Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
2 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,817 Year: 3,074/9,624 Month: 919/1,588 Week: 102/223 Day: 0/13 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Earth of Genesis 1:9
ICANT
Member
Posts: 6769
From: SSC
Joined: 03-12-2007
Member Rating: 1.5


Message 46 of 112 (503603)
03-20-2009 1:18 PM
Reply to: Message 44 by Capt Stormfield
03-20-2009 10:36 AM


Re: Land Mass
Hi Capt,
Capt Stormfield writes:
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?
Since when did majority opinion counts as evidence.
If you want to answer for Granny then give me the evidence for Pangea being 200 millions years ago.
I am not going to make your argument for you.
Capt Stormfield writes:
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?
If the Pacific ocean was all the water in the world, there would be one big piece of land mass.
God Bless,

"John 5:39 (KJS) Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me."

This message is a reply to:
 Message 44 by Capt Stormfield, posted 03-20-2009 10:36 AM Capt Stormfield has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 47 by Capt Stormfield, posted 03-20-2009 2:00 PM ICANT has replied

  
Capt Stormfield
Member (Idle past 456 days)
Posts: 428
From: Vancouver Island
Joined: 01-17-2009


Message 47 of 112 (503606)
03-20-2009 2:00 PM
Reply to: Message 46 by ICANT
03-20-2009 1:18 PM


Re: Land Mass
I am not going to make your argument for you.
I'm not requesting you make an argument. I'm allowing you to display your ignorance.
If the Pacific ocean was all the water in the world, there would be one big piece of land mass.
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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 46 by ICANT, posted 03-20-2009 1:18 PM ICANT has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 48 by ICANT, posted 03-20-2009 4:21 PM Capt Stormfield has not replied

  
ICANT
Member
Posts: 6769
From: SSC
Joined: 03-12-2007
Member Rating: 1.5


Message 48 of 112 (503613)
03-20-2009 4:21 PM
Reply to: Message 47 by Capt Stormfield
03-20-2009 2:00 PM


Re: Land Mass
Hi Capt,
Capt Stormfield writes:
I'm not requesting you make an argument. I'm allowing you to display your ignorance.
But you are the one supporting the assertion.
So state the evidence for the assertion.
If you don't know then just say that is what I read. I will accept that.
Capt Stormfield writes:
, not "let the land be gathered together".
The land is together whether it is visible above the water or is covered with the water.
The last time I went diving there was land down there under the water.
It was just wet land. Not dry land.
God Bless,

"John 5:39 (KJS) Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me."

This message is a reply to:
 Message 47 by Capt Stormfield, posted 03-20-2009 2:00 PM Capt Stormfield has not replied

  
Granny Magda
Member
Posts: 2462
From: UK
Joined: 11-12-2007
Member Rating: 4.0


Message 49 of 112 (503620)
03-20-2009 5:47 PM
Reply to: Message 27 by ICANT
03-20-2009 8:11 AM


Re: Land Mass
quote:
What is this assertion bassed upon?
I got it out of a Christmas cracker. I found it written in a toilet cubicle. The voices in my head told me.
What do you care? You have already made it plain that you are not interested in evidence. If you aren't willing to provide evidence for your own idea, I need provide no evidence in return. "What can be asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence", remember?
I'm not going to hand-walk you through the evidence for the last century of geology when you can't be bothered to provide a shred of extra-Biblical evidence for your own claim. Go read a book or something.

quote:
So we agree that at one time the land mass was in one single mass.
Me because my Bible tells me in Genesis 1:9 that God had the water to assemble together in one place. Leaving something dry which could only have been land.
Except that it doesn't. You keep dodging the central question in your own argument.
Granny writes:
Why is two holes the magic number where the water is suddenly no longer "in one place"? What is it about a contiguous mass of water with one hole in it that makes it "in one place", whilst a contiguous mass of water with with two holes in it is not "in one place"? And if you were a little more generous with the detail this time, I'd appreciate it.
Why is the water no longer in one place with two islands? If you cannot explain this, your strained interpretation falls apart, regardless of any other evidence.
Mutate and Survive

"The Bible is like a person, and if you torture it long enough, you can get it to say almost anything you'd like it to say." -- Rev. Dr. Francis H. Wade

This message is a reply to:
 Message 27 by ICANT, posted 03-20-2009 8:11 AM ICANT has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 59 by ICANT, posted 03-21-2009 9:43 AM Granny Magda has replied

  
Peg
Member (Idle past 4930 days)
Posts: 2703
From: melbourne, australia
Joined: 11-22-2008


Message 50 of 112 (503659)
03-21-2009 12:11 AM
Reply to: Message 39 by ICANT
03-20-2009 9:44 AM


