What came first?

Most everyone is familiar with the story depicted in Genesis about the formation of the universe (specifically the Earth)... so my question is this: According to the Big Bang Theory, what came first, the water or the land?

 

the land

 

Are you basing that conclusion on any set of data or is it just a matter of your personal preference?

 

"Land" as we know it is a combination of finely ground silicon dioxide, mixed with organic matter, and powdered shale.

So you cannot say "land" came "first" because it would have taken millions of years of volcanic and tectonic activity to create "land."

"Water" comes from comets. How they were formed is independent of "land."

So you are mixing apples with oranges.

Really dumb.

And stupid.

 

You took his bait. Funny haha.

 

What bait are you talking about?

 

The Genesis creation myth envisioned primordial waters. God created light and then separated it from the darkness (they didn't seem to connect the sun with day, oddly enough), created the "firmament," a solid domed structure, to get the waters out, causing the dry land to appear. He proceeded to create the first life, create the "lights" in the firmament, including the sun to "rule over the day" and the moon to "rule over the night." And so on.

In the Big Bang theory, though, earth formed from a cloud of heavy elements that had been ejected from the universe's first stars (gargantuan mofos made up of the first, light elements that were created during the Big Bang itself) going supernova. Water would have condensed and/or thawed on the earth after it had coalesced and then cooled sufficiently. Water existed prior to the earth's formation, however, which is not surprising given that it is a compound of hydrogen and oxygen, something that didn't need the earth to be created. It simply ended up on the new earth during and after its formation, et voila, here we are.

 

That is indeed an interesting rendition of what might have happened. When considering that no-one really knows (ya know... no eye witnesses available) then I suppose that story could be as acceptable as any other story including the Genesis story... One imagination putting forth the description that was formed in his mind and comparing it with another rendition.

I am sure that there are others out there who would also like to add their rendition. Go ahead and give it a shot.

 

Those two renditions are based on very different sets of knowledge.

I'm sure you think a 2,000+ year old creation fable is just as credible today as a scientific theory That seems to be what you're getting at.

 

Water comes from comets. Read.

 

What's stupid is to believe in magic water bearing comets. They must bring snow and blizzards as well.

 

Only in an alternate universe.

 

He thinks reading his granny's old Bible will give him an understanding of astrophysics.

By the way, 2000 years ago in case you don't know where 2012 comes from, Jesus was walking the Earth.

There were 1400 years or more of pre-Christian Jewish history before that.

I know your familiarity of ancient history before Christ is weak. So you should read about ancient Egypt.

The Jews (before they were called Jews) came out of Babylon around 1900 BC. From what Moses tells us, they started out as a group of only 70 souls.

Moses left Egypt around 1450 BC.

If you do the math, the Bible is 3450+ years old, not just 2000.

 

Youre smoking LSD again huh?

 

wow Jews came out of Babylon before Babylon was even built !!!!!111

 

Have you seen any water comets lately?

 

Based on the absolute definitions (in their entirety) of 'knowledge', I will concur with your statement above.

Ahhh... it seems that you are up to your old self as usual... making presumptions and setting expectations based on probabilities. That is where you are wrong (as usual)... making such presumptions.

What I was getting at is simply this. I have read quite a bit during the past few months regarding the Big Bang, but in all of that reading I never saw anyone writing about what came first. In all of that reading, I have not seen anyone provide any irrefutable proof that the Big Bang is anything more than another scientific theory. I was sincerely hoping that someone on this forum could provide more genuine insight into the subject matter, but so far, all it has been is just a rewrite of some of the other websites dealing with this subject matter.

FYI: presumptions can be fatal if taken seriously.

 

h20

just like man came first; to make the god you worship! ie.... the incorporeal beliefs

 

cute

accreation before volcano

beeeep

wrong

H and O are both raining on the earth, all day and night long (solar wind)

 

Amazing that you don't show any references where you obtained your theoretical numbers from. Perhaps you should have read your grannies old bible a little closer. As for my studies.... Do you know me? No? Then you speak about me through ignorance of that subject matter.

 

Hydrogen is the most common element in the universe, Oxygen is the 3nd most common and both of them are highly reactive (2h is Helium that if i recall correctly doesn't mixes at all ) so yeah water abundant and it plays a big role in the creation of stars , stars give birth to rock forming materials like Silica during their lifetime and spread them around when they go boom.

 

So which came first... the water or the land?

 

Water of course , i think it was obvious

 

I'm not sure that's really a meaningful question. The Big Bang Theory focuses on the very beginnings of the universe, dealing in general terms with mass and energy. The concepts "land" (certainly) and "water" (probably) aren't really relevant in that context.

The formation of planets is somewhat separate, with their own hypotheses and theories. I suspect all of those do involve the formation of a solid planet prior to the presence of liquid water, though water in the form of ice can and does exist independently of actual planets. H2O almost certainly formed long before any planets did but whether that meets your criteria for "water" in this context only you can say.

Of course, it could be argued that "land" only exists in the context of "water" and a planet with no liquid at all can't be said to have land either.

 

and if you freeze it first, you too, can 'walk on water' (h20)



i bet you dont get that from an incorporeal belief: the truth