Evidence of Early Continents Washed Away

[Berzerker]

Not that early continents washed away (although the tides back then might have washed them away too if they did exist), the recent evidence suggesting (some) continents date back to at least 4.3 bya has turned to dust - diamond dust. Well, polishing grit.

They used a polishing grit with diamond to prepare the zircons for testing. This was supposedly evidence of early continents, not sure why. But where did these zircons come from? It seems they formed under water. And we have zircons dating back 4.4 bya that formed under water.

If our earliest "Earth" formed under water, does that support Gen 1:2?

And the earth was void and empty, and darkness was upon the face of the deep; and the spirit of God moved over the waters.

[Ban Kenobi]

So at least one verse out of 31 in the first chapter of Genesis may have been partially correct? Wow!

[Berzerker]

that one verse describes the world before life and land appeared

not bad for some know-nothings herding sheep in foothills overlooking a desert

[Aeson]

Removing this specific "evidence" for early continents doesn't do anything to prove Genesis. Certainly not when all the other evidence we have is that surface water came after the earth had formed (and after the Sun had formed), not before.

[Aeson]

Also, when you get to creating water before an atmosphere, you're either getting it backwards, or delving into "God is doing things without regard for physics and so our understanding of what happened has no bearing on any of this" territory.

[Berzerker]

God didn't create the water and "Earth" is the name God gave to the "dry land" that appeared when the water receded into "Seas", the proto-Earth in Gen 1:2 was covered by water and darkness and the dry land was not dry...yet

Genesis claims life and land appeared together, so does our science

[Dinner]

All this shows is that one rock thought to be evidence of the world's oldest rock isn't. There are still several at 4.3-4.2 billion and I'm sure more will be found. Each bit adds more to the puzzle and gives us a clearer picture. This is how science works.

[Berzerker]

its not just one rock, they've found a bunch of zircons and they all formed under water - the world had surface water dating back to when our earliest rocks were forming... That means it wasn't that hot 4.4 bya and the "Hadean" period needs to be renamed

[-Jrabbit]

With every post I read, the number of fvcks I give is reduced.

I am writing this post as a desperation, last resort attempt to show I care.

[Aeson]

God didn't create the water and "Earth" is the name God gave to the "dry land" that appeared when the water receded into "Seas", the proto-Earth in Gen 1:2 was covered by water and darkness and the dry land was not dry...yet

Genesis claims life and land appeared together, so does our science

"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."

So in the beginning, you had the earth (in it's formless, empty, ocean-covered form) created by God. So yes, God created the water, and "earth" is being used to describe the planet including the water. Otherwise Genesis would say something like, "in the beginning, there was a bunch of water .. and then God decided it needed something to cover."

Our science doesn't say life and land appeared together. It's more like life and surface water appeared within a relatively (on a cosmic scale) short period of time.

[Aeson]

If you want to maintain that "earth" simply means dry land, then dry land was in the beginning, and water came sometime later. Since it clearly states that in the beginning was heavens and the earth.

[Berzerker]

"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."

So in the beginning, you had the earth (in it's formless, empty, ocean-covered form) created by God. So yes, God created the water, and "earth" is being used to describe the planet including the water. Otherwise Genesis would say something like, "in the beginning, there was a bunch of water .. and then God decided it needed something to cover."

Our science doesn't say life and land appeared together. It's more like life and surface water appeared within a relatively (on a cosmic scale) short period of time.

If you want to maintain that "earth" simply means dry land, then dry land was in the beginning, and water came sometime later. Since it clearly states that in the beginning was heavens and the earth.

1 In the beginning of God's preparing the heavens and the earth -- 2 the earth hath existed waste and void, and darkness [is] on the face of the deep, and the Spirit of God fluttering on the face of the waters

Youngs Literal

God didn't create the Earth, he revealed it from under the waters. Now if God created the heavens and Earth in Gen 1:1, why do they both show up in the story after the 1st day? And Gen 1:2 does say water preceded creation, "the earth hath existed" describes it as submerged before God begins the process by which it - the dry land called Earth - was revealed. Life and surface water dont appear together, life shows up ~3.8 bya ago when the first continents begin forming. Surface water goes back to at least 4.3-4 bya.

[Aeson]

1 In the beginning of God's preparing the heavens and the earth -- 2 the earth hath existed waste and void, and darkness [is] on the face of the deep, and the Spirit of God fluttering on the face of the waters

Youngs Literal

Ok, so you want another story. That's fine. I was addressing the more commonly used story. Your's has a plenty of holes of course:

"And God maketh the expanse, and it separateth between the waters which [are] under the expanse, and the waters which [are] above the expanse: and it is so."

How do you have water before there is an atmosphere? Why does the sun come after the earth?

Life and surface water dont appear together, life shows up ~3.8 bya ago when the first continents begin forming. Surface water goes back to at least 4.3-4 bya.

As I said, relatively closely on a cosmic scale. (It's important to remember that when using these sorts of dating, the margins of error are often in the hundreds of millions of years.)

As for the first continents, you're assuming that there was a time when there was a world spanning ocean with no land. There is no compelling evidence that that was ever the case.

The zircons you are talking about aren't a settled issue either, there are competing hypothesis about under what circumstances they formed.

All of this to say, that no ... Genesis isn't proved by some "evidence" being shown to have been flawed. If you want to prove something, you have to find evidence that supports it ... not show that there is a lack of evidence supporting a competing claim.

[Elok]

Isn't the standard answer unbelievable! or something?

[Berzerker]

Ok, so you want another story. That's fine. I was addressing the more commonly used story. Your's has a plenty of holes of course:

"And God maketh the expanse, and it separateth between the waters which [are] under the expanse, and the waters which [are] above the expanse: and it is so."

How do you have water before there is an atmosphere? Why does the sun come after the earth?

The "expanse" was given a name - Heaven - not atmosphere. The Sun was already in existence, it only enters the story after the Earth was given a new "sky", before that the world was covered by water and darkness. That means either the Sun did not exist or it was further away. So where in our solar system would we find ample water and a darker world? The asteroid belt... And researchers are discovering water found in asteroids "matches" our water, which is why they're inventing theories to bring asteroids to the Earth (rather than bringing the Earth to the asteroids). The problem with those theories is the window for importing asteroids is getting smaller as our oceans get older.

As I said, relatively closely on a cosmic scale. (It's important to remember that when using these sorts of dating, the margins of error are often in the hundreds of millions of years.)

As for the first continents, you're assuming that there was a time when there was a world spanning ocean with no land. There is no compelling evidence that that was ever the case.

The zircons you are talking about aren't a settled issue either, there are competing hypothesis about under what circumstances they formed.

All of this to say, that no ... Genesis isn't proved by some "evidence" being shown to have been flawed. If you want to prove something, you have to find evidence that supports it ... not show that there is a lack of evidence supporting a competing claim.

The oldest "rock" we have formed in water, that is compelling evidence of water covering the planet. The continents began forming afterward, a collision or series of collisions ~4 bya sheered off much of the proto-Earth's thicker crust sending debris flying into the Moon leaving behind a fractured thinner crust allowing for the process of plate tectonics and continent building. The impactor(s) was laden with heavy elements adding to the Earth's heat.