Question for our resident creationist(s)

[Creed of Heresy]

Look... I appreciate your time and energy spent writing all this down for me.

*sighs explosively* Given what follows, I don't believe you at all.

But, the fact remains that its all theory.

Yes. It is. I already know what. We all already know that. I also know that you're about to try to say "it's only a theory" as if the word theory somehow means it's not true. To quote the Oxford Dictionary:

a supposition or a system of ideas intended to explain something, especially one based on general principles independent of the thing to be explained.

Basically, "only a theory" is the same as saying "only a fact."

And I should've clarified earlier that I meant the miracle is that water is here on earth in abundance. Not that it exsists at all.

It doesn't clarify anything, because, as has been stated before, hydrogen is the most common element in the universe. The fact it's in such large quantities throughout our solar system is evidence of this already. Take a gander at a comet or two; they're basically giant balls of frozen water zipping around through space. The earth is billions of years old (4.54 to be exact-ish). Even if hydrogen hadn't accrued in large quantities during its earliest stages of formation in the nebulae, the inevitable impact of comets (of which there are quite a few zipping around the solar system) would have seeded even more water on our proto-planet, which was quite hot and would have melted the hydrogen in its ice form and produced steam that would have been caught by our planet's gravity well...which is how it would have happened if hydrogen was part of the matter accretion to begin with.

But, the frustration of trying to prove a point that is based on theory is the point I'm making here.

*sighs, pinches bridge of nose* See, this is why you should've spent less time at the altar, and more time paying attention in science class... What you basically just said to me (and I get that you really don't know this) was "The frustration of trying to prove a point based on the proven explanation of something proven to happen is the point I'm trying to make." In other words, you are finally speaking a bit of fact: Yes it IS very frustrating trying to explain how something is fact by using explanations that have since proven it's a fact to someone who clearly doesn't know the meaning of FACT!

I really don't give a rats posterior about theory until its law! Its fun to watch but could blow-up in your face at any moment.

LESS TIME. THE ALTAR. MORE TIME. SCIENCE CLASS. Theories do not become laws, EVER, because laws are the what, and theories are the why. An explanation of HOW things work does NOT become an explanation of "WHAT" those things are. What sense would that make??

Until then, you are in my position of arguing observations by men, and your passion about [believing] it true.

Since I just tore about your position, this holds no weight.

I'll take the atheists platform here: "There isn't enough evidence to convince me." When you can prove your point(s) beyond a shadow of a doubt, I'll believe you, and the scientific community."

THAT'S WHAT A THEORY DOES!!

But, this is just stuff written in books based on: observation, hypothosis, and theory. It NOT LAW... Yet. And no amount of you screaming and swearing at me will change that fact. Or prove your theory personally!

Sound familiar?

Bolding is mine: It never will be, as stated before. I don't need to prove my theory; it's already been rigorously proven by hundreds if not thousands of controlled experiments, studies, observations, and tests to prove it over and over again. And yes, it DOES sound familiar; I hear it from the mouth of every scientifically illiterate person I come across, and never from the mouth of anyone who is educated to any basic extent in scientific procedure.