The Earth was wet during its’ formation.
Now that we established the explanation from Genesis on how the Sun and Earth took shape from a Nebulous cloud, to being a Star and a Planet, we can now look at what Genesis mentioned 3500 years ago, which science discovered over the last 300 years up to today.
One of the first points in Genesis, to which the Atheist objects to, is the idea that the Earth shaped out of a wet environment, specifically “WATER”.
The Bible is very clear about this fact.
Gen 1:1 In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth.
Gen 1:2 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.
2Pe 3:5 For in holding to this idea, it escapes their notice that the heavens existed long ago and the earth was formed out of water and through water by the word of God.
There are a few more verses throughout the Bible, but I think the criticizers of the Bible will agree that the Bible say the Earth was very wet during its formation. It is their own argument.
Why is this so important?
Because, up until about 200 years ago, everyone accepted that the creation story of Genesis as correct as it described an Earth that contained a lot of water when God created it. That was until Pierre-Simon Laplace gave his theory on how the Earth took shape. He did not like the existing theory, set out by Emmanuel Kant in 1755, nor did he like Newtons’ Idea that the universe was designed and controlled by God.
History went this way on the topic. Once Newton formulated his calculations on the movements of the Solar System, he said that there must be this higher intelligence, who set everything in the Universe in motion.
Today the Atheist implies that Newton meant that there could not have been NATURAL reasons for the formation of the Universe, but that a CREATOR must have created everything as it appears to us today. And they elaborate on how Newton was this alchemist who did not understand Nature that well at the time when everyone still thought of science with a mindset of the stone age, and he, Newton therefore, believed in a God of the Gaps.
Well, Newton only accredited a Creator with the one that set everything in motion, and such a statement can be interpreted very widely. But we will leave it for now until later when Newton will be discussed on his Biblical studies. Something he studied well and wrote more about than anything else he did.
After Newton, Swedenborg came up with the theory that there was a Nebulous cloud, and it formed and shaped the Stars and Planets in this cloud with the assistance of huge vortices.
Then, In 1755 Emmanuel Kant published his essay, ‘Universal Natural History and Theory of the Heavens’ where he also came up with a “Nebular Theory”, but which differs totally from Swedenborg’s theory, in that Kant was able to give explanations which was logical and impossible to interpret in more than one way. His explanation was so advanced, that scientists developed many models of science from his theory. Kant explained the development of the Solar System, the Universe, postulated on Black holes, distant Galaxies, he determined that the Milky way was also a galaxy, Distant Nebulous clouds that will take shape in Stars, each with planets, moons and comets etc.
Kant did incredible scientific observations and used logic to arrive at his Nebular Theory.
In 1925, when Hubble observed the heaven through the Mount Wilson telescope, everything which Kant predicted in the universe, was proven as correct. (Ok except for life on Venus and possibly Mars)
Laplace did not like this explanation at all. He wanted to show a model where no Intelligent being was implicated in Creation. In 1798 he came up with his own version on the origins of the Solar system, whereby he explained that the Planets popped out of the Sun when the Solar system were born. His theory was accepted for a long time as correct, and better than the one Kant proposed.
The reason why Laplace did not like Kant’s theory, was that Kant made it very clear that his theory was one supported by the Biblical Creation epoch.
Kant used his understanding of the Bible, of which he almost had completely memorised, and used Genesis to explain the Nebular Theory.
Kant also explained that the Earth was a WET collection of matter, and explained the creation of the atmosphere, land and sea, and even the flood of Noah…all this to formulate the Creation of the Universe based on Newton’s principals!
Laplace could not have this, and so did all the scientists who followed op in his work, to create a different explanation to Kant’s theory. And the best way to create a theory on the Solar System that was not Biblical, was to come up with an Earth that was created out of fire, burning, dry etc.
…as long as it was not an Earth covered with water, the atheist will be satisfied…
One that will be named the “Hadean Eon” or the Hellish period.
This theory would claim that the Earth, and the planets close to the Earth, would shape from space dust, and as these materials collected, the Earth would warm up to thousands of degrees, and as comets hit the Earth, it would carry water from the distant reaches of the Solar System. These impacts would also create incredible amounts of heat to fuel this Hell fire Earth.
Eventually the Hadean eon was accepted throughout the scientific world, until… science developed observation techniques and found out that the Solar System is full of Water Ice. Comets, asteroids, planets etc, contains Ice. Mars and Venus once had water, even the Moon!
Science had to change their model and returned to a solution which they said the Earth had a much cooler, yet “Hellish” beginning. The new model claim was that the Earth was a flaming ball for only 100 million years, and then cooled down due to water that was carried to the Earth by comets and asteroids.
Then, Zircon crystals in Australia was found to be 4.4 billion years old.
Ancient Crystals Suggest Earlier Ocean
Why is the Zircon crystals age so important?
Because it can only form in water.
OK, so now the Earth must have had water, and were much cooler in the Beginning. Oops, science then discovered silver isotopes that forced the facts that the Earth must have had more water than previously known.
"The silver isotopes also presented another riddle, suggesting that the Earth's core formed about 5-10 million years after the origin of the Solar System, much earlier than the date from the hafnium-tungsten results."
Water was present during birth of Earth, study of silver suggests
Now science learned that water and other volatile matter was present in its original building blocks! Now they learned that the Earth formed 5 to 10 million years after the formation of the Solar System. OK, not a half billion anymore!
Oceans arrived early to Earth; Primitive meteorites were a likely source of water, study finds
"The study shows that Earth's water most likely accreted at the same time as the rock. The planet formed as a wet planet with water on the surface," Marschall said.
Now the whole scientific world realised that Water was present in the Earth much sooner than previously believed. Right from the Beginning. now water was found to be present as the Solar system shaped.
And as time passes, and telescopes are built stronger and more intelligent, science discovers water in space, water everywhere!
Scientists Discover The Oldest, Largest Body Of Water In Existence–In Space
And as Man makes rockets, and satellites, and rovers, they even visit Comets and asteroids, they discover:
Mystery of Earth's Water Origin Solved
“Scientists had suspected that our planet formed dry, with high-energy impacts creating a molten surface on the infant Earth. Water came much later, went the thinking, thanks to collisions with wet comets and asteroids.”
"Some people have argued that any water molecules that were present as the planets were forming would have evaporated or been blown off into space," said study co-author Horst Marschall, a geologist at WHOI.
For that reason, he said, scientists thought that "surface water as it exists on our planet today must have come much, much later—hundreds of millions of years later."
and...
"The team's measurements show that meteorites from Vesta have the same chemistry as the carbonaceous chondrites and rocks found on Earth. This means that carbonaceous chondrites are the most likely common source of water.
"The study shows that Earth's water most likely accreted at the same time as the rock," said Marschall.
"The planet formed as a wet planet with water on the surface."
Oh golly!
Sounds like Genesis 1 v 2 to me!!
The Bible was right, and science had to accept by evidence they collected, that the Genesis description of creation was correct…for 3500 years!
It seems as if the assumption that the Biblical description on the origins of the Universe have a solid cast in concrete description, that unfolds as true as science learns about the Natural world around us.
And to think I am sitting here showing atheists and Bible criticizers why I believe the Bible to be true, is not some “Blind belief” but much more of substance than their superficial strawmen they think I believe in.
Anyhow, after the explanation I did on Genesis chapter 1, we are now going into the scientific evidence, and I only started with this nice comparison. The best is yet to come.
