Path: csiph.com!fu-berlin.de!uni-berlin.de!individual.net!not-for-mail From: Robert Bannister Newsgroups: alt.astronomy,rec.arts.sf.written,sci.physics,sci.physics.relativity Subject: Re: Water may have been a part of our planet's history since the beginning. Date: Mon, 16 Nov 2015 14:16:27 +0800 Lines: 55 Message-ID: References: <5647998F.287C@ix.netcom.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Trace: individual.net 3nNvhLh7WAhRUggyaPcPoA82sHqYJORZmrzsCvW88+8HEoE4Nj Cancel-Lock: sha1:a+zzH3ZJeajAC5IUq08EGoCksLg= User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.11; rv:38.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/38.3.0 In-Reply-To: Xref: csiph.com alt.astronomy:279115 rec.arts.sf.written:426712 sci.physics:533456 sci.physics.relativity:370181 On 15/11/2015 1:32 PM, Dorothy J Heydt wrote: > In article , > Robert Bannister wrote: >> On 15/11/2015 4:29 AM, The Starmaker wrote: >>> http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/earths-water-old_56460271e4b08cda348867ea >>> >>> "An international team of scientists has found new evidence that >>> water may have been a fundamental part of Earth since its beginning >>> some 4.5 billion years ago." >>> >>> >>> "..water has been on Earth since its formation -- and new research >>> indicates they might be right." >>> >>> >>> >>> These science guys find themselves always going back to... >>> >>> >>> 'In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth. 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.' >>> >>> >>> Maybe they should be investigating where those words come from. >>> >> They were written by men with strange beliefs. Perhaps they'd been >> drinking too many spirits at night without water. > > Did they have any way of making spirits? Since they didn't have > *any* access to freeze-distillation, they would have had to > invent standard distillation with heat and a condenser, like > Martin Padway in the sixth century. Did they? > > G. K. Chesterton says somewhere that compared to the other > creation myths we find hanging about, with dragons to be slain > and giants to be dissected *before* the earth is created, Genesis > 1 sounds a lot more reasonable. Genesis does contain two somewhat conflicting versions of the same story. > > To say nothing of the not-standard Hindu creation myth in which > the earth is created out of butter churned out of a huge sea of > milk, and the Finnish one in which a sky goddess, being lonely, > falls into the sea, where she drifts around still beling lonely > for centuries until she lays some eggs which become the > continents. > I find the Big Bang Theory very little better. They're all OK until you start thinking "Who create Him?" or "What caused this to happen?" or "What was it like before?". -- Robert Bannister Perth, Western Australia