How does this fact effect the probability of Evolution? 25,000 there was no water on earth.?

Question

Where did the water come from?
The Sun would have been too big even 25,000 years ago for water to have existed on this planted.

How did we get into our present orbit?
Where did the water come from?
Could carbon life forms exist without water?

Answer 1

Sorry, but you're just WRONG

Pull "facts" from your backside much?

Do the depths of your ignorance and misinformation know ANY bounds?

Answer 2

How did we get into our present orbit? link one
Our solar system started as an interstellar cloud of gas and dust. The cloud (our beginning) was roughly spherical; it revolved around the center of the galaxy, and spun about its own center. All things in the Universe spin in some way, and the nebula cloud was no exception.

Where did the water come from? link two
The question of the origin of water on Earth, or more accurately put, the question of why there is clearly more water on the Earth than on the other planets of the solar system, has not been clarified. There are various popular theories as to how the world's oceans were formed over the past 4.6 billion years.

Could carbon life forms exist without water? link three
The search for life elsewhere in the solar system and beyond should include efforts to detect what scientists sometimes refer to as "weird" life -- that is, life with an alternative biochemistry to that of life on Earth

How does this "fact" effect the probability of Evolution? 25,000 there was no water on earth.?

Where did you get your information , and could you post a link to it ? If it is a fact ....

Answer 3

lol, wow. ok lets start.. 1st hydrogen and oxygen- 2 gases that when combined become a liquid know to us as water. if the sun were too big then it is possible that the heat and consist flux could make it hard for them to bond. by the way the universe is 70% hydrogen, so there's plenty of it to go around.
ok now for the harder stuff, inter stellar electronmagnetic fields of positive charged ions. our planets inter core is mostly nickel and iron and spinning around it is liquid metal which creates friction and static which in turn creates a electronmagnetic field around the earth known simply as the ozone, which protects us from stellar radiation and cosmic wind. but also provide stablity upon the field in solar system. consistly pushing and pulling, all the planet can do is spin and move in orbit. it is said that if even the smallest planet pluto would be destroyed that the pull would crumble and lay wash to the whole solar system.. oh and the carbon question. no, simply one needs a balance of the opposite. carbon is the opposite of oxygen and oxygen is to carbon. everything needs balance to survive.


PS THE PERSON THAT YOU THAT IS RETARTED!!!

Answer 4

No you could not have formed life without water. However 25,000 years ago there were oceans on the planet. You are assuming a linear relationship between the size of the solar orb and time--and the relationship is most decidely non-linear and is based on the composition of the stellar core. For the sun to have been the size you suggest it would have had to been cooler (red giant) and the core process would have been helim to sodium fusion ( a less energetic process than hydrogen to helium). Optical, microwave, ultraviolet and x-ray emission spectra of the sun all tell us clearly that there is still an abundance of hydrogen in the stellar core. Clearly this kinda of logic simply illustrates that fundamentalist should at least be conversant in the science they are slamming--else they look like uneducated fools.

Answer 5

Dear Mr. Creationist (or whatever your handlers tell you to call it this week),

Another 30 board-feet of pasting the same arguments does not change the fact that they are still as wrong as when we debunked them all the first time.

You have absolutely zero ability to comprehend what you paste, and as such, when you come across the same argument already shredded here at a later date it appears brand new to you. It is a truly sad state, and you need to grasp that you only highlight your own mental deficiency by persisting with the cut and paste marathon.

Were you able, on even the simplest level, to grasp the concepts involved, you would recognize the repetitive nature of your posts. As it is, you do not even have that elementary comprehension of the topic at hand.

Sadly, this is how creationism works, they rely on the vehement and vociferous response of their most ignorant and uneducated of followers to speak for them. They pot up the article, fully knowing the lies, distortions, and misleading nature of them and wait for people like you to cry them from the mountaintops.

We know the creationist movement to be dishonest to it's core, because the articles they produce requires a pretty decent knowledge of astronomy, cosmology, geology, anthropology, and a variety of other sciences... yet it is deliberately twisted and distorted in to outright lies. And this is not the type of misunderstanding that comes from a bad grasp of the topic, it required in-depth lies and trickery to produce.

So climb that mountain again, Rainman, and tell us again how wrong we are.

Answer 6

You reported : Even in the previous Darwin, it replaced into geologists who started out to declare that the Earth is older than 6004 years. And modern-day geology stubbornly refuses to yield up its hidden info of a familiar flood, or the present and coeval life of all creatures, residing and extinct. Thee is info geologists only refuse to acept it , the place do you think of all the clean water on the poles got here from ? and all the fossils of sea creatures you hit upon in deserts ? The animals found interior the coldest regons of the north that have been rapid frozen with green grass of their mouths? are you able to think of what could take place if a dense water vapor shroud that lined the earth have been to without warning drop to the earth ? Sorta like the action picture -" Day after the next day" -- unexpected rapid freeze! The Bible says bats are birds. (Leviticus eleven:13, eleven:19) mendacity zoologists declare they are rodents. incorrect lower back ! The Bible makes use of the time era " Flying Creatures" i don't have the time or area to debunk oll your statements so i visit end here .

Answer 7

25,000 years ago the earth was fully formed with water life and everything. The bible does say that earth began less than 10,000 years ago. of course science has disputed this claim as more technology becomes readily available and more things are being discovered. Carbon-14 Dating can accurately date artifacts (with organic materials such as straw or bone in them) that are up to 60,000 years old. this puts in question that axiom that the earth started less than 10k yrs ago. How could 60k yr old things be on a 10k yr old earth? because the earth is billions of years old. we know how old the earth is because of radioactive dating. since radioactivity was discovered we have been able to date rocks that have really slow radioactive decay. the decay can take billions of years with half-lives up to 100 million years! the oldest rock found on earth was 3.75 billion years old

"The Earth's surface was originally molten, as it cooled the volcanoes belched out massive amounts of CARBON DIOXIDE, STEAM, AMMONIA and METHANE. There was NO OXYGEN. The STEAM condensed to form water which then produced shallow seas.

Evidence points to bacteria flourishing 3.8 billion years ago so this means that life got under way about 700 million years after the Earth was created. Such early forms of life existed in the shallow oceans close to thermal vents, these vents were a source of heat and minerals. "
i found this on the website below, thats where our water came from.
also H2O, a bond of two hydrogens and an oxygen. since both are relatively reactive they form a covalent bond. as i understand it, water isn't that hard to make.


basically, orbits start when a star is created (something to do with a bunch of gas imploding and hydrogen explosions or something. i am not clear on how stars are created) the gravity of the star pulls in all nearby bodies. since everything has gravity, the bodies around the star mass together, eventually imploding with the force of the gravity and all that pressure creates heat (hence the core) and makes the mass round. a least that is what i understand. i may be wrong. why don't you look up these questions your self?

Answer 8

" 1. This assumes that the rate of shrinkage is constant. That assumption is baseless. (In fact, it is the uniformitarian assumption that creationists themselves sometimes complain about.) Other stars expand and contract cyclically. Our own sun might do the same on a small scale.

2. There is not even any good evidence of shrinkage. The claim is based on a single report from 1980. Other measurements, from 1980 and later, do not show any significant shrinkage. It is likely that the original report showing shrinkage contained systematic errors due to different measuring techniquies over the decades. "

Answer 9

Your facts are so completely incorrect it's hard to know where to begin...
1) Sun was no bigger than it is now 25,000 years ago.
2) There has been water present on Earth since the beginning.
3) 25,000 years ago, there were human civilizations already going on.

Get an education, it can only empower you.

Answer 10

1) The sun is not shrinking at that rate.
2) Water was on earth 3 billion years ago.
3) I thought you guys didn't believe in anything beyond 6 000 years.

Answer 11

Well, even if you was to claim the evolutionary side of things couldn't Intelligent Design play a part in that as well. Even when you play back the computer simulations on how the Earth was created, I can still see how an Intelligent being could have a hand in it all. There are things on this earth that we still do not know about, and there are things on this earth that is still undiscovered. Even with all the knowledge of man we probably only know about 25% of what our own earth has to offer. We don't really know much about space. So to all the Evolutionary profits: Is it possible that in that 75% of the information that is unknown on earth that there is an Intelligent Creator responsible for life as we know it?