Does Science disprove the Genesis description of Creation?

[SA Huguenot]

I simply LOOOOVE the following...
Whenever a Bible critisizer, or atheist for that matter, learns that the old debunked scientific models changed due to new scientific discoveries, they forget that during the time their "Theory" was well received by the Atheist to use as support that there are no Creator, or intelligent Mind behind creation; they flurrished.
However, once someone shows then that they misunderstood, or misinterpreted what was "Science and Biblical", they will use everything to attack, that which the Bible believer shows them, can not be "real" scientific facts. In their minds there MUST BE A DOOR OUT OF THIS PREDICAMENT.

Now, guess what?
This very same Nebular Theory was composed by Emmanuel Kant in 1755, and by the Hand of God, underwent generational amnesia, and the Atheist forgot where it came from.
As science discovered more evidence, they constructed the Nebular theory, ...again...
without remembering that Kant found it in the Bible!

The very same evidence the Atheist uses as an argument against God, comes out of the Bible!

It is funny!

 

[SA Huguenot]

I think I will tomorrow continue on the Age of the Universe, and the Earth according to the Bible and Science.

 

[Subduction Zone]

I think you did not read all the articles which clearly shows that since scientists started to analyze Meteorites, Comets and Asteroids, they discovered that the composition is the same as the Earth's, and is evidence that the Earth was WET SINCE IT accreted before it was a planet.

"The planet formed as a wet planet with water on the surface."
and...
Next they examined meteorites that are thought to have originated from the large asteroid Vesta, which formed in the same region as Earth, some 14 million years after the solar system's birth.
and...
The measurements show that 4-Vesta contains the same hydrogen isotopic composition as carbonaceous chondrites, which is also that of Earth. That, combined with nitrogen isotope data, points to carbonaceous chondrites as the most likely common source of water.

"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, allow me to explain what the Accretion model means.
It is one part of the Nebular theory, where matter is strewn throughout the space where the Solar System would develop.
as these particles attached too each other, their gravitational forces will increase, and it will attract more particles. (Accretion)
This attraction of particles will create eddies, where a swirling motion will shape into flat disks, with tentacles swirling in from the surrounding space.
Obviously the centre will be the strongest gravitational point, and this will be where the Sun will collect 99% of this matter.
Due to the speed and equilibrium of matter around the centre of this "proto Sun, it will run in an orbit roughly in relative distance we see today, but it will be "soft thissleballs" of Ice, dust etc.
this balls will attract even more matter, and the largest will obviously eventually collect everything in its space orbit such as a broom and will collect this matter to become a proto planet, and eventually the planet we can identify.

Now, IF SCIENTISTS discovered that the very same rocks in the solar system has the same composition of water than what the Earth has, and they say the Earth gained this waer through the process of accretion, then there is only one scientific fact about Earth's appearance 4.5 billion years ago...It was wet, and the Hadean theory went puff...

Please note, this is not something I am saying,
...but it is what scientists discovered...

It is a simplified story for amateurs. The accretion of the Earth formed a rather hot ball. Most of the heat in the Earth's still remnants of that event. There would have been water, but not liquid water until the Earth cooled significantly.

 

[Subduction Zone]

I simply LOOOOVE the following...
Whenever a Bible critisizer, or atheist for that matter, learns that the old debunked scientific models changed due to new scientific discoveries, they forget that during the time their "Theory" was well received by the Atheist to use as support that there are no Creator, or intelligent Mind behind creation; they flurrished.
However, once someone shows then that they misunderstood, or misinterpreted what was "Science and Biblical", they will use everything to attack, that which the Bible believer shows them, can not be "real" scientific facts. In their minds there MUST BE A DOOR OUT OF THIS PREDICAMENT.

Now, guess what?
This very same Nebular Theory was composed by Emmanuel Kant in 1755, and by the Hand of God, underwent generational amnesia, and the Atheist forgot where it came from.
As science discovered more evidence, they constructed the Nebular theory, ...again...
without remembering that Kant found it in the Bible!

