[__ Science __ ] Man was in Pangaea

[Barbarian]

Oh and by the way, looking at your wiki link I see this
As observed above, an entrenched river can be caused by either tectonic uplift in the area or when the lowering of the sea level occurs. It can also be caused by increased level of downcutting or a collapse of moraine-dammed lake downstream

That would work exactly as if the land was uplifted. Lowering the outlet effectively raises the river bed upstream. But since the Colorado Plateau is uplifted, we know why those ancient canyons were formed over millions of years.

 

[daddd]

All meandering rivers are old rivers. Deep meandering canyons are always the result of old, uplifted rivers.

No. It depends on how we define 'old'. It also depends on when the uplift happened. If there was some sort of post flood glacier lake water release...etc etc. You do not get to simply declare stuff.

Actually, it does. As you learned, if it happened rapidly, the heat would have been sufficient to boil the seas.

As discussed, only if our current laws existed. We don't know. One also might ask how long the separation in Peleg's day took. What if it took, for example, 200 years? Would that still steam all life? What if it took a few days but the laws were not the same? Etc. We don't know. What we do know is that it was together at one time.

You merely assumed that it went faster in the past because reality won't support your new doctrines.

No. I look at the record God gave us to see what timings could possibly exist. Since you list as a christian one wonders why you would not do the same?

So to deal with the heat problem, you invented a new miracle to cover your error.

No. It is no miracle that science doesn't know. That is not my error. I deduce from the actual facts and the actual record of God.

So what science can you post that deals with any of this? (since you seem to think it should know)

 

[daddd]

That would work exactly as if the land was uplifted. Lowering the outlet effectively raises the river bed upstream. But since the Colorado Plateau is uplifted, we know why those ancient canyons were formed over millions of years.

Or that they were uplifted AFTER the big post flood glacier lake dump or whatever? You do not get a monopoly on speculation.

 

[Barbarian]

That would work exactly as if the land was uplifted. Lowering the outlet effectively raises the river bed upstream. But since the Colorado Plateau is uplifted, we know why those ancient canyons were formed over millions of years.

Or that they were uplifted AFTER the big post flood glacier lake dump or whatever?

Nope. We know what that would look like. The Washington Scablands are the result of such a flood.

You do not get a monopoly on speculation.

So far, that's your monopoly. Get some facts and you won't have to depend on your speculations.

 

[Barbarian]

All meandering rivers are old rivers. Deep meandering canyons are always the result of old, uplifted rivers.

No. It depends on how we define 'old'. It also depends on when the uplift happened. If there was some sort of post flood glacier lake water release...etc etc. You do not get to simply declare stuff.

See above. You have nothing but declarations. But the facts don't support your imagination.

As discussed, only if our current laws existed.

So you imagine that physical laws were different at one time. But if you get to call in a non-scriptural miracle to cover up flaws in all your new doctrines, then any story is equally believable.

One also might ask how long the separation in Peleg's day took. What if it took, for example, 200 years? Would that still steam all life?

Yes. The force needed to start and then stop your idea of galloping continents would still be released as heat and would boil the oceans. The oceans are only a few kilometers deep, but the continents are much more massive, and would release huge amounts of heat. And that's just the beginning. The continents move only by pushing over oceanic crust, being pushed by new crust being formed from mid-oceanic ridges. That heat would also add to the effect. There just isn't any way to escape this, unless you have a magic wand to create one miracle after another. Why not just accept it as it is? That would be consistent with God's word, unlike your new doctrines.

No. I look at the record God gave us to see what timings could possibly exist.

You're just adding to His word to make it more acceptable to you. Since you list as a christian one wonders why you would want to do that.

To deal with the heat problem, you invented a new miracle to cover your error.

I deduce from the actual facts and the actual record of God.

One does not deduce from facts. Inferences from facts is inductive, not deductive. And since the actual record of God does not support your new revision of His word, neither the facts nor scripture support you.

 

[dwb001]

And since the actual record of God does not support your new revision of His word, neither the facts nor scripture support you.

But Scripture directly refutes your position.
Or what Biblical sources do you have for an old Earth?

 

[daddd]

That would work exactly as if the land was uplifted. Lowering the outlet effectively raises the river bed upstream. But since the Colorado Plateau is uplifted, we know why those ancient canyons were formed over millions of years.

