3777
Comments (322)
sorted by:
You're viewing a single comment thread. View all comments, or full comment thread.
-12
buckfoomers -12 points ago +5 / -17

Are you trying to fuck with me? I honestly can't tell with a lot of the retardation around religious types.

2
light151 2 points ago +3 / -1

Not retarded, certainly plausible that early earth had a different atmospheric composition that did not have the water cycle as we know it to be now. Certainly also plausible that water came from space in the form of ice and entering the atmosphere caused floods. Also plausible that there was in fact an array of ice orbiting a primordial earth and that water under the earth could rise up to irrigate land. Lots we don't know so chill.

-5
buckfoomers -5 points ago +3 / -8

No, it's retarded. Atmospheric composition wouldn't affect the water cycle. We don't have any evidence of a meteor storm causing a global flood, and the sheer amount of energy of meteors doing that in any reasonable time scale would release would fucking vaporize anything long before it flooded. And water certainly can't just fucking rise out of the ground, it's retarded.

-1
light151 -1 points ago +1 / -2

These are scientific debates that are not settled. Here is one such question of many that can result in different interpretations of what exactly the early earth was like. Also the flow of time itself may depend on a function of the distance matter has traveled from the origin point of the big bang etc.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Faint_young_Sun_paradox