The very same evidence the Atheist uses as an argument against God, comes out of the Bible!

It is funny!

Oh please, just because you do not understand something does not mean an idea has been debunked.

Epic fail.

 

[SA Huguenot]

Oh please, just because you do not understand something does not mean an idea has been debunked.

Epic fail.

OK, So you will continue to "find the Gap", instead of finding the "God of the Gaps".
let me answer your frustrated post in this way.
The original idea was that the Earth had an Hadeon eon lasting between .75 to .5 of a billion years.
This was now reduced to between 5 and 10 million years!
Science discovered that the very same Chondrites that contained water, is the very same rock that accreted to form the Earth.
Scientists now say, the Earth was wet.
Scientists are discovering that there was Ice in the inner Solar System, just as they see Ice in other nebular clouds.
Scientists say the Sun initially was dark, therefore the accretion of matter around the Sun, contained Ice and soluds which was collected by the planets.

If you think this is is something I DONT UNDERSTAND you are wrong.
I understand in full that Kant explained from Genesis, exactly what I saw, and the proverbial egg on the face is the Wet Earth nebular theory on the Atheist who want these facts to dissappear.

Sorry for the comparrison, but all I have to do is to show any Atheist that the belief I have in my God, is not one of Blind faith, but one of facts, supported by science.
All I demand is that whenever an atheist tells me a story about Santas, and fairies, they be prepared for a littlebit more deeper explanation than what they are under the impression Christians believe.

 

[SA Huguenot]

Without shape? Yeah, it was a bit without shape before gravity collected the dust and debris of its mass into a sphere. Wet? No. Any moisture would have evaporated, given the temperature of the earth 4.5 million years ago hovered around or just below the boiling point.

I just though you would like to see the explanation on water and the Earth during its formation.

 

[Subduction Zone]

OK, So you will continue to "find the Gap", instead of finding the "God of the Gaps".
let me answer your frustrated post in this way.
The original idea was that the Earth had an Hadeon eon lasting between .75 to .5 of a billion years.
This was now reduced to between 5 and 10 million years!
Science discovered that the very same Chondrites that contained water, is the very same rock that accreted to form the Earth.
Scientists now say, the Earth was wet.
Scientists are discovering that there was Ice in the inner Solar System, just as they see Ice in other nebular clouds.
Scientists say the Sun initially was dark, therefore the accretion of matter around the Sun, contained Ice and soluds which was collected by the planets.

If you think this is is something I DONT UNDERSTAND you are wrong.
I understand in full that Kant explained from Genesis, exactly what I saw, and the proverbial egg on the face is the Wet Earth nebular theory on the Atheist who want these facts to dissappear.

Sorry for the comparrison, but all I have to do is to show any Atheist that the belief I have in my God, is not one of Blind faith, but one of facts, supported by science.
All I demand is that whenever an atheist tells me a story about Santas, and fairies, they be prepared for a littlebit more deeper explanation than what they are under the impression Christians believe.

That five to ten million year claim does not appear to be well accepted. What happened is that the Hadeon has been shortened in estimated extent.

Do you understand why the Earth was very very hot when it was formed? It was not wet. The energy released by collisions would have increased as the Earth go more massive. That means that the latest bombardments would have released the most energy. The Earth was not wet when it formed.

And your comment about ice in nebular clouds is a red herring. It indicates that you do not know why the Earth was hot when it was formed.

 

[Subduction Zone]

I just though you would like to see the explanation on water and the Earth during its formation.

But the Bible portrays all of the Earth as being covered in water. It was not. During the Hadean there may have been oases of liquid water, but no ocean covering the Earth:

Early Earth: A Battered, Hellish World with Water Oases for Life | Space

The reason that the heat released increased as the Earth got bigger is because the collisions turned kinetic energy into heat energy. And when the Earth got larger its gravitational attraction got stronger meaning that objects would fall at a faster rate. Of course a major part of the energy may have come from objects rotating at different speeds, but the heat from just falling is rather amazing on its own.