Since uplift exist it has to be millions of years old? Proof? Let's just cut to the chase and you post your faith based dream dates here.

Nope. We know what that would look like. The Washington Scablands are the result of such a flood.

Says who? We do not know that it was a flood that cut through the grand canyon for sure do we? How would you know what that flood was like and then claim it was like some other area with some other high water issues? Was the area you picture cut with water from a huge post flood glacier suddenly released? If not, then why claim it is the same?? Stick to what you know.

 

[daddd]

All meandering rivers are old rivers.

How old?

Deep meandering canyons are always the result of old, uplifted rivers.

So? Would there no be uplift in a rapid continental move?

So you imagine that physical laws were different at one time.

No. Nor do I imagine they were the same. I deduce from the record of the past that they were different. Science has no clue either way.

But if you get to call in a non-scriptural miracle to cover up flaws in all your new doctrines, then any story is equally believable.

If you omit God and creation and the record of life in the past, then your doctrines are delusional.

Yes. The force needed to start and then stop your idea of galloping continents would still be released as heat and would boil the oceans.

Says who? What if God sped up the rotation or orbit of earth? Any change in that sort of thing might cause fractured plates or pillars of the earth to shift. No? How would we know what mechanism God used? We do not even know the laws that existed then either. So what are your claims based on exactly? So far it looks like absolute blind faith in some unknown and imagined sameness in the world that was.

The oceans are only a few kilometers deep, but the continents are much more massive, and would release huge amounts of heat.

? Under what scenario? How fast could they move in your scenario without producing deadly heat? If the continents for example took a few centuries to relocate, what then? We cannot assume the same laws or almost anything you try to slide in there.

And that's just the beginning. The continents move only by pushing over oceanic crust, being pushed by new crust being formed from mid-oceanic ridges.

Who cares how the continents now move? The question is how did they move? That idea about the mid ocean ridge being the cause of all the spreading is of course bad religion. Total conjecture. You do realize that? Yes we NOW see some small slow residual movement from there. The rest is made up speculation based on nothing at all but faith and faith alone.

That heat would also add to the effect.

What heat? You would need to know the exact speed it moved and the laws in place at the time! You don't.

Why not just accept it as it is? That would be consistent with God's word, unlike your new doctrines.

Why accept baseless pagan fantasy? The record of God is not a new doctrine.

You're just adding to His word to make it more acceptable to you.

I add nothing to the bible. I simply try to believe and accept it and adjust other things accordingly. Belief is not adding.

To deal with the heat problem, you invented a new miracle to cover your error.

You invented a heat problem that you think needs dealing with! You have no facts such as the actual speed of separation in the far past, or the knowledge of what laws even existed! That means you have nothing.

One does not deduce from facts. Inferences from facts is inductive, not deductive.

That all depends on how we define facts. I consider God and His word facts.

And since the actual record of God does not support your new revision of His word, neither the facts nor scripture support you.

The bible does say the earth was split in the days of Peleg. It does say men got scattered. Why pretend it doesn't?

 

[Barbarian]

But Scripture directly refutes your position.

Nope. If you get to call in a non-scriptural miracle to cover up flaws in all your new doctrines, then any story is equally believable.

If you omit God and creation and the record of life in the past, then your doctrines are delusional.

I'm not saying you intend to omit God and creation; I'm just pointing out that you are contradicting them.

Says who? What if God sped up the rotation or orbit of earth? Any change in that sort of thing might cause fractured plates or pillars of the earth to shift. No?

All that would produce a great deal of heat, which, as you now see, would boil the oceans. Instead of adding all that stuff to scriptures, why not just find a way to accept it as it is?

That all depends on how we define facts.

No. Facts are what they are. Your attempt to redefine scripture is and example of what happens when you think you can redefine reality.

 

[Barbarian]

But Scripture directly refutes your position.

No. It refutes a YE belief because the text itself makes clear that the "days" of Genesis are not literal time periods.

Or what Biblical sources do you have for an old Earth?

The Bible doesn't say how old the Earth is. Even creationists have widely differing ideas how old it is, from billions of years to a few thousand. If the Bible gave any evidence for the age of the Earth, most Christians would agree on that. But they don't.