Re: Land Mass
ICANT writes:
And what do you base this statement on?
Have you ever read about the Bay of Fundy?
The difference from high tide to low tide is 55' the max on record is over 68 feet. It hasn't washed away yet.
There is nothing in the Bible that states the earth was divided in the days of the flood that I can find.
my statement that the earth would have been dramatically changed after the flood is based on the evidence. The preflood world must have had less water then it did after the flood. Today 70% of the earth is covered by water...that would have been a dramatic change.
Basically we can deduct that if the waters of the deluge ('heavenly ocean' Heb., mabbul) came from the 'heavens' as Gen says it did 'All the springs of the vast watery deep were broken open and the floodgates of the heavens were opened.' (Ge 7:11) So the waters that were was once above the earth, suddenly was on the earth. That amount of water would have caused many division in the land mass. It could also be an explanation as to why all the animals were able to be gathered together in one place before the flood. You are justified in believing that God gathered the land mass into one place...just not at the time you are saying it happened.
And if anyone is confused about where the water came from see the creation account on day two.
quote:
Gen1:6And God went on to say: 'Let an expanse come to be in between the waters and let a dividing occur between the waters and the waters.' 7Then God proceeded to make the expanse and to make a division between the waters that should be beneath the expanse and the waters that should be above the expanse. And it came to be so. 8And God began to call the expanse Heaven. And there came to be evening and there came to be morning, a second day
so there was a thick water layer surrounding the earth...2 Peter 3:5 mentions to this where it says "...there were heavens from of old and an earth standing compactly out of water and in the midst of water and by the word of God the world of that time (noahs time) suffered destruction when it was deluged with water"
So the pre flood earth would have been very different to the earth after the flood. With so much water now covering the surface, we are likely living at higher altitudes then pre flood people lived and the weight of the water likely caused a lot of movement of the earths crust causing old mountains to rise to new heights and shallow sea basins were possibly deepened under the weight. Also new shorelines would have been established.
The only thing that had not changed was that the family of Noah and all their descendants still spoke one language. But the Babel account clearly states that the people became divided by the confusing of their languages and they went their separate ways. So in a world that was already divided by floodwater's, there would have been no need to cause further division of land. The only likely explanation is that the 'division in the days of Peleg' refers to the babel account.
Edited by Peg, : No reason given.
Edited by Peg, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 39 by ICANT, posted 03-20-2009 9:44 AM ICANT has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 52 by shalamabobbi, posted 03-21-2009 12:42 AM Peg has replied
 Message 60 by ICANT, posted 03-21-2009 10:33 AM Peg has replied

  
Peg
Member (Idle past 4930 days)
Posts: 2703
From: melbourne, australia
Joined: 11-22-2008


Message 51 of 112 (503660)
03-21-2009 12:38 AM
Reply to: Message 42 by ICANT
03-20-2009 9:48 AM


Re: Re Peleg
ICANT writes:
Are you basing this on the YEC flood model?
Or,
Are you basing it on the Bible?
im not a YEC so no,
It is not based on the bible because the bible does not go into such details. I am basing it on what we know of the earth and of what we know of flooding and how flooding changes the surface of the land.
It stands to reason that if the earth became flooded to such an extent that genesis says it did, then logically there are going to be some huge changes taking place.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 42 by ICANT, posted 03-20-2009 9:48 AM ICANT has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 61 by ICANT, posted 03-21-2009 10:41 AM Peg has replied

  
shalamabobbi
Member (Idle past 2849 days)
Posts: 397
Joined: 01-10-2009


Message 52 of 112 (503661)
03-21-2009 12:42 AM
Reply to: Message 50 by Peg
03-21-2009 12:11 AM


Re: Land Mass
so there was a thick water layer surrounding the earth...2 Peter 3:5 mentions to this where it says "...there were heavens from of old and an earth standing compactly out of water and in the midst of water and by the word of God the world of that time (noahs time) suffered destruction when it was deluged with water"
So the pre flood earth would have been very different to the earth after the flood.
You might like to have all the extra water stored some place that makes sense and is in agreement with the laws of physics. Water shells cannot orbit the earth unless they are continuously sustained my an ongoing miracle. They also would block out almost all the light from the sun causing major catastrophes for life on earth.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 50 by Peg, posted 03-21-2009 12:11 AM Peg has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 53 by Peg, posted 03-21-2009 1:12 AM shalamabobbi has replied

  
Peg
Member (Idle past 4930 days)
Posts: 2703
From: melbourne, australia
Joined: 11-22-2008


Message 53 of 112 (503662)
03-21-2009 1:12 AM
Reply to: Message 52 by shalamabobbi
03-21-2009 12:42 AM


Re: Land Mass
shalamabobbi writes:
You might like to have all the extra water stored some place that makes sense and is in agreement with the laws of physics. Water shells cannot orbit the earth unless they are continuously sustained my an ongoing miracle. They also would block out almost all the light from the sun causing major catastrophes for life on earth.
im not sure how the water was sustained, the bible does not say. It merely says that there were 'waters' above the expanse and waters below it....the expanse being the sky/heavens where birds fly.
But its worthy to note that in very humid climates, vegetation flourishes moreso then in dry environments. So having a lot of water in the atmosphere does not harm plants, rather it helps them.
In the 2nd creative 'day' we are told that the 'expanse' was created to make an open space between the waters covering the earth and other waters above the earth... it implies that at that time there was no division between these 'waters' but that the entire globe was previously enveloped in water vapor.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 52 by shalamabobbi, posted 03-21-2009 12:42 AM shalamabobbi has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 54