 

[SA Huguenot]

That five to ten million year claim does not appear to be well accepted. What happened is that the Hadeon has been shortened in estimated extent.

Do you understand why the Earth was very very hot when it was formed? It was not wet. The energy released by collisions would have increased as the Earth go more massive. That means that the latest bombardments would have released the most energy. The Earth was not wet when it formed.

And your comment about ice in nebular clouds is a red herring. It indicates that you do not know why the Earth was hot when it was formed.

OK, lets take everything in perspective by pure healthy logic.
1. If there was a Nebular cloud, and there was still no gravitational points within it, the temperature would have been close to absolute zero.
If gravitational points started to collect this matter and pulled it towards it's centres, it would have collected very cold Icy particles.
These particles would be collected in ennergy conservation, where the eddies within this cloud, would have the almost the same momentum or less than the centre of these eddies.
The gradual accretion of this matter to the centre will not "bombard" into the centre, but will gently be pulled in, into a soft thissle protoplanet, which is still not a highly dence entity.
These soft Icey dust, will collect into a huge soft Icy planet, and will only lateron squeeze into a harder planet, as gravity increases.

The idea that the Earth was already stone hard when it took its initial shape, is totally unscientific.
Since when does concrete turn to stone immediately.
It is soft at firse, and turns hard over time.
The same with spacedust.

 

[Subduction Zone]

OK, lets take everything in perspective by pure healthy logic.
1. If there was a Nebular cloud, and there was still no gravitational points within it, the temperature would have been close to absolute zero.

Actually much warmer after the Sun ignited. We can go over the Stefan Boltzmann Law.

If gravitational points started to collect this matter and pulled it towards it's centres, it would have collected very cold Icy particles.

Yes, at first. That is what the would have gathered.

These particles would be collected in ennergy conservation, where the eddies within this cloud, would have the almost the same momentum or less than the centre of these eddies.

Actually there can be quite a variation. And I am thinking that you are ignoring something very obvious.

The gradual accretion of this matter to the centre will not "bombard" into the centre, but will gently be pulled in, into a soft thissle protoplanet, which is still not a highly dence entity.
These soft Icey dust, will collect into a huge soft Icy planet, and will only lateron squeeze into a harder planet, as gravity increases.

Um, no. That is not the case. The far side of the Moon testifies to the contrary.

The idea that the Earth was already stone hard when it took its initial shape, is totally unscientific.
Since when does concrete turn to stone immediately.
It is soft at firse, and turns hard over time.
The same with spacedust.

WTF? This last sentence makes no sense at all. I do not think that you made any point here. And like I predicted, you ignored the effect of the Earth's mass. Do you know how much energy it takes to get a small mass into orbit? That same energy is lost when an object comes in from space. Guess what form the energy takes once it strikes the Earth?

I can find source after source explaining why the early Earth's surface was magma. In fact I already linked one. National Geographic is a popular magazine that simplifies things for their readers. Try to look at something just a bit more technical.

 

[SA Huguenot]

Actually much warmer after the Sun ignited. We can go over the Stefan Boltzmann Law.

This is the first mistake.
The Sun AND THE PLANETS ACCRETED long before the Sun ignited.