 

[dwb001]

Nope. If you get to call in a non-scriptural miracle to cover up flaws in all your new doctrines, then any story is equally believable.

So when it comes to a question between God's word and science... it sounds like you choose science(what scientist say... not what science proves).

 

[dwb001]

No. It refutes a YE belief because the text itself makes clear that the "days" of Genesis are not literal time periods.

Show your proof that day does not mean day? Evening and morning don't indicate morning and evening?

The Bible doesn't say how old the Earth is. Even creationists have widely differing ideas how old it is, from billions of years to a few thousand. If the Bible gave any evidence for the age of the Earth, most Christians would agree on that. But they don't.

See how good a job the devil has done to deceive the Church.

 

[daddd]

Nope. If you get to call in a non-scriptural miracle to cover up flaws in all your new doctrines, then any story is equally believable.

I see no flaw in Genesis and the story of Babel. Scripture does describe life back then and it is different. Really. There is no science to contest that. There is also no reason not to include the split of the earth in the account of Peleg.

I'm not saying you intend to omit God and creation; I'm just pointing out that you are contradicting them.

Having the earth split as God said it did is anything but contradicting God. It is called belief. Try is sometime.

All that would produce a great deal of heat, which, as you now see, would boil the oceans.

So you can provide no staistics on what heat would be produced in moves of various times, such as the example of a move lasting a few hundred years. OK. Just be honest.

Your attempt to redefine scripture is and example of what happens when you think you can redefine reality.

The people of the world actually did come from the east for some reason according to the bible, and came to where Babel was built. Why? Who knows? There must have been a good reason. Peleg really did live and the world did split in his days the bible says. It is no use pretending otherwise.

As discussed with another poster, one possible reason most of humanity would move from one area to another could be some sort of natural event that affected them. That fits this scenario very well. Perhaps people started to see the dividing happen, maybe one area where they were was moving apart or something. That fits not only because something had to cause a large population to up and leave, but that their stated fear was that unless they did something they would be scattered all around! Instead, they decided to build a city and tower.

4 And they said, Go to, let us build us a city and a tower, whose top may reach unto heaven; and let us make us a name, lest we be scattered abroad upon the face of the whole earth.

I used to wonder what they meant by that. Why would they be scattered if they stayed where they were before coming to Babel?

 

[daddd]

The Bible doesn't say how old the Earth is. Even creationists have widely differing ideas how old it is, from billions of years to a few thousand. If the Bible gave any evidence for the age of the Earth, most Christians would agree on that. But they don't.

Jewish tradition says Noah and Abraham (and Peleg) were contemporaries. So unless you question when Abraham lived I guess your point is mooted something fierce.

 

[Mosheli]

Genesis 1 does seem to imply that there was one landmass then. Science has found evidence that the continents were once one landmass (Pangaea). So from these two evidences we would assume that the continents split up some time between Genesis 1 and the Bronze Age.

The animals and plants and humans might have been able to spread over the earth via land-bridges or boats, so this doesn't necessarily prove the continents were divided in the days of Peleg (Genesis 10/11). Though it depends on the climate latitudes at the time (since some species might not be able to survive cold/heat).

We do know that rates/speeds/laws have not been uniformitarian throughout all world history.
There are a number of evidences that the Andes were pushed/pulled up higher suddenly and quickly within the lifetime of ancient humans, as opposed to slow rising over millenia.

Some creationists believe the continents split up during the Flood as perhaps implied by the fountains of the great deep breaking up. We also know that the ice age(s) come after warming from below. So these might answer the contention that fast continental shift would cause heat and boiling seas?

Re no human bones found in Americas and Antarctica. The book Forbidden Archaeology by Cremo & Thompson gives alot of evidences of finds of human artifacts etc in all periods of the geological time scale. (These are shelved by mainstream geologists because they don't fit their evolutionary scheme.) Human bones were also found underneath dinosaur bones in South America (see Timeless Earth by Peter Kolosimo). Human foot prints found beside dinosaur foot prints.


What is the Hebrew word for "earth" in the Peleg verse?

 

[daddd]

Genesis 1 does seem to imply that there was one landmass then. Science has found evidence that the continents were once one landmass (Pangaea)

Says who? It does not imply there were several continents! After all the people came to build the tower on foot. Not by boat!

. So from these two evidences we would assume that the continents split up some time between Genesis 1 and the Bronze Age.

