Skip to comments.
Early Water on Earth
Geotimes ^
| February 2003
| Salma Monani
Posted on 02/09/2003 4:22:57 PM PST by CalConservative
click here to read article
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-20, 21-40, 41-47 next last
Aside from the radioisotope dating issues in zircons, a cool earth with surface water present shortly after its formation certainly presents some challenges to standard scenarios concerning the development of the earth and the formation of life.
To: CalConservative
According to Genesis, from the time of Adam to the time of Noah, it had never rained on the earth. Plants were watered from a mist that rose from the ground. Most likely it would be wise for Scientists to start from that assumption.
To: CalConservative
How are the theories regarding the formation of life challenged by pushing back the time of liquid water? Life is believed to have evolved in liquid water anyway. Whether the Earth was covered in water or steam before this time makes no difference from an evolutionary standpoint.
3
posted on
02/09/2003 4:33:55 PM PST
by
coloradan
To: MissAmericanPie
According to Genesis, from the time of Adam to the time of Noah, it had never rained on the earth. Plants were watered from a mist that rose from the ground. Most likely it would be wise for Scientists to start from that assumption.
If they'd consumed about 5 tons of crack per scientist, yes.
4
posted on
02/09/2003 4:36:52 PM PST
by
John H K
To: coloradan
How are the theories regarding the formation of life challenged by pushing back the time of liquid water? Life is believed to have evolved in liquid water anyway. Whether the Earth was covered in water or steam before this time makes no difference from an evolutionary standpoint.
Eh, you've got to understand the creationidiot mindset. Every time there's some study where someone theorizes species X evolved from Y instead of X evolving from Z, or species X was on earth Z millions of years earlier than previously thought, or something about the early earth geologically may have been different than thought, they have these wild fantasies that somehow all science is totally undermined and evolution is on its last legs.
The problem is they don't get science, at all. The idea of tens of thousands of really intelligent people OUT IN THE FIELD actually digging things up, studying them, debating them, etc. is totally alien to their mindset....and the idea that you can have an overarching theory and have the details modified or changed every once in a while by new data, WITHOUT undermining the overarching theory, is totally incomprehensible to them.
5
posted on
02/09/2003 4:44:59 PM PST
by
John H K
To: John H K
That's a lot of crack, even for a scientist!
6
posted on
02/09/2003 4:50:14 PM PST
by
Abcdefg
To: John H K
the idea that you can have an overarching theory and have the details modified or changed every once in a while by new data, WITHOUT undermining the overarching theory, is totally incomprehensible to them. Whereas in 2001 they had only one zircon older than 4.3 billion years, they now have several
The past 10 years have seen major revisions in our understanding of the earliest Earth, and this field has been viewed as one of the most interesting and rewarding today in terms of significant discoveries.
Considering that metallurgists and crystallographers still don't have a universally accepted mechanism for creep, rheological fatigue, and elastic behavior for more than a handful of elements and perfect or near perfect crystal structures, the leap to conclude that any elemental or isotopic absence is evidence proving the age of rock to be 'billions' of years old is just a tad premature.
I agree that this is an interesting find and probably may be used to relationally sort newer from older specimens, but the leap to label these specimens as millions or even billions of years old exhibits the same sort of leap to conclusions which beg the question throughout 'evolutionist' literature.
Perhaps if the same 'evolutionist' shared the same zeal to correlate information with Scripture, they might actually discover far more revealing science.
7
posted on
02/09/2003 5:15:25 PM PST
by
Cvengr
To: MissAmericanPie
Tellers of the some of the earliest creation stories lived near rivers and/or well irrigated regions so that such assertions need not seem so outlandish.
The key would seem an atmosphere that was, and is yet able to retain water, principally outgassed from the earth's interior through volcanism.
These ideas are perfectly consistent with Genesis.
8
posted on
02/09/2003 5:50:04 PM PST
by
onedoug
To: CalConservative
read later
To: MissAmericanPie
According to Genesis, from the time of Adam to the time of Noah, it had never rained on the earth. Where in Genesis does it say it never rained before Noah?
This is part of the creationist geological theory of George Macreedy Price, popular with modern creationists but not the same as Genesis.
10
posted on
02/09/2003 6:08:04 PM PST
by
Salman
To: CalConservative
Its been a long time since I had geochemistry, but I thought there was quite a bit of evidence that the Earth formed from cold concretion. That is, cold pieces of material in orbit around the sun were drawn together by gravity. The Earth later may have heated up from radioactive decay of short lived radioactive elements.
To: Salman; MissAmericanPie
Genesis Chapter 2
5 And every plant of the field before it was in the earth, and every herb of the field before it grew: for the LORD God had not caused it to rain upon the earth, and there was not a man to till the ground.