Again, logical scientific deduction:
If there was a Nebular cloud, and eddies was created with the fact that throughout the area where this cloud existed, gravitational points initiated.
These Eddies were all over, as observed in many examples throughout space with current tellescope.
As a matter of fact, The centre of the Solar system did not have a Sun, but verry small iceball dust strewn out all over the nebular centre for a couple of astronomical units radius.
These "thissle balls" then joined together, as the eddy currents swirled the other smaller balls around the centre.
As the centres grew larger, they draw more thissle balls towards them, in the same way solid material will collect at the bottom of a bucket when a liquid is stired.
There is no "bombardment" of meteorites and asteroids, but a gentle orbit around the centre which does not have the velocities to maintain its altetude. Therefore it will move closer to the eddie's centre.
Now, this centre still did not have the mass of the current planets or Sun, therefore, the velocities of the matter arriving at the surface of the small protoplanets, perhaps as it grew from a few mm to a diamiter of 10 Km to 100 Km, did not "smash" into the protoplanet at any noticeble force. Today a Meteorite will enter the atmosphere at 50 000 Km per hour because the Earth has a much higher gravitational force than what this proto planet had.
This gravitational forces increaser only at a later stage when the planets eventually shaped into a planet with a gaseous atmosphere, and a dense core.
But before this happened, the Earth was nothing more than a collection of Icy space dust growing bigger and bigger.
Returning to the Sun, it was also acreting more and more matter, and initially the sun was also just a speck of dust particles larger than the surrounding area. there must have been billions of such specks, and they started to move towards each other.
These particles eventually joined, and the Sun also had a size of a few mm, and as it grew, the same happned with the planets in the rest of the Solar System.

Now, as the Sun and the planets grew, the centre of this collection of matter, which turned slower than the outer limits , allowing more matter to be collected by these billions of smaller thistle balls, and the Sun became bigger than the rest of the other planets.
eventually the Sun was so large, that its gravity pulled matter into itself, and eventually broke the critical point, and Nuclear fusion occured.
However, the Sun did not immediately ignite to its fullest, the size of it would prevent a full nuclear reaction, and as its core increased its gravitational field, it eventually took "flame".
At that stage, the Planets were already almost the size of what they have today and already, well almost, contained all the solids, gasses and liquids of its current status.

The most important point to remember is that at this point, when protoplanets were already huge, did some bash into each other at higher velocities, due to the increased gravitational forces they aquired.
this was the reason for meteorites and asteriods, in the solar system.
They did not form before the Earth existed.

Anyhow, the above is a logical and scientific model that is the only viable one on the formation of the Solar system.

And this is the core difference between laplace's model and Kant's.
La Place postulated that the Sun was formed from all the matter in the Solar system, and as it turned, it shot out matter in the form of boiling matter, which sometimes returned to the Sun, and splatered other matter into the Solar System.
These giant magma balls eventually shaped the Planets.

This theory was found to be in error in the mid 1800's due to conservation of ennergy.
The speed of the Sun and the Planets does not allow the planets to have a source such as the Sun.
So, forget about an earth that was a melting ball, with stone hard meteorites bashing into it.
There is very little evidence to support that theory.
The Kantian model prevails by observation and mathematical calculations.
And since 1925 more and more discoveries in space proves that the Earth was a wet collection of Icy space dust.

 

[SA Huguenot]

I can find source after source explaining why the early Earth's surface was magma. In fact I already linked one. National Geographic is a popular magazine that simplifies things for their readers. Try to look at something just a bit more technical.

OK, so if scientists discovers that the rocks they collected in space are evidence that the Earth had a wet beginning, and not a Hellish eon, and they are not creationists, their research is anyway at fault because national geographic published their findings.

Now what other source after source can you supply to prove to me that the research on Vesta is at error?
Heck pal, how many Vestas did science collect from space to bring it to Earth?

Or are you going to give me Source after Source from scientists that published their models before they learned about what the latest science says about the accreted matter the Solar system?
Are you going to cntiniously refer to outdated publications untill all, and the very last scientist changed their facts to fit in with the latest?

This is the problem, scientists have this dangerous ego where they have to defend their findings, no matter what. Even if scientific discoveries find them in error, they will not let go of their error, but will "ajust and tweak" to fit in.

Be as it may, why do you think that the discovery of Vesta's information is wrong because NG published it?

