Photo:Relax, you’re soaking in it!* (see footnote)
Not too long ago in one of those stump the Christian moments, someone asked me how Noah found penquins in Palestine. I pointed out that penquins aren’t strictly Arctic as you might suppose; for example, I told him, today there are penquins living on the beaches of South Africa.
Last month I had a similar discussion with Cliff Paiva, Frank Sherwin of ICR and Major Joseph F.R., currently in Iraq (stay safe!) concerning the possible water canopy above the earth pre-flood and possible sources for all that water re the Genesis flood (another stump the Christian favorite). The Major and I were kicking around some ideas related to a pre-flood canopy as a potential source of the quantity of water needed to cover the earth to a depth of more than 20 feet over the highest mountains.
Cliff Paiva as usual succinctly put the entire issue in perspective;
Since 330 million cubic miles of ocean covers nearly 75% of this planet…I often wonder why folks keep asking “…where has all the water gone…long time passing…where has all the water gone….a long, long time ago….?”.
Seriously, its time folks use common sense when talking about a planet which is today nearly 75% under water, and whose crust is completely fractured, with millions of hydrothermal vents pouring out yet even more water!
Photo:Right, Penquins on the beach at Capetown, South Africa
One of the reasons that this conversation came to mind is that last week NASA crashed a rocket into the moon in search of water. One of the reasons secular science is so desperate to find water on the moon, on mars or wherever it can in the universe is because as far as we know, liquid water does not exist anywhere else but here on earth.
The abundance of water here is neccessary for life and its presence is another brick in the Anthropic Priniciple wall–the scientific evidence that this planet, this solar system and this universe were specifically created for life. Secular, materialist science would like to prove that water here on this planet is not such a great anomaly.
Scientists readily admit that they don’t know where the water came from and there are several competing naturalistic explanations. (Christians know that the source of water on earth is God as explained beginning in the second verse of Genesis 1.) What is the number one accepted theory as to the origin of all the water here on earth?
Well, what is the dumbest idea that you can think of? Nope, its dumber than that!
The current leading theory is that the water on earth came primarily from the collision of “water rich” asteroids from the outer asteroid belt with the earth. Naturalistic explanations for the origin of water on this planet-are all wet.
â€śAn evolutionist friend of mine once told me that the best evidence for the [creation model] he knew was that any land existed at all on the earth. If our planet had spun down from a gas cloud, he said, the outer layers would consist of basaltic ocean crust, covered by a concentric layer of granite, the whole thing covered by over two miles (3 km) of water! He said it looked as if â€śsomeone with big handsâ€ť (the closest he could come to saying â€śGodâ€ť) took the granite and shoved it up into a pile to form the dry land. Then he added that the â€śguy with big handsâ€ť was also smart enough to thin the basalt under the granite piles to maintain the earth in gravitational balance (isostasy) so it wouldnâ€™t fracture as it rotated.â€ť Creation: Facts of Life (2006) Master Books, p. 224
Frank Sherwin of ICR Frank Sherwin is a staff scientist, speaker, and prolific author for the Institute for Creation Research in San Diego. He is also the author of The Ocean Book, for which he received the San Diego Christian Writers Guild Award for Excellence in Educational Writing. His youtube video Oceans, Creation and the Genesis Flood can be found here.
* This phrase was popularized by a television commercial campaign for Palmolive dish washing detergent. Madge, a manicurist, would comment on the dry, rough appearance of her client’s skin as she worked on one hand while the other soaked in a bowl of light green liquid. The client would ask her advice; Madge would recommend Palmolive; the client would act surprised (after all, how could a dish washing detergent affect one’s skin? Preposterous.). Then Madge would inform the client about the liquid in the bowl: “Relax, “you’re soaking in it,” she’d say, in a very matter-of-fact tone. The shocked client would immediately remove her hand from the bowl, and Madge would guide it back down, assuring her that everything was fine: “Palmolive softens hands as you do dishes.”
The ad campaign was created by the Ted Bates Ad Agency in 1966 and ran into the early ’90s.
Modern usage of the phrase occurs in situations similar to the well-intentioned ruse pulled off by Madge: someone is not aware of a situation or state, comments about it, and is told, “You’re soaking in it.” Example: a newbie might show up in the Chatterbox and ask, “hey, where’s this chatterbox thing I’ve heard about?” Answer: “you’re soaking in it.”…Everything2.com