If the streets are wet, it has rained recently. (premise) The streets are wet. (premise) Therefore, it has rained recently. (conclusion) This argument is logically valid. But its premises are not always true. The first premise can be false – someone could have hosed down the streets, a street cleaner could have passed, the local river could have flooded, and so on. A simple logical analysis will not reveal the error in this argument, since that analysis assumes that all the argument's premises are true. For this reason, an argument based on false premises can be much more difficult to refute, or even discuss, than one featuring a normal logical error, as the truth of its premises must be established to the satisfaction of all parties.
Wrong. The "streets are wet" is an observation only. Water made the street wet is a solid premise. God made the street wet is an invalid premise.
Raspy - now, apply the kicker evidence - reveal that the wet stuff in the street is not only water - it is very real and very heavy water, as proven by the chemical test determining that it is Deuterium.