 

[SA Huguenot]

I thought the following rendering will give some more insight about Time as explained by the author of the Bible.

 

[SA Huguenot]

Age of the Earth and Universe.

If ever there was a nice argument against the Bible, it will be the huge knife in the hands of the Atheist…the Age of the Earth…

It is constructed in this sentence: “The Bible say the Earth and Heaven (Universe) was created 6 000 years ago, in 6 days. Today science knows that the Universe is billions of years old. Therefore, the Author of the Bible did not know how He created the Universe.”

I actually like this statement in more than one viewpoint. The first view was when I was a huge sceptic about the creation story from the Bible. I liked the fact that Christians could only answer that they believed that God made it all in 6 days, 6 000 years ago. They are therefore believing in something “Miraculous”, and accredited the Creation by a Creator. This left one with the choice to accept it, or discard it.

The second viewpoint that I love, was the one where I realised that what the Bible says, is not what the Atheist assumes or claim, but their argument is again a Straw puppet which when they believe is destroyed, destroys God!
Well, lets see for ourself what does the Bible say about the age of the Universe and Earth.
And again, the Bible is so eloquently simple in its explanation.

And God said: “Let there be light!” and it was evening and morning, the first day.

A few verses later the Bible says that God made the Light of the Sun, the Light of the Moon, and the Light of the Planets to enter the Atmosphere.

And it ends off with the words: “Then God said, “Let lights in the expanse of the sky be for separating the day from the night. They will be for signs and for seasons and for days and years.”

Great, now to use our minds a bit.
How do we measure ‘Time’?

Well, we need the Sun to emit light, and we need an Earth turning on its own axis that receives this light to measure ‘Time’.

If one of these 2 factors are removed, we will not be able to measure ‘Time’.

If we want to measure ‘Years’, we need the Earth to circle the Sun. If the Earth stands still in relation to the Sun, or there is no light that shines on the Earth from the Sun, we won’t know that it took 365.x to circumvent the Sun once.
Now, just look at the finer detail in Genesis chapter 1.

Firstly, it says there was a DAY ONE!

Now who would have thought that there was a beginning of ‘Time’?
Then it says, it was Evening and Morning, the first day! Take note, The Bible say it was dark, and when light started to shine on the Earth, it became morning. Therefore, the Bible counts the “Darkness before Light” into the first Day!
It does not say, there were billions of years, but it says there was the first day, and all the ‘Time’ before the first day, was included in Day 1!

But it does say that before the first Day, there was a period in between “in the Beginning” and the first day.
Therefore, the correct way to say what Genesis describes is the following scientific principle, so easily mistaken by the Scientist.

Before Light shone on the Earth, ‘Time” did not exist!
Heck, this was an eye opener to me. The Bible never said the Earth and Universe was only 6 000 years old!

It says the Earth and Universe is 6 000 years old, plus some period of existence in ‘Zero Time’!
Now, if scientist wants to say the Universe and Earth is billions of years old, it is not in contradiction with what the Bible says at all!

Actually, in the strictest sense, they are wrong in their claim that the Earth is 4.5 Billion years old, and the Universe 12.5 billion years. Simply because if they say the Earth and Solar system never existed between 4.5 Billion ago and 12.5 Billion ago, what did they use to measure these years by?

The very same watch we use to determine a year, did not exist for 8 billion years!
Even the scientists have to agree that they are using “Imaginary Time”.

Damn, then the Bible was correct again in calling these eons of ages before the first day, “In the Beginning”!

This is what Newton said, and Einstein elaborated on.
Time does not exist! It is the velocity travelled by an object over a distance in relation to another object.
Stop the Universe, and Time stop.

Let only one single object remain in space, and it does not matter whether stationary, or in movement, Time will not exist.
But as soon as this body encounters another body, and moves in relation to each other, velocity can be measured in relation to its changing distances. But there will be another problem, and that is ‘Time”
These 2 bodies will know it travelled towards, or away from each other, and it will know its distance travelled in relation to each other, but they will not know HOW LONG IT TOOK FROM THEY FIRST TOOK OFF TO WHEN THEY SAY PASSED specific points.

