[__ Science __ ] Man was in Pangaea

[dwb001]

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.

I said deceive... not prevail over. So I agree... and differ.

 

[dwb001]

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.

I am not the one redefining what a day means.
So are you ok with the creation of light without a light source?
Did the sun get created first or did light on the Earth?

Why would there need to be an appearance of age? Do you know how long it takes for a rock to form or a valley to be carved? Was it through gradual process or through cataclysmic change?

I will just depend on eye witness testimony and the backing of experimental science.

 

[Barbarian]

I am not the one redefining what a day means.

The text itself says that the "yom" used in Genesis 1 is not a literal day, since you cannot have literal mornings and evenings without a sun to have them. Further, Genesis 2 says that creation was in one "yom", not six. So we know that they don't mean literal 24-hour days.

 

[Barbarian]

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.

I said deceive... not prevail over. So I agree... and differ.

I'll still go with God, no matter what part of it you differ with.

 

[Barbarian]

So are you ok with the creation of light without a light source?

I'm not OK with imagining "mornings" and "evenings" with no Sun to have them. Moonrise gives us a light source, but that isn't morning. It's not a light source that matters; it's the Sun.

Why would there need to be an appearance of age?

Either God falsely created an appearance of age, or the evidence means exactly what it presents; a very ancient Earth. Given that God is truth, only the latter is possible.

Do you know how long it takes for a rock to form or a valley to be carved?

Depends on the rock or valley. Granite takes ages, because large crystals take thousands of years to form in magma. The Grand Canyon took millions of years, because it was cut by an ancient, meandering river that was later uplifted and entrenched.

Was it through gradual process or through cataclysmic change?

Yes. The Grand Canyon was gradual. The scablands in Washington happened through cataclysmic change. Which is why they look very different. Two very different processes.

I will just depend on eye witness testimony and the backing of experimental science.

Then you will accept the gradual formation of the Grand Canyon and the rapid formation of the scablands.

 

[Barbarian]

And the word for the division of Peleg was "erets", meaning "land." The word for the world, the entire Earth, is "tebel." So we know that the division of people at the time of Peleg could not mean the breakup of Pangea.

 

[daddd]

The text itself says that the "yom" used in Genesis 1 is not a literal day, since you cannot have literal mornings and evenings without a sun to have them. Further, Genesis 2 says that creation was in one "yom", not six. So we know that they don't mean literal 24-hour days.

Yes we can have morning and evening with no sun. The days were morning and evenings so we cannot mistake what they are. The plants were made days before the sun also. Plants cannot live millions of years waiting for the sun to come out.

 

[daddd]

And the word for the division of Peleg was "erets", meaning "land." The word for the world, the entire Earth, is "tebel." So we know that the division of people at the time of Peleg could not mean the breakup of Pangea.

If the same word is used in Gen 1 for earth as is used in Gen 10 about Peleg, then your interpretation is wrong.

The word, transliterated as ʼerets means this
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 1:1' - NAS with the BHS and NA26 - StudyLight.org

Interliner Search for 'Genesis 1:1' within 'New American Standard Version' with the 'Biblia Hebrica Stuttgartensia (1967/77)' and 'Nestle-Aland 26' on StudyLight.org

www.studylight.org

So it absolutely could mean the world or earth.

 

[daddd]

The text itself says that the "yom" used in Genesis 1 is not a literal day, since you cannot have literal mornings and evenings without a sun to have them. Further, Genesis 2 says that creation was in one "yom", not six. So we know that they don't mean literal 24-hour days.

Once again you misrepresent what the bible says and means.

yôwm
Brown-Driver-Briggs'
1) day, time, year
1a) day (as opposed to night)
1b) day (24 hour period)
1b1) as defined by evening and morning in Genesis 1
1b2) as a division of time
1b2a) a working day, a day’s journey
1c) days, lifetime (plural)
1d) time, period (general)
1e) year
1f) temporal references
1f1) today
1f2) yesterday
1f3) tomorrow

Interlinear Search for 'Genesis 1:5' - NAS with the BHS and NA26 - StudyLight.org

Interliner Search for 'Genesis 1:5' within 'New American Standard Version' with the 'Biblia Hebrica Stuttgartensia (1967/77)' and 'Nestle-Aland 26' on StudyLight.org

www.studylight.org

Of course a day can mean a day.

 

[dwb001]

I'm not OK with imagining "mornings" and "evenings" with no Sun to have them. Moonrise gives us a light source, but that isn't morning. It's not a light source that matters; it's the Sun.

But the Sun wasn't around till a few days later.

Either God falsely created an appearance of age, or the evidence means exactly what it presents; a very ancient Earth. Given that God is truth, only the latter is possible.

Or the evidence is being interpreted incorrectly.

Depends on the rock or valley. Granite takes ages, because large crystals take thousands of years to form in magma. The Grand Canyon took millions of years, because it was cut by an ancient, meandering river that was later uplifted and entrenched.

Rock does not take that long to form. We do it in labs all the time.
How do you know? Were you there?
So you don't actually have proof of your hypothesis.

Yes. The Grand Canyon was gradual. The scablands in Washington happened through cataclysmic change. Which is why they look very different. Two very different processes.

