[__ Science __ ] Man was in Pangaea

[dwb001]

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.

And I think you are putting the ideas in the wrong order.
Reverse the order of your logic and I have no problem with it.
7 24 hour days and "in the 'times'when' the Lord God made the earth and heavens".

 

[dwb001]

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'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

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.

Conjecture.

Oh and tell me again why you think it important that so much time has passed during the creation week?
Can you explain C14 in diamonds to me?
Can you explain C14 in coal to me?
Can you explain thorns in the coal to me?

Many old earth ideas are directly at odds with the Christian Bible... so how do you reconcile that?

 

[Barbarian]

Oh and tell me again why you think it important that so much time has passed during the creation week?

As you see, the "creation week" is a misinterpretation.

Can you explain C14 in diamonds to me?

Not surprising. C14 is the result of radiation changing nitrogen to C-14.
147N + n → 14 6C + p

Not surprisingly, diamonds often have nitrogen inclusions:

The Most Common Impurity Found In Diamonds: Nitrogen – Coronet Diamonds

www.coronetdiamonds.com

And the radiation?

Naturally occurring radioactive material - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Can you explain C14 in coal to me?

Radioactive Elements in Coal and Fly Ash, USGS Factsheet 163-97

Can you explain thorns in the coal to me?

Coal is formed from decaying vegetable matter. Why is that surprising?

Many old earth ideas are directly at odds with the Christian Bible.

No, they are directly at odds with your new revision of the Christian Bible. How do you reconcile that?

 

[Barbarian]

And I think you are putting the ideas in the wrong order.
Reverse the order of your logic and I have no problem with it.
7 24 hour days and "in the 'times'when' the Lord God made the earth and heavens".

I prefer the traditional Christian reading.

 

[Barbarian]

Why does the verse say "there was evening and morning on the first day"?

This is how the text tells us that the "yom" is not a literal morning and evening.

 

[daddd]

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.

Chapter two is a recap of what was already finished and done and over. Using the word to describe what was done is perfectly appropriate and accurate. Telling us in detail about the various days of that time in chapter one is where He spelled out the time involved. Just like chapter 2 is not a new creation order. It is a review of what was already a fait acompli

 

[dwb001]

As you see, the "creation week" is a misinterpretation.

Nope.

Not surprising. C14 is the result of radiation changing nitrogen to C-14.
147N + n → 14 6C + p

Not surprisingly, diamonds often have nitrogen inclusions:

The Most Common Impurity Found In Diamonds: Nitrogen – Coronet Diamonds

www.coronetdiamonds.com

And the radiation?

Naturally occurring radioactive material - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Radioactive Elements in Coal and Fly Ash, USGS Factsheet 163-97

Coal is formed from decaying vegetable matter. Why is that surprising?

Because thorns didn't exist until the fall of man... long after coal would have been formed millions of years ago.

No, they are directly at odds with your new revision of the Christian Bible. How do you reconcile that?

When did I revise the Bible? I just read it as written.

 

[dwb001]

I prefer the traditional Christian reading.

As I described it is the traditional Christian reading.

 

[dwb001]

This is how the text tells us that the "yom" is not a literal morning and evening.

What?????????

Because it says there was an evening and a morning... that would indicate it was not a normal day?????

Silliest idea I have heard on this entire site.

 

[Barbarian]

Because it says there was an evening and a morning... that would indicate it was not a normal day?????

Speaking of mornings and evenings before the Bible says there was a sun to have them, tells us that they were not literal days. Unless you think the Bible is wrong about when there was a sun. But I would rather accept it as it is.

 

[Barbarian]

As I described it is the traditional Christian reading.

No. Even ancient Christians like St. Augustine were aware that the "days" of Genesis were not literal days. YE beliefs are a very modern revision of God's word.

 

[Barbarian]

Because thorns didn't exist until the fall of man... long after coal would have been formed millions of years ago.

That's another addition to scripture. Nowhere does the Bible says that thorns didn't exist before the fall.

 

[Barbarian]

Chapter two is a recap of what was already finished and done and over. Using the word to describe what was done is perfectly appropriate and accurate.

In Genesis 1, it says that there were six "yom" of creation. In Genesis 2, it says it was in one "yom." So if you assume these were literal days, the Bible disagrees with itself. That being impossible, we know they can't be literal days.

 

[daddd]

In Genesis 1, it says that there were six "yom" of creation. In Genesis 2, it says it was in one "yom." So if you assume these were literal days, the Bible disagrees with itself. That being impossible, we know they can't be literal days.

Let's look at that. Verses?

 

[dwb001]

Speaking of mornings and evenings before the Bible says there was a sun to have them, tells us that they were not literal days. Unless you think the Bible is wrong about when there was a sun. But I would rather accept it as it is.

Why would you not accept what the Bible says.
Day and night without Sun, Moon or stars.
Literal days as the book says.

 

[dwb001]

No. Even ancient Christians like St. Augustine were aware that the "days" of Genesis were not literal days. YE beliefs are a very modern revision of God's word.

Not according to my learning.

 

[dwb001]

That's another addition to scripture. Nowhere does the Bible says that thorns didn't exist before the fall.

Thorns and Thistles only mentioned after the fall.

Gen 3:18 Thorns also and thistles shall it bring forth to you; and you shall eat the herb of the field;

 

[Barbarian]

Thorns and Thistles only mentioned after the fall.

I'd be open to your evidence that nothing exists until it's mentioned in the Bible. What do you have?

 

[Barbarian]

Why would you not accept what the Bible says.

I'm accepting what it says. You're adding things.

Day and night without Sun, Moon or stars.
Literal days as the book says.

Book doesn't say literal days. That's your addition.

 

[Barbarian]

Let's look at that. Verses?

Read your Bible. Gen 2 says the heavens and earth were made in a day.