They will need something else moving at a constant speed and to then compare themselves with it.
Now the two objects need some mechanism to compare their velocity with the one that is constant.
At first these 2 bodies did not have any way to establish how much distance they travelled compared with some other constant measurement, but then they found a Sun, and an Earth. This Earth travelled at a constant speed around its own axis, and around the Sun.

The 2 objects took the circumvent of the Earth as a distance, placed a beacon on the equator and saw that every time the same point passes the Sun’s highest point, it “Felt” that the same period of existence passed. The two objects than decided they will call this “Time” and the first increment will be a “Day”
Now they went back and travelled the same way as before, and noticed that they are travelling the known distance they did before, (which they measured and compared to their own length, and they called a Meter) and they saw they were travelling such a short distance, that the “Day” measurement was too long! So they divided the Day up by placing 24 beacons on the Earth, equally spaced out, one they called Greenwich.
They went back, and again had to return to divide it up even further, and so on.

Eventually these two bodies became very clever, and took the light beam from the Sun, and measured it’s distance travelled in one of their increments, and decided this will be the one to use to measure time..

The moral of the story is:

Time does not exist!
It is only an observation of the Earth in relation to the Sun, even if we now use Radio decay, or Light to measure time.
It remains a comparison between two time frames which measures their motion in relation to each other.

Sounds familiar?

Albert who?

Genesis what?

 

[Subduction Zone]

OK, so if scientists discovers that the rocks they collected in space are evidence that the Earth had a wet beginning, and not a Hellish eon, and they are not creationists, their research is anyway at fault because national geographic published their findings.

Now what other source after source can you supply to prove to me that the research on Vesta is at error?
Heck pal, how many Vestas did science collect from space to bring it to Earth?

Or are you going to give me Source after Source from scientists that published their models before they learned about what the latest science says about the accreted matter the Solar system?
Are you going to cntiniously refer to outdated publications untill all, and the very last scientist changed their facts to fit in with the latest?

This is the problem, scientists have this dangerous ego where they have to defend their findings, no matter what. Even if scientific discoveries find them in error, they will not let go of their error, but will "ajust and tweak" to fit in.

Be as it may, why do you think that the discovery of Vesta's information is wrong because NG published it?

You misunderstand what scientists are saying. Too often lay people think of water only in its liquid state. "Wet" can also mean that water is present as steam. When the Earth first formed it was very hot due to gravitational potential energy being changed to kinetic energy and then heat energy.

 

[halbhh]

A related theory:

https://astrobiology.nasa.gov/nai/media/medialibrary/2013/10/Cooler-Early-Earth-Article.pdf

The cool early Earth theory posits that for part of the Hadean geological eon, at the beginning of Earth's history, it had a modest influx of bolides and a cool climate, allowing the presence of liquid water. This would have been after the extreme conditions of Earth's earliest history between 4.6 and 4.4 billion years (Ga) ago, but before the Late Heavy Bombardment of 4.1 to 3.8 Ga ago.
Cool early Earth - Wikipedia

Notice though(!) that in the Genesis chapter 1 text, no time duration indication at all is given for the events of verse 1 before the later moment that occurs in verse 2:

1 In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth.
....
2 Now the earth was formless and empty, darkness was over the surface of the deep, and the Spirit of God was hovering over the waters.

This is helpful to notice: there's zero information in the text about the time duration of the formation of the cosmos, the solar system, or the accreting Earth ( the text is about things which are more spiritually meaningful, and of course not about trivial stuff like time duration).

I think you did not read all the articles which clearly shows that since scientists started to analyze Meteorites, Comets and Asteroids, they discovered that the composition is the same as the Earth's, and is evidence that the Earth was WET SINCE IT accreted before it was a planet.