So you discount the Spirit Lake "mini Grand Canyon"? Carved out in a few days.

Then you will accept the gradual formation of the Grand Canyon and the rapid formation of the scablands.

 

[dwb001]

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.

I'll still go with God, no matter what part of it you differ with.

I don't differ with the text... I differ from your opinion of the text.

 

[dwb001]

The text itself says that the "yom" used in Genesis 1 is not a literal day, since you cannot have literal mornings and evenings without a sun to have them. Further, Genesis 2 says that creation was in one "yom", not six. So we know that they don't mean literal 24-hour days.

Exactly where are you getting this strange interpretation from?
If you are counting on when the Sun was created... where did the light come from on day one?
And where in Chapter 2 are you getting your other reference.
Try to be a bit more precise.

So how do you balance being a Christian and the first words of your Bible you believe are a lie?

 

[Barbarian]

Exactly where are you getting this strange interpretation from?

Genesis 2:4 These are the generations of the heavens and of the earth when they were created, in the day that the Lord God made the earth and the heavens,

Genesis 1:1 In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth.

So it happened in one ("yom"). But "yom" doesn't have to mean "day." It can mean "always" "forever" "some unspecified amount of time", "in my time" and so on. Clearly Genesis, by saying creation was six yom in one chapter and saying it was in one yom in the next chapter, makes it clear that "yom" was not used as a period of time.

 

[Barbarian]

I don't differ with the text... I differ from your opinion of the text.

I don't differ with the text. I differ from your opinion of the text. And maybe there's something important in this for everyone to consider.

 

[Barbarian]

If you are counting on when the Sun was created... where did the light come from on day one?

It would be absurd if the "yom" meant real 24 hour days, wouldn't it be? That's an important clue.

 

[Barbarian]

So how do you balance being a Christian and the first words of your Bible you believe are a lie?

I hope you don't think those words are a lie. I think you misunderstand them.

Gen 1:1 In the beginning God created the Heavens and the Earth.

Gen 2:4 These are the generations of the heavens and of the earth when they were created, in the day that the Lord God made the earth and the heavens,

And notice that Gen 2 also says that God rested on the seventh yom. So the Author (and the person transcribing His word) had no problem with saying creation happened in seven yom, but also in one yom, in the very same chapter. That's a huge tip-off for you. It's not a lie; you shouldn't think that. It's a signal that "yom" means something other than a specific period of time.

 

[Barbarian]

Yes. The Grand Canyon was gradual. The scablands in Washington happened through cataclysmic change. Which is why they look very different. Two very different processes.

So you discount the Spirit Lake "mini Grand Canyon"? Carved out in a few days.

I've been there. These are my photos of the volcano from Johnson's Ridge. It's not a canyon at all. It's a gully. Unlike the Grand Canyon, which was carved out of rock, this was soft sediment that slumps after it's cut by less than 10 meters or so. And the gully doesn't meander. Can't because only old, slow rivers meander. The sinousity index of that gully and the river into which it runs is much less than 1.5. You do find braided channels in both the gully and the river, which is typical of fast-moving streams that are often flooded.

You can look here:

Google Earth

earth.google.com

Rock does not take that long to form. We do it in labs all the time.
How do you know? Were you there?
So you don't actually have proof of your hypothesis.

We can make rhyolite in labs. It's the same stuff that granite is made of, but the crystals are so small, you can't distinguish them, unless it started to harden underground first. It takes a very long time for magma to cool so that granite is formed:
The data show that it can take millions of years. Some creationists think it could be less time. Here's a creationist site with a different opinion:
Given this tabular shape, it is a simple matter to model the cooling by conduction of a 3 km sheet of granitic magma.8 Based on conduction alone (i.e. ignoring the cooling effect of fluids) it would take only 30,000 years to completely solidify from the initially liquid magma.

Granite formation: catastrophic in its suddenness

Creation or evolution? It makes a big difference! Over 10,000 trustworthy articles. Evidence for biblical creation.

creation.com

Thirty thousand years doen't really help creationists, but I give them kudos for their honesty. They ignored the insulation of overlying rock, which would greatly reduce the cooling. This is why lava cools rather quickly outside the earth, but takes a very long time to cool if buried underground.

 

[dwb001]

Genesis 2:4 These are the generations of the heavens and of the earth when they were created, in the day that the Lord God made the earth and the heavens,

Genesis 1:1 In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth.

So it happened in one ("yom"). But "yom" doesn't have to mean "day." It can mean "always" "forever" "some unspecified amount of time", "in my time" and so on. Clearly Genesis, by saying creation was six yom in one chapter and saying it was in one yom in the next chapter, makes it clear that "yom" was not used as a period of time.

In the second chapter correct.. but not in the first chapter as per the inclusion " and there was morning and evening the # day".

 

[dwb001]

I don't differ with the text. I differ from your opinion of the text. And maybe there's something important in this for everyone to consider.

Exactly.

 

[dwb001]

It would be absurd if the "yom" meant real 24 hour days, wouldn't it be? That's an important clue.

Why????
That is stretching it beyond the rational.
Why does the verse say "there was evening and morning on the first day"?
Do aeons of time have an evening and morning?