Earth of Genesis 1:9

Last Two Hundred Years of Geology, I'd like you to meet ICANT. ICANT, Last Two Hundred Years of Geology. Odd you hadn't bumped into each other before now, but there you go.If you click the "Forums" button at the top of the page you will be able to find threads that address this question.Alternatively, you could try looking down the rest of the intertubes. Some of them go far. The echo is fantastic. If you shout something like "Dive! Dive!" it's almost like being in a submarine.There is always the option of reading a text book on the subject.Or phone your local university.Or is it your feeling that every discussion must restart from somewhere in the general vicinity of "How do I know I'm really here?"But I digress, let's pretend for a moment that you are capable of thinking and rererereaddress this point: Is the Pacific Ocean a single body of water? Is it in one place? How many islands does it have?Bust a gut.Capt.---------------------------------------------------------------I do not approve of anything that tampers with natural ignorance.
Ignorance is like a delicate exotic fruit;
touch it, and the bloom is gone.- Oscar Wilde
---------------------------------------------------------------

---

Is it getting solipsistic in here, or is it just me?

Which is addressed by the last 200 years of geology. Is there a particular part of that train of thought that you don't understand? No, yes.Science tells us that most of the earth's landmass was in one place many millions of years ago.The phrase in the Bible you are quoting does not. Please address my question: Does saying that the Pacific Ocean is in one place, or gathered together, mean that it can't have more than one island? If not, then why would the words of Genesis mean that?Let's try one more time: Could the words "Let the waters under the heaven be gathered together unto one place, and let the dry land appear" be used to describe a god creating the Pacific ocean? Complete with its several islands? (assume for a moment that it was the only ocean on the planet.)No one questions geology as currently understood, ie. that the continents were once contiguous. We are pointing out that the Bible does not say that.Awaiting your next oh-so-convenient-for-your-dead-in-the-water-idea "misunderstanding" of simple English with bated breath,Capt.----------------------------------------------------
"It is impossible to reason someone out of something
that he did not reason himself into in the first place."
- Jonathan Swift

See message #29. The consensus of those who study this question is widely published and easily accessible. If you have issues with it, go to a meeting. This thread is about your interpretation of language, remember? Another evasion of my direct question re the biblical description as it could be applied to the Pacific ocean. At what point would you consider it to be a fair assumption on my part that you are willfully prevaricating? You're pulling the age card on the wrong guy, Sport. I remember when the Bible still clearly explained why colored folk shouldn't be pastors. Whatever you do, do not apply this line of reasoning to yourself. Please. No, really, don't do it. The whiplash might kill you.Capt.----------------------------------------------
Why do overlook and oversee mean opposite things?
- George Carlin

---

Is it getting solipsistic in here, or is it just me?

I'm not requesting you make an argument. I'm allowing you to display your ignorance. You seem to have confused the concept of "one ocean" with the concept of "one island". Perhaps you could clarify how it is that turning all the other oceans into land, and thus consolidating the worlds waters into one place, would get rid of Hawaii, Midway, Vancouver Island, etc. Try to stay focused on the verse your are misrepresenting. It says "Let the waters under the heaven be gathered together... " , not "let the land be gathered together".Oh those pesky details, the bane of fundies everywhere.Capt.