"The planet formed as a wet planet with water on the surface."
and...
Next they examined meteorites that are thought to have originated from the large asteroid Vesta, which formed in the same region as Earth, some 14 million years after the solar system's birth.
and...
The measurements show that 4-Vesta contains the same hydrogen isotopic composition as carbonaceous chondrites, which is also that of Earth. That, combined with nitrogen isotope data, points to carbonaceous chondrites as the most likely common source of water.

"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, allow me to explain what the Accretion model means.
It is one part of the Nebular theory, where matter is strewn throughout the space where the Solar System would develop.
as these particles attached too each other, their gravitational forces will increase, and it will attract more particles. (Accretion)
This attraction of particles will create eddies, where a swirling motion will shape into flat disks, with tentacles swirling in from the surrounding space.
Obviously the centre will be the strongest gravitational point, and this will be where the Sun will collect 99% of this matter.
Due to the speed and equilibrium of matter around the centre of this "proto Sun, it will run in an orbit roughly in relative distance we see today, but it will be "soft thissleballs" of Ice, dust etc.
this balls will attract even more matter, and the largest will obviously eventually collect everything in its space orbit such as a broom and will collect this matter to become a proto planet, and eventually the planet we can identify.

Now, IF SCIENTISTS discovered that the very same rocks in the solar system has the same composition of water than what the Earth has, and they say the Earth gained this waer through the process of accretion, then there is only one scientific fact about Earth's appearance 4.5 billion years ago...It was wet, and the Hadean theory went puff...

Please note, this is not something I am saying,
...but it is what scientists discovered...

You misunderstood the article. The Earth was still dry on the surface when it was formed. It was too hot for liquid water. That article explains how most of the Earth's water was part of the Earth when it formed, not added later by comets.

Liquid water was on the Earth earlier than previously thought, but it was not made wet.

 

[Subduction Zone]

A related theory:

https://astrobiology.nasa.gov/nai/media/medialibrary/2013/10/Cooler-Early-Earth-Article.pdf

The cool early Earth theory posits that for part of the Hadean geological eon, at the beginning of Earth's history, it had a modest influx of bolides and a cool climate, allowing the presence of liquid water. This would have been after the extreme conditions of Earth's earliest history between 4.6 and 4.4 billion years (Ga) ago, but before the Late Heavy Bombardment of 4.1 to 3.8 Ga ago.
Cool early Earth - Wikipedia

Notice though(!) that in the Genesis chapter 1 text, no time duration indication at all is given for the events of verse 1 before the later moment that occurs in verse 2:

1 In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth.
....
2 Now the earth was formless and empty, darkness was over the surface of the deep, and the Spirit of God was hovering over the waters.

This is helpful to notice: there's zero information in the text about the time duration of the formation of the cosmos, the solar system, or the accreting Earth ( the text is about things which are more spiritually meaningful, and of course not about trivial stuff like time duration).

You need to read your sources a bit more thoroughly. You are merely clutching at straws. From your link:

This article needs additional citations for verification.

In 2016 Gavin Kenny et al. replied to suggestions that zircons were formed by melting during tectonic subduction at plate boundaries, and argued that at least some of them were formed by meteorite impacts.[2]

The article is not only not well supported in its claims, therefore the note the it needs additional sources, but a possible refutation is included in the article. This is not a well accepted hypothesis yet. There are problems with it. They would need to explain early rapid cooling. That has not been done. The energy it takes to put an object into low earth orbit is going to be less than the energy of an object coming in from space. There is not only the gravitational well energy, there is the energy of different orbits around the Sun. That energy does not magically disappear.

 

[halbhh]

You need to read your sources a bit more thoroughly. You are merely clutching at straws. From your link:

This article needs additional citations for verification.