Not really. There are records from the bronze age.

"The Bronze Age is a historic period, lasting approximately from 3300 BC to 1200 BC" If continents were dancing all over the earth in the days of Pharaohs we would know. The same is true for the days of the prophets in the bible and King David. So the bronze age is not a player here.

The animals and plants and humans might have been able to spread over the earth via land-bridges or boats, so this doesn't necessarily prove the continents were divided in the days of Peleg (Genesis 10/11). Though it depends on the climate latitudes at the time (since some species might not be able to survive cold/heat).

It is a weak theory that we floated on debris or plants to other continents actually. It is not a simple explanation.

We do know that rates/speeds/laws have not been uniformitarian throughout all world history.
There are a number of evidences that the Andes were pushed/pulled up higher suddenly and quickly within the lifetime of ancient humans, as opposed to slow rising over millenia.

Interesting I never heard that one.

Some creationists believe the continents split up during the Flood as perhaps implied by the fountains of the great deep breaking up. We also know that the ice age(s) come after warming from below. So these might answer the contention that fast continental shift would cause heat and boiling seas?

If that were true then why were most people still near the place the ark landed and were able to walk to where Babel was built?

Re no human bones found in Americas and Antarctica. The book Forbidden Archaeology by Cremo & Thompson gives alot of evidences of finds of human artifacts etc in all periods of the geological time scale. (These are shelved by mainstream geologists because they don't fit their evolutionary scheme.) Human bones were also found underneath dinosaur bones in South America (see Timeless Earth by Peter Kolosimo). Human foot prints found beside dinosaur foot prints.

I don't question all that but it is an exception and not something experts find often and some might question whether they really were found. A better and simpler explanation is that man could not leave remains to be fossilized in the former time. That way we expect no human remains from that time and that fits perfectly with evidence.

What is the Hebrew word for "earth" in the Peleg verse?

Brown-Driver-Briggs'
1) land, earth
1a) earth
1a1) whole earth (as opposed to a part)
1a2) earth (as opposed to heaven)
1a3) earth (inhabitants)
1b) land
1b1) country, territory
1b2) district, region
1b3) tribal territory
1b4) piece of ground
1b5) land of Canaan, Israel
1b6) inhabitants of land
1b7) Sheol, land without return, (under) world
1b8) city (-state)
1c) ground, surface of the earth
1c1) ground
1c2) soil
1d) (in phrases)
1d1) people of the land
1d2) space or distance of country (in measurements of distance)
1d3) level or plain country
1d4) land of the living
1d5) end(s) of the earth
1e) (almost wholly late in usage)
1e1) lands, countries
1e1a) often in contrast to Canaan

Interlinear Search for 'Genesis 10:25' - NAS with the BHS and NA26 - StudyLight.org

Interliner Search for 'Genesis 10:25' within 'New American Standard Version' with the 'Biblia Hebrica Stuttgartensia (1967/77)' and 'Nestle-Aland 26' on StudyLight.org

www.studylight.org

If you want context it is the same word used in the first verse in the bible. That is talking about planet earth.
Genesis 1:1
In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth.

 

[Barbarian]

Jewish tradition says Noah and Abraham (and Peleg) were contemporaries. So unless you question when Abraham lived I guess your point is mooted something fierce.

Neither Noah nor Abraham were close to the beginning of the Earth. Why even pretend otherwise? And why would you assume "Jewish tradition" would overturn the word of God?

 

[Barbarian]

So when it comes to a question between God's word and science... it sounds like you choose science(what scientist say... not what science proves).

I notice that some people here are revising God's word to make it fit their own ideas. I'm just pointing out that God's creation shows the same thing as His word. Why wouldn't it? I know some creationists say that God faked the "appearance of age" to fool people. But God is truth, so we can safely reject that creationist idea.

 

[Barbarian]

See how good a job the devil has done to deceive the Church.

Matthew 16:18 And I say also unto thee, That thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it.

I'll take His word on it. Sorry.

 

[daddd]

Neither Noah nor Abraham were close to the beginning of the Earth. Why even pretend otherwise? And why would you assume "Jewish tradition" would overturn the word of God?

Close enough to know be alive at the same time as Noah. So all that remains is knowing how long from Noah till the flood! That is not real hard.