evolution cooling.

Reason he quotes cooling.

God Jesus theme. Once a hotter denser heavens existed. Only giant cold blooded creature beasts lived in the conditions inside the holy heavens.

Very hot and very hot only cold blooded life.

Says the scientist.

From a hot dense gas atmosphere ice newly formed evolved life by cooling.

Seeing he is a human. Standing on a self formed planet inside the same heavenly body.

The conditions supporting natural human consciousness. Heavens.

The conditions that says no subject science on earth is in space. As bio consciousness does not as a human live direct in a space condition.

A planet what he stands on was not first form.

Why he said those quotes just as an equal living human.

Why he says science a choice is not anywhere near origin.

 

[SkepticThinker]

You are curious... to hear what? What you have heard over and over again? For you to say what? What you have said over and over again... in a nut shell, "I don't see anything to convince me...? Really Skeptic?

Now I'm curious as to why you're so hostile when someone questions your assertions.

Are you under the impression that your views should not be questioned on a debate forum?

 

[Dan From Smithville]

You are curious... to hear what? What you have heard over and over again? For you to say what? What you have said over and over again... in a nut shell, "I don't see anything to convince me...? Really Skeptic?

I am curious also. What parts of Genesis have been validated?

 

[Dan From Smithville]

Why may I ask, do you hope I find the impact hypothesis helpful? Are you hoping I believe it?

I honestly find these stories to be more science fiction, but not as good as Star Trek, because they usually have flaws which make them cartoonish entertainment, imo, and story bookish.

They are a lot of problems* with the idea, so I am interested in why you think it's a better explanation than special creation.

Spoiler: Problems

Difficulties
This lunar origin hypothesis has some difficulties that have yet to be resolved. For example, the giant-impact hypothesis implies that a surface magma ocean would have formed following the impact. Yet there is no evidence that the Earth ever had such a magma ocean and it is likely there exists material that has never been processed in a magma ocean.

Composition
A number of compositional inconsistencies need to be addressed.

1. The ratios of the Moon's volatile elements are not explained by the giant-impact hypothesis. If the giant-impact hypothesis is correct, these ratios must be due to some other cause.
2. The presence of volatiles such as water trapped in lunar basalts and carbon emissions from the lunar surface is more difficult to explain if the Moon was caused by a high-temperature impact.
3. The iron oxide (FeO) content (13%) of the Moon, intermediate between that of Mars (18%) and the terrestrial mantle (8%), rules out most of the source of the proto-lunar material from the Earth's mantle.
4. If the bulk of the proto-lunar material had come from an impactor, the Moon should be enriched in siderophilic elements, when, in fact, it is deficient in them.
5. The Moon's oxygen isotopic ratios are essentially identical to those of Earth. Oxygen isotopic ratios, which may be measured very precisely, yield a unique and distinct signature for each solar system body. If a separate proto-planet Theia had existed, it probably would have had a different oxygen isotopic signature than Earth, as would the ejected mixed material.
6. The Moon's titanium isotope ratio (50Ti/47Ti) appears so close to the Earth's (within 4 ppm), that little if any of the colliding body's mass could likely have been part of the Moon.

​

Perhaps it's based on the reason mentioned here, by a professor of planetary science...
Origin of the Moon-The Collision Hypothesis
View attachment 50165
I haven't looked at the book, but from the introduction, some certainly think the impact hypothesis is not a very good idea.

There are a number of other ideas floating around out there, and who knows which one will speed forward, and take the lead.
That has happened before.

Aside from the fact that it's a case of anyone's guess, it can be considered just a modern day myth.
I often wonder why people believe them, while claiming the Bible to be full of myths because they cannot confirm some accounts.
It seems to me a case of choosing what one wants to believe.
So I wonder why such persons have a problem with people believing otherwise.

Like other scientists, I don't find your explanation helpful, nor better.
Like other scientist, I believe the universe is better explained by the idea of a creator - a first mover - a designer.

The thousands of necessary flukes and ideal coincidences proposed by scientists do not fit reality. I would think that you were playing with loaded dice, or someone was behind the scenes "pulling the strings".