In 2016 Gavin Kenny et al. replied to suggestions that zircons were formed by melting during tectonic subduction at plate boundaries, and argued that at least some of them were formed by meteorite impacts.[2]

The article is not only not well supported in its claims, therefore the note the it needs additional sources, but a possible refutation is included in the article. This is not a well accepted hypothesis yet. There are problems with it. They would need to explain early rapid cooling. That has not been done. The energy it takes to put an object into low earth orbit is going to be less than the energy of an object coming in from space. There is not only the gravitational well energy, there is the energy of different orbits around the Sun. That energy does not magically disappear.

In a scientific attitude one doesn't attach oneself to a theory and defend it.

So, if you do read the NASA article linked, you should ideally only entertain it as a possible theory, in competition with other theories.

Not something to either ally oneself with or oppose.

If you get too caught up in wanting one theory or another to be correct, it can prejudice and alter your ability to gain more information the way someone can who doesn't need one theory or another to be the correct one.

 

[halbhh]

I think you did not read all the articles which clearly shows that since scientists started to analyze Meteorites, Comets and Asteroids, they discovered that the composition is the same as the Earth's, and is evidence that the Earth was WET SINCE IT accreted before it was a planet.

"The planet formed as a wet planet with water on the surface."
and...
Next they examined meteorites that are thought to have originated from the large asteroid Vesta, which formed in the same region as Earth, some 14 million years after the solar system's birth.
and...
The measurements show that 4-Vesta contains the same hydrogen isotopic composition as carbonaceous chondrites, which is also that of Earth. That, combined with nitrogen isotope data, points to carbonaceous chondrites as the most likely common source of water.

"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, allow me to explain what the Accretion model means.
It is one part of the Nebular theory, where matter is strewn throughout the space where the Solar System would develop.
as these particles attached too each other, their gravitational forces will increase, and it will attract more particles. (Accretion)
This attraction of particles will create eddies, where a swirling motion will shape into flat disks, with tentacles swirling in from the surrounding space.
Obviously the centre will be the strongest gravitational point, and this will be where the Sun will collect 99% of this matter.
Due to the speed and equilibrium of matter around the centre of this "proto Sun, it will run in an orbit roughly in relative distance we see today, but it will be "soft thissleballs" of Ice, dust etc.
this balls will attract even more matter, and the largest will obviously eventually collect everything in its space orbit such as a broom and will collect this matter to become a proto planet, and eventually the planet we can identify.

Now, IF SCIENTISTS discovered that the very same rocks in the solar system has the same composition of water than what the Earth has, and they say the Earth gained this waer through the process of accretion, then there is only one scientific fact about Earth's appearance 4.5 billion years ago...It was wet, and the Hadean theory went puff...

Please note, this is not something I am saying,
...but it is what scientists discovered...

Another newer article I was just reading:
Ancient Earth was a water world

@Subduction Zone, you might want to consider points in this article

 

[Subduction Zone]

In a scientific attitude one doesn't attach oneself to a theory and defend it.

So, if you do read the NASA article linked, you should ideally only entertain it as a possible theory, in competition with other theories.

Not something to either ally oneself with or oppose.

If you get too caught up in wanting one theory or another to be correct, it can prejudice and alter your ability to gain more information the way someone can who doesn't need one theory or another to be the correct one.

Your phrasing is a bit odd. Yes, one does not want to accept or reject theories or hypotheses based upon emotions. But that is what it looks like you are doing. You want your personal interpretation of the Bible to be right so you are trying to bend science to do so. Even with the "cool Earth theory" the Earth was still mostly dry. They are not proposing oceans. And that hypothesis is not well accepted yet. If it was there would be no problem to find enough evidence for it to satisfy Wiki.

EDIT: Sorry I conflated you with @SA Huguenot . He is the one demanding that the surface of the Earth was covered with water from the beginning. The early Earth was very hot due to energy released during accretion. I don't mind relatively early oceans, but for millions of years the math and the evidence tells us that the Early Earth was dry.