- 24,976
- 26,824
Oh wow. That was underwhelming
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
I have no evidence, but It would still make more sense than scorching. Also, you saying that it may just be the upper layer is a huge assumption, considering he just said surface, not upper layer.Yes, that's what I said. I also said surface might not refer to literally the entire crust. It can be used in the context of upper layer, or the above surface portion that civilization sits on.
Plus, you've basically admitted you have no real evidence with that last part.
Thats also a huge assumption.I meant upper layer (as in crust), or the civilization layer (even more commonly referred to as "surface" than the crust layer) as an alternative.
The definition of surface is the uppermost layer of something. Boros said, "...wipe you out together with this planet's surface." If hes talking about the planet's surface (uppermost layer), he would obviously be talking about the crust, which includes the oceanic crust. As we know, water can't get burned. We cant use scorching for CSRC.@Kacho So is assuming that the entire crust will be blown away. They don't actually say the crust, just the surface.
Like Tetsu said, theres no way he didn't know or see oceans when arriving at earth. He would know how to get to the continental and oceanic crusts.@Kachon123 How do we know that when he's says planet surface, he's taking into a account the oceanic crust? Afaik, most exoplanets don't have an ocean of liquid
Isn't that what we're arguing as well? What are you proposing exactly?Plus, even if we discard the whole, "crust, or no crusts" arguments, Oceans are part of the earth's surface, and you can't "wipe out" oceans by scorching, so scorching is still out of the window.