Half of Earth's water formed before the sun was born | Science/AAAS | NewsNo one could honestly accuse creationists of not being hypocrites.
Take, for example, their response to this tentative evidence that most, if not all, the water on Earth was formed in interstellar dust before the sun coalesced and then exploded to form an accretion disk from which the planets formed and contrast that sudden enthusiasm for science, no matter how tenuously it supports them, to their cavalier dismissal of all the science which refutes their infantile claims:
Wonderful.. This finding again confirmed the Word of God.. Always, Science will be aligned with the truths of Bible.
TRUE SCIENCE CONFIRMS THE WORD OF GOD
The Story of Creation
1 In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth. The earth was barren, with no form of life; it was under a roaring ocean covered with darkness. But the Spirit of God was moving over the water.
…
The Second Day, God Divided the waters
6 God said, “I command a dome to separate the water above it from the water below it.”7 And that’s what happened. God made the dome 8 and named it “Sky.” Evening came and then morning—that was the second day.
…
The Fourth Day, God created the Sun and the Moon
14 God
said, “I command lights to appear in the sky and to separate day from night and to show the time for seasons, special days, and years. 15 I command them to shine on the earth.” And that’s what happened. 16 God made two powerful lights, the brighter one to rule the day and the other[e] to rule the night. He also made the stars. 17 Then God put these lights in the sky to shine on the earth, 18 to rule day and night, and to separate light from darkness. God looked at what he had done, and it was good. 19 Evening came and then morning—that was the fourth day.
The account in Genesis this science is claimed to have confirmed is of course:
In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth. And the earth was without form, and void; and darkness was upon the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters.
[...]
And God said, Let there be a firmament in the midst of the waters, and let it divide the waters from the waters. And God made the firmament, and divided the waters which were under the firmament from the waters which were above the firmament: and it was so. And God called the firmament Heaven. And the evening and the morning were the second day. And God said, Let the waters under the heaven be gathered together unto one place, and let the dry land appear: and it was so. And God called the dry land Earth; and the gathering together of the waters called he Seas: and God saw that it was good.
Genesis 1:1-10
 |
| Bronze-Age Firmament |
So, what does the science actually say?
Abstract
Identifying the source of Earth’s water is central to understanding the origins of life-fostering environments and to assessing the prevalence of such environments in space. Water throughout the solar system exhibits deuterium-to-hydrogen enrichments, a fossil relic of low-temperature, ion-derived chemistry within either (i) the parent molecular cloud or (ii) the solar nebula protoplanetary disk. Using a comprehensive treatment of disk ionization, we find that ion-driven deuterium pathways are inefficient, which curtails the disk’s deuterated water formation and its viability as the sole source for the solar system’s water. This finding implies that, if the solar system’s formation was typical, abundant interstellar ices are available to all nascent planetary systems.
In other words, about the only honest claim creationists can make is that their superstition got the sequence approximately right in that water pre-existed Earth. Now all they need is scientific evidence that the sun and moon were created after Earth and are lamps hanging from a dome over the Earth which is keeping all this water out. I wonder why they never accept the science in that respect, or the science which refutes the creation of humans fully evolved and before other animals, or the existence of green plants before there was sunlight. Is science only 'conclusive proof' when it agrees with them, maybe?
Talk about cherry-picking which straws to cling to.
But maybe we should let them have this moment of glee. It must be nice for them to have found a rare instance of science confirming something no matter how tenuously. Even the ignorant guesses of Bronze-Age hill farmers can be right by accident and it must be so galling having so much of the science of the last couple of centuries refuting one superstitious claim after another so that even they, or at least the educated ones, have to explain their former cast-iron certainties away as metaphors or allegories.
'via Blog this'
@Rosa: Then we have the water (pre-Flood) canopy theory, cherished by so many young earth creationists; see: http://www.creationscience.com/onlinebook/FAQ33.html . That article lists scientific arguments opposing the water canopy theory.
ReplyDeleteAmong arguments discussed are: 1) The pressure problem; 2) The heat problem; 3) The light problem; 4) The nucleation problem; 5) The greenhouse problem; and 6) The support problem (= what supported the water canopy?);