6 But there went up a mist from the earth, and watered the whole face of the ground.
12
posted on
02/09/2003 7:35:46 PM PST
by
azhenfud
To: azhenfud
Genesis Chapter 2:5 ff.
And every plant of the field before it was in the earth, and every herb of the field before it grew: for the LORD God had not caused it to rain upon the earth, and there was not a man to till the ground. But there went up a mist from the earth, and watered the whole face of the ground. And when there was a man to till the ground? Adam to Noah, that is?
13
posted on
02/09/2003 7:56:06 PM PST
by
Salman
To: Salman; MissAmericanPie
Genesis Chapter Nine
12 And God said, This is the token of the covenant which I make between me and you and every living creature that is with you, for perpetual generations:
13 I do set my bow in the cloud, and it shall be for a token of a covenant between me and the earth.
14 And it shall come to pass, when I bring a cloud over the earth, that the bow shall be seen in the cloud:
15 And I will remember my covenant, which is between me and you and every living creature of all flesh; and the waters shall no more become a flood to destroy all flesh.
16 And the bow shall be in the cloud; and I will look upon it, that I may remember the everlasting covenant between God and every living creature of all flesh that is upon the earth.
17 And God said unto Noah, This is the token of the covenant, which I have established between me and all flesh that is upon the earth.
The essence of thought is "no cloud - no rain, no cloud - no bow". A very plausible conjecture, unless sunlight had been so diffused prior to the flood that no bow could form (which that scenario would not make as much sense given the vegetation coverage on the earth). Even in a greenhouse, one can form a "bow" by spraying water into the air.
Have you ever heard of the hydrogen theory?
14
posted on
02/09/2003 8:00:06 PM PST
by
azhenfud
To: Salman; MissAmericanPie
Genesis Chapter Nine
12 And God said, This is the token of the covenant which I make between me and you and every living creature that is with you, for perpetual generations:
13 I do set my bow in the cloud, and it shall be for a token of a covenant between me and the earth.
14 And it shall come to pass, when I bring a cloud over the earth, that the bow shall be seen in the cloud:
15 And I will remember my covenant, which is between me and you and every living creature of all flesh; and the waters shall no more become a flood to destroy all flesh.
16 And the bow shall be in the cloud; and I will look upon it, that I may remember the everlasting covenant between God and every living creature of all flesh that is upon the earth.
17 And God said unto Noah, This is the token of the covenant, which I have established between me and all flesh that is upon the earth.
The essence of thought is "no cloud - no rain, no cloud - no bow". A very plausible conjecture, unless sunlight had been so diffused prior to the flood that no bow could form (which that scenario would not make as much sense given the vegetation coverage on the earth). Even in a greenhouse, one can form a "bow" by spraying water into the air.
Have you ever heard of the hydrogen theory?
15
posted on
02/09/2003 8:00:09 PM PST
by
azhenfud
To: CalConservative
"Aside from the radioisotope dating issues in zircons, a cool earth with surface water present shortly after its formation certainly presents some challenges to standard scenarios concerning the development of the earth and the formation of life." Yup. Expect in the next few years to read that life on earth is older than ever believed. Good article, thanks.
16
posted on
02/09/2003 8:04:21 PM PST
by
blam
To: CalConservative
So...this moves the origin dates for beer even FARTHER back. I suspected as much.
17
posted on
02/09/2003 8:09:18 PM PST
by
Khurkris
To: Khurkris
I guess one should question those expiration dates more seriously, right?
18
posted on
02/09/2003 8:12:30 PM PST
by
azhenfud
To: coloradan
I'm aiming my comment to you because, unlike so many other posters here, you do not seem to accept as given that the definitive account of the evolution of the earth is contained in Genesis.
On the other hand, you seem open to different but considered ideas, and so, I heartily recommend to you, "The Hot Deep Biosphere" by Thomas Gold. Gold is the discoverer of Pulsars, among other things, and is Professor Emiritus of Physics at Cornell University. Gold's recent book is fascinating at the very least, and if Gold is correct in his interpretation of the data, revolutionary. According to Gold, the Earth was never all that hot. If you tnink about it, if is the Earth really were "hot as Hades" that extreme heat would have driven away all the water as well as most other lighter elements and compounds. Today's Earth would be a barren ball of stone with just a wisp of an atmosphere and not much else.
If you don't have the $15 to buy the book, you can do a Google search on Thomas Gold and you will find plenty of written material on the web.
I'd be very interested to hear his take on these zircons.
19
posted on
02/09/2003 8:54:06 PM PST
by
John Valentine
(We live in portentious times.)
To: John H K
You mean the evoloonist mindset. Myopic ends to a means.
20
posted on
02/09/2003 8:59:52 PM PST
by
ALS
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-20, 21-40, 41-47 next last
Disclaimer:
Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual
posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its
management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the
exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson