Early Earth Was Flat and Ocean-Covered, Secular Scientists Claim
No mountains, covered with water — does that sound vaguely familiar?
For a world that, to secular scientists, was born in a fury of collisions and volcanoes, the announcement by New Scientist must sound very strange: “Early Earth was covered in a global ocean and had no mountains.” It was a flat earth: not like a pancake, but like a sphere with very little relief, covered by water. Astrobiology Magazine puts its headline this way: “Earth was barren, flat and almost entirely under water 4.4 billion years ago.” According to Australian scientists who pored over zircons from the world’s oldest rocks,
“Our research indicates there were no mountains and continental collisions during Earth’s first 700 million years or more of existence – it was a much more quiet and dull place.
“Our findings also showed that there are strong similarities with zircon from the types of rocks that predominated for the following 1.5 billion years, suggesting that it took the Earth a long time to evolve into the planet that we know today.”
It’s interesting that the book of Genesis begins with a watery sphere, but not billions of years ago. And it took only a day for God’s activity to raise the first dry land and mountains above the waters.
I’ve been really, really disturbed by the problem of making terrestrial planets.
To believe the secular counterpart, it would seem the scientists need to account for how plate tectonics began hundreds of millions of years later. And the two articles say nothing about where all this water came from. That’s been a long-standing challenge for secular theories.
To address another conundrum for secularists, the “faint young sun paradox,” New Scientist in another article suggests that “Earth may have been born in a huge flare-up of the young sun.” Well, anything may be true; where’s the evidence? Alexander Hubbard saw a star with a flare-up and speculated about what would happen if our sun did that. The problem with ad-hoc scenarios is that they invoke lucky accidents instead of natural laws. Another problem is that one ad-hoc element usually leads to more.
If you thought planet-making was easy, look what reporter Ken Croswell says:
It’s not easy to make Earth. Most of the explanations for how our planet formed have troubling problems. But if a new idea is right, we can thank a hyperactive young sun for Earth’s existence, plus solve a long-standing mystery about Mars.
According to standard lore, the planet-building process began when dust particles orbiting the newborn sun stuck together, forming rocks that built still larger objects.
But this story is in trouble. “I’ve been really, really disturbed by the problem of making terrestrial planets,” says Alexander Hubbard at the American Museum of Natural History in New York.
Another scientist quoted in the article concurs with the difficulties facing secular planet theories:
“It’s an interesting idea,” says Andrew Youdin at the University of Arizona, noting the difficulty of explaining terrestrial planet formation. “There’s clearly a major problem here, and so all ideas need to be looked at.”
All ideas, that is, except the ideas in Genesis 1.
Folks, isn’t an eyewitness account superior to a bunch of ad hoc, made-up, speculative scenarios loaded with problems? Do Bible skeptics really think they are on firmer ground here? They keep changing their theories, not converging on Truth, but engaging in a drunken sailor’s walk that changes every year or decade. Who needs storytellers when you have a Creator? We know the storytellers cannot possibly be right, because they think their own minds evolved from lower animals. They’re only saying these dumb stories to pass on their genes. To make us take them seriously, they would first have to deny Darwinism and believe in God. If they took the next logical step and became Bible believers, they would be building on the rock instead of on the quicksand of monkey convictions.