It makes more sense to me, that someone indeed did pull the strings, to create / design wih a specific goal or purpose in mind. As is often famously quoted... "A common sense interpretation of the facts suggests that a superintellect has monkeyed with physics, as well as with chemistry and biology, and that there are no blind forces worth speaking about in nature. The numbers one calculates from the facts seem to me so overwhelming as to put this conclusion almost beyond question.” - Fred Hoyle

Many a scientist are on the side of the anthropic principle. Why? Because the evidence points to the fact that the universe seems fine-tuned for life.
I don't want to do any quite mining... I'll let someone else do that for me .... but many scientists have made similar expressions.
I've heard it said, 'There is now broad agreement among physicists and cosmologists that the Universe is in several respects ‘fine-tuned' for life.'
Not that that's conclusive, but what it does show, is that there is evidence supporting a creator, or designer.

So, right. There is no conclusion. No one has reached any. Or are there some here who have... Maybe.
It seems to me, you simply have chosen an opinion that appeals to you - not that it is any better... It might be accepted by most of the scientific community, but still a good few scientists accept the idea of a creator God, and him being responsible for the "fine-tuning" - including stabilizing the earth, by setting the moon in its location, and giving us refreshing seasons.

Along with that, there is a vast amount of evidence telling me that creation is more than an idea. It beats any story or idea man can come up with... imo.

What evidence are you referring to? Don't hold back. Let us all know about your definitive, unshakeable evidence.

 

[tas8831]

Along with that, there is a vast amount of evidence telling me that creation is more than an idea. It beats any story or idea man can come up with... imo.

Interesting that you seem 100% incapable of presenting any of this evidence.
By the way - responding to, for example, multiple references re: phylogenetics with a wikipedia definition of 'diagram' is not a good way to make it look like you know what you are talking about.

 

[tas8831]

Discoveries have time and again confirmed the Genesis account.

3 examples please. With sources.

 

[tas8831]

You are curious... to hear what? What you have heard over and over again? For you to say what? What you have said over and over again... in a nut shell, "I don't see anything to convince me...? Really Skeptic?

TRANSLATION:
'All I have are garbage evolution bashing assertions from phony scientists.'

 

[tas8831]

What evidence are you referring to? Don't hold back. Let us all know about your definitive, unshakeable evidence.

Prediction:
You'll get nothing in terms of actual evidence. Maybe some feigned indignation, maybe a few assertions about how abiogenesis isn't possible. Maybe some dictionary definitions or some classic creationist plagiarism that he thinks we can't discover.
But no actual evidence.

 

[nPeace]

Now I'm curious as to why you're so hostile when someone questions your assertions.

Are you under the impression that your views should not be questioned on a debate forum?

I'm sorry if I sounded hostile. I could have expressed it another way, but it's no guarentee you would consider any less hostile. Perhaps I should have said, Jokingly "Your curiosity is certainly big. How many times have you heard this before? You have heard it a number of times, haven't you? How did you respond? Do you remember? Why then would you want to hear it again? Would your response not be the same?
Is that any less hostile?

Even with the smiley you assert hostility?
May I ask, is it a spirit in skeptics that require them to attack the character of people without any basis for doing so... just do it? I'm curious.

To answer your second question, I think everyone here knows... perhaps with the exception of you and your RF friends, that nPeace loves

for someone to challenge his views. Hence why he creates threads, and posts links that most questioners avoid, and refuse to answer.

I know I have conversed with you before, on these things, and they all come to the same head. So is it a requirement on RF to debate the same thing over and over, and over again, as long as one is a member on RF?
I didn't notice that.

What would it take to show that I am not hostile? Would a hundred do the trick. You complained about the smileys, so that would not do it. Would you like me to address you "Dear" everytime I speak to you? Would that do it?

You know what I have come to realize, or think, would do it for you...

Spoiler

Yes, of course you are right Skeptic.
Yes. Correct. You are right. I should do what you say.
Yes. Exactly. I should say it how you say. You are correct.
Thank you. that is right. I'll do better.

I'v learned something about this world, and it is this... No matter what you do, or say, or how you do it, or say it, you can't please.

I don't think you are a bad person Skeptic, In fact

and that emoji just says it alll. *joke*
However, I think you want nPeace to be a bit more peaceful than he is,
While I know that I can... when it comes to particular things, I'm in one o' those "not so sweet Jesus moments"

Sorry, you can't take the Jesus out of me. You have to take ever bit of him - even what you don't like.
According to scripture, Jesus is no friend of untruth. Neither am I.
You can't tame a tiger, so don't even try. :

True, there are differnt ways of going about things, but during my time on RF, I have seen how those work.
They normally go this way. "Your God is a monster Fullstop." "The Bible is a book of myths Fullstop." etc.
When you don't agree, you have two options, leave it there, or go all the way. I choose the latter.

I'm not saying this is you, Skeptic. You take the subtle approach, but it usually comes down to this... You don't see any evidence for believing in this rubbish.

Besides that Skeptic, I'm just having a bit of fun, so lighten up.

Jesus had a sense of humor too, and he did smile and laugh a lot.

Don't let the fact you can't see me behind a computer screen fool you, that I am not smiling, and yes, at times. laughing my head off.

However, you want to hear again "what parts of the "account" in Genesis have been discovered and what are they".
Can you make note of this, so that you can refer to it the next time your curiosity is aroused. Could you also make note of your response.
Oh. Also take note that if you want to really discuss this, let's both be at our best behavior. In other words. let's start with a clean slate.

I won't tell you when your best behavior is out of line. You will know. ...and I am sure I won't miss you telling me I am out of line.

Here we go...

 

[nPeace]

Scientific Accuracy

THE Bible is not a science textbook. Yet, when it comes to scientific matters, the Bible is noteworthy not only for what it says but also for what it does not say.

1. Partly as a result of turning powerful telescopes toward the heavens, scientists have concluded that the universe had a sudden “birth.” Not all scientists like the implications of this explanation. One professor noted: “A universe that began seems to demand a first cause; for who could imagine such an effect without a sufficient cause?” Yet, long before telescopes, the very first verse of the Bible plainly stated...
Genesis 1:1 - In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth.

Other scriptures support the Genesis account, regarding the universe.
(Isaiah 40:25, 26) 25 “To whom can you liken me to make me his equal?” says the Holy One. 26 “Lift up your eyes to heaven and see. Who has created these things? It is the One who brings out their army by number; He calls them all by name. Because of his vast dynamic energy and his awe-inspiring power, Not one of them is missing.
Scientists agree that tremendous energy and power were associated with the "birth" of the universe.

2. Hypotheses for the origins of Earth's water.
It was long thought that Earth’s water did not originate from the planet’s region of the protoplanetary disk. Instead, it was hypothesized water and other volatiles must have been delivered to Earth from the outer Solar System later in its history. Recent research, however, indicates that hydrogen inside the Earth played a role in the formation of the ocean. The two ideas are not mutually exclusive, as there is also evidence water was delivered to Earth by impacts from icy planetesimals similar in composition to asteroids in the outer edges of the asteroid belt.

The Bible
Genesis 1:2 - Now the earth was formless and desolate, and there was darkness upon the surface of the watery deep, and God’s active force was moving about over the surface of the waters.

Job 38:16 - Have you gone down to the sources of the sea Or explored the deep waters?

3. Water covered earth
1.5 billion-year-old Earth had water everywhere, but not one continent, study suggests
Chemicals in rocks hinted at a world without continents.

Scientists have found evidence that Earth was covered by a global ocean that turned the planet into a “water world” more than 3bn years ago.

Ancient Earth may have been a "water world" with no dry land

New research suggests ancient Earth was a water world, with little to no land in sight. And that could have major implications for the origin and evolution of life.

While modern Earth’s surface is about 70 percent water-covered, the new research indicates that our planet was a true ocean world some 3 billion years ago. At this point, only scattered archipelagos breached our global ocean’s briny surface. That is, if any land existed at all.

The Bible
Genesis 1:2 - Now the earth was formless and desolate, and there was darkness upon the surface of the watery deep, and God’s active force was moving about over the surface of the waters.

4. Suppose we assume there is any validity to the ideas from this study,

We suggest that seawater δ18O may have decreased through time, in contrast to the large increases seen in marine chemical sediments. To explain this possibility, we construct an oxygen isotope exchange model of the geologic water cycle, which suggests that the initiation of continental weathering in the late Archaean, between 3 and 2.5 billion years ago, would have drawn down an 18O-enriched early Archaean ocean to δ18O values similar to those of modern seawater. We conclude that Earth’s water cycle may have gone through two separate phases of steady-state behaviour, before and after the emergence of the continents.
...would that not put the Biblical account squarely in line with these discoveries... Namely, that there was significantly more water on earth, than there is today?

The Bible
Genesis 1:7 - Then God went on to make the expanse and divided the waters beneath the expanse from the waters above the expanse.



5. The present day Earth is shaped by plate tectonics, and yet this is the only known planet where plate tectonics is active...

Spoiler: Excerpt

Plate tectonics is associated with the generation of a magnetic field by convection of Earth’s core, and this may have protected life on Earth by deflecting the solar wind and cosmic ray particles. Plate tectonics resulted in the generation of significant volumes of emerged felsic crust, which was then susceptible to erosion and weathering with the linked drawdown in CO2. The reduction in CO2, and lithosphere recycling through long-lasting plate tectonics, helped regulate the planet’s temperature to the Goldilocks conditions of not too warm and not too hot, which have been fundamental in the development of life. The cooling of the Earth’s mantle by the onset of plate tectonics reduced the degrees of partial melting, and resulted in crustal rocks with higher phosphorus contents. On erosion, these increased the phosphorous contents of the oceans until they were high enough for photosynthesis by primitive life to thrive and to increase the oxygen contents of the atmosphere sufficiently to support multicellular life (Cox et al., 2018). Plate tectonics helps sustain life since the recycling and exchange of material between the mantle, the crust, oceans and atmosphere ensures that elements that are crucial to life, like carbon, nitrogen, phosphorus, and oxygen, are available to the biosphere. The time periods of supercontinental cycles, when continents come together to make large supercontinents, and those supercontinents then break up into smaller continental blocks again, resulted in large pulses of nutrients into the biosphere and allowed organisms to increase (Zerkle, 2018).

Is that not interesting. The only known planet... Sounds like a plan.
The land formation - the continents are due to plate tectonics, and mountains come from where? The oceans seabed.


Continents appeared later, as plate tectonics thrust enormous, rocky land masses upward to breach the sea surfaces, scientists recently reported.

They found clues about this ancient waterworld preserved in a chunk of ancient seafloor, now located in the outback of northwestern Australia.

The Bible
(Genesis 1:9, 10) 9 Then God said: “Let the waters under the heavens be collected together into one place, and let the dry land appear.” And it was so. 10 God called the dry land Earth, but the collecting of the waters, he called Seas.. . .

(Psalm 104:6-9) 6 You covered it with deep waters as with a garment. The waters stood above the mountains. 7 At your rebuke they fled; At the sound of your thunder they ran away in panic 8 - Mountains ascended and valleys descended - To the place you established for them. 9 You set a boundary that they should not pass, That they should never again cover the earth.
[Look at that. God actually contains the water source of the oceans, that they don't cover the earth. Man's destructive nature can interfere with that, can't they... if God allows.]

(Psalm 136:6) He spread out the earth over the waters, For his loyal love endures forever.


However, Skeptic, here is why these things don't matter really, in debates.
While you believe the ideas of those men in white coats are correct, they are merely ideas - not science. Hypotheses are used in science. They don't become science.
Theories are formed, and the old ones are replaced by newer ones as new discoveries are made.
With science, there are explanations given for what can be observed. Of course this excludes "supernatural" things... in some cases.
So when I say discoveries, I am not referring to any ideas, but to those observable facts.


For example...
Many scientists think plate tectonics, in one form or another, started about 3 billion years ago, but some think it was more like 1 billion years ago — or less.
Of course, some ideas, or thoughts are accepted by a community of scientist, but what does what one think have to do with science. Some would say, I don't have need of that hypothesis.
One idea might be accepted by one camp, and the other idea accepted by another camp, but is that what science is?
So when we say, the Bible is scientifically accurate, and does not conflict with science, I hope you understand what that means.

In one of the earlier articles, a researcher said "If our work is accurate, it means the number of environments on land for life to emerge and evolve was really small or absent until sometime after 3.2 billion years ago."

Pushing the origin of life 1 billion years forward. Or is it just a couple million. I guess it depend on whom you ask.

The first traces of life recorded on Earth are thought to be as old as 4.2 billion years

We know that life began at least 3.5 billion years ago, because that is the age of the oldest rocks with fossil evidence of life on earth.
They know too.
Why, if I didn't know better, I would think, 'Hey, something's up. What conspiracy have they cooked up now.'?
Maybe I don't know better.

Don't you find it interesting how they say they know, and then years after they are still saying they know, but what they now know is different to what they knew?

I think I'll stick with the primitive goat herders. Seems like they knew.
You never explained why you don't think that's wise, other than claiming you see no evidence, but that's okay. I can live with your opinion.

I have only given you a few discoveries, that support Genesis. I believe there are one or two more, and I have not included others from other parts of the Bible, since you only asked about Genesis.
If you want the others, please let me know.