Whilst the water covers that much area, its volume is very small compared with the planet.
A comet or several could easily amount to that.
A comet or several could easily amount to that.
Now is this by chance or design ?
- Thread starter gasbanni
- Start date
Sponsored Links
thats handy the comets must a done a right turn to miss all the other planets,that have no water,or seas. a sizable comet hitiing earth would have oblitarated this planet. most of the stuff the flys past is rock.
still alot of water in fact,if the ice completely melted in arctic,and south pole,it would cover this earth ,even to the highest mountain. handy having the arctic,and poles, very convenient.
even the the writer of Genesis knew the earth was covered in water,before land , what made him think there was water and no land,at the start.
still alot of water in fact,if the ice completely melted in arctic,and south pole,it would cover this earth ,even to the highest mountain. handy having the arctic,and poles, very convenient.
even the the writer of Genesis knew the earth was covered in water,before land , what made him think there was water and no land,at the start.
That shows some misunderstanding of how things are.
An equal number of comets would have hit all the others but their conditions are not conducive for liquid water to remain stable.
No it wouldn't. The Arctic would make no difference.
The earth is relatively smoother than a billiard ball.
How much water, by volume, do you think it would take to cover it to a proportional depth?
Google it.
Once upon a time...
Sponsored Links
I'll do it for you.
That looks considerably smaller than the asteroid which lead to the moon.
That looks considerably smaller than the asteroid which lead to the moon.
I'll do it for you.
That looks considerably smaller than the asteroid which lead to the moon.
Clearly done by "The Creator", EFL - "He" did a big blob of water, then thought "Nads! I need a bit more!" Hence, the little blob next to it.....
I'll do it for you.
That looks considerably smaller than the asteroid which lead to the moon.
Clearly done by "The Creator", EFL - "He" did a big blob of water, then thought "Nads! I need a bit more!" Hence, the little blob next to it.....
try and swim across the atlantic ocean,and get back to me,and tell me its a blob.
I'll do it for you.
That looks considerably smaller than the asteroid which lead to the moon.
Clearly done by "The Creator", EFL - "He" did a big blob of water, then thought "Nads! I need a bit more!" Hence, the little blob next to it.....
Well he could have used the toilet.
Dawkins is talking about the possiblity that alien life could have evolved elsewhere in the universe and planted seeds on earth as some sort of engineered experiment. He's discussing the possibility of it, but as there is no evidence to support it, it's clear that is not his belief.
D
Deleted member 63160
It's not obvious if your life is so empty you have to believe in a beardy man on a cloud
D
Deleted member 63160
I'll do it for you.
That looks considerably smaller than the asteroid which lead to the moon.
Clearly done by "The Creator", EFL - "He" did a big blob of water, then thought "Nads! I need a bit more!" Hence, the little blob next to it.....
try and swim across the atlantic ocean,and get back to me,and tell me its a blob.
Are you a) 10 years old or
b) a Jehovah's Witness??
There's always a little bit more.Clearly done by "The Creator", EFL - "He" did a big blob of water, then thought "Nads! I need a bit more!" Hence, the little blob next to it.....
You're quote mining. Even a creationist site has the honesty to show the interview in its immediate context.Looking forward to the evidence for this one.You mean dawkins?
Guess what? He believes in a creator and has admitted this in interviews.
If you had researched him properly you would already know this.
"And I suppose its possible that you might find evidence for that if you look at the details of bio chemistry at molecular level in biology eh um.. you might find a signature of some sort of designer.
And that designer could well be a higher intelligence from else where in the universe"
Prof Richard Dawkins.
Those are dawkins own words in an interview.
So he believes in a supreme creator above all else.
Nuff said.
He does not believe in a creator, he was giving a hypothetical idea of how life could have happened:
https://www.c4id.org.uk/index.php?o...s-intelligent-design&catid=1:latest&Itemid=28
Even this is probably taking his words out of context, as creationists are notorious for twisting words, and bending truths (or just making stuff up).
He was giving a hypothetical idea of how an alien species could have created life on Earth, but there is no evidence for such an idea, so he does not actually believe that. He never 'endorsed' ID by Aliens he was merely pointing to the illogical creationist argument that further begs the question "who created the creator?"
You'll have to do better than that I'm afraid.
Creator is Conscious, an intelligent form of energy, way beyond our comprehension, which is responsible for the manifiestaion of matter into being and giving birth to conscious life, starting with a higher form and then into smaller and simpler forms through evolution as opposed to the otherway around, where todays evolutionist believe that all life form started from a single cell amoeba. But according to ancient Vedan or Vedic Culture, life was brought into play on purpose, Vedic culture predates all other cultures, historians cannot agree conclusively as to how old that culture existed before our present Christianity.
If you might care check this Youtube video on anchient Vedan thinking .
Link coming up shortly: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hEca1MiE4GA
If you might care check this Youtube video on anchient Vedan thinking .
Link coming up shortly: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hEca1MiE4GA
Sponsored Links