Earth created from water

The Bible teaches that God first created the earth from a ball of water.  “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.” (Genesis 1:2)

37456337.EarthBig

About 70% of the earth’s surface is covered in water and much water is found in the mantle also. Ref. 3. Credit: PBworks Service

To the contrary, the dominant evolutionary theory for many decades has been that the earth’s water was derived from ice-rich comets or asteroids, which allegedly hit the planet after it formed 4.5 billion years ago. Now new research overturns those notions and brings the ‘official’ secular creation story closer to the Genesis account. A team of scientists found evidence that,

Earth has had water since the beginning of its formation,” according to planetary scientist Lydia Hallis, who led the team.1

Their recent paper,published in Science, has the following abstract:

The hydrogen-isotope [deuterium/hydrogen (D/H)] ratio of Earth can be used to constrain the origin of its water. However, the most accessible reservoir, Earth’s oceans, may no longer represent the original (primordial) D/H ratio, owing to changes caused by water cycling between the surface and the interior. Thus, a reservoir completely isolated from surface processes is required to define Earth’s original D/H signature. Here we present data for Baffin Island and Icelandic lavas, which suggest that the deep mantle has a low D/H ratio (δD more negative than -218 per mil). Such strongly negative values indicate the existence of a component within Earth’s interior that inherited its D/H ratio directly from the protosolar nebula. (emphasis added)

This claimed discovery and its interpretation were boldly announced in the online Earth & Space Science News with the headline “Earth’s Water Came from Space Dust During Planetary Formation.” The article translates the science thus:

A new analysis of lava from the deep mantle indicates that water-soaked dust particles, rather than a barrage of icy comets, asteroids, or other bodies, delivered water to the newly forming Earth.1

Hallis and the team looked at the ratio (D/H) of the heavy form of hydrogen (deuterium) to the ordinary form. In the rocks (lava from deep in the mantle) they found a value of D/H much lower than that found in the earth’s oceans. They then interpreted this low value as strongly indicative of Earth’s water being derived from the alleged solar nebula, of gas and dust, from which it is alleged that the sun, the planets and all the smaller bodies in our solar system formed. Continue reading

God, science & miracles: as conversations go

—A biblical creationist in the skeptics lion’s den

by John H.1 (this is not me, John Gideon Hartnett, see footnote)

Daniel in the lion’s den is an event I can vaguely relate to. Some years ago I attended a movie screening held by the NSW Humanists in Sydney. I was the lone Christian and Biblical creationist at a meeting attended by scientists, atheists, Skeptics and hard-core Darwinians. I had attended the meeting to secure a public debate between a visiting leading American Christian Apologist, Dr John Warwick Montgomery, and the then President of the Australian Skeptics, Mark Plummer, both lawyers. The subsequent debate was well attended and reported by the Sydney Morning Herald.

Sir_Peter_Paul_Rubens_-_Daniel_in_the_Lions'_Den_-_Google_Art_Project

Daniel in the Lion’s Den by Sir Peter Paul Rubens. Credit : Wikipedia

After the screening that night, I engaged in a lively conversation with the head of the science department of a major Sydney university. We both enjoyed the conversation. He gave me a draft copy of his forthcoming book on evolution, and invited me to be his guest at the post screening dinner to continue our discussion.

During the meal I asked him whether he was an atheist or otherwise. He said he was probably an atheist. So, the following exchange took place:

John H: Do you regard yourself as a hard-boiled atheist, or a soft-boiled atheist?

Scientist 1: What’s the difference?

John H: Well! The hard-core atheist says that God doesn’t exist.

Scientist 1: Yes that’s probably my position.

John H: Einstein said he had less that 1% of all available knowledge. How would you compare yourself to Einstein? Would you have more or less knowledge?

Scientist 1:
I would have to say less.

John H: So, how can you say with any certainty that God doesn’t exist when you have less than 1% of knowledge? You would need 100% knowledge of all that exists to affirm that no God exists. You can’t substantiate that, can you? Continue reading

What about those 100-million-year-old dinosaur fossils?

Evolutionary ‘science’ alleges the earth is about 4.6 billion years old and life started 3.8 billion years ago on the planet. It also alleges that life evolved from a single-celled ‘last common ancestor’ to all the diversity of life we see today. According to their story, the dinosaurs lived some 230 million years ago and died out about 63 million years ago. The claim is that the fossil evidence supports this evolutionary story, whereas the Bible tells a completely different story. Most of the fossils are then the result of sudden burial in all the sedimentary layers laid down by global flood waters about 4,500 years ago. Dr Jim Mason presents some compelling arguments to answer the title question. He looks at the so-called geological column, where the flood fits into that, evidence on the age of fossils, uniformitarian principles, sediments and varves, soft tissue, blood cells, and DNA in dinosaur bones, homology and transitional forms.

Lecture was given August 1st 2015. See Age and Reason Seminar Adelaide for details.

Recommended Viewing

See also other lectures given at the same seminar:

Doesn’t radiometric dating prove that the Earth is billions of years old?

So-called science alleges that the earth is about 4.6 billion years old.  The claim is that radiometric dating methods all support this age of the earth and the solar system and as a result the time line derived from the Bible, of only about 6000 years, must be wrong. Dr Jim Mason presents some compelling arguments to answer the title question. He covers radiometric dating techniques, including the one that most people are familiar with, carbon-14. He shows that the three primary assumptions in all those methods cannot be relied upon to be correct. Rocks of known age, by eye-witness accounts of their formation in the case of solidification of volcanic lava, are incorrectly dated by various radiometric decay chains. So, why would you trust the same methods to date rocks of unknown age?

Lecture was given August 1st 2015. See Age and Reason Seminar Adelaide for details.

Recommended Viewing

See also other lectures given at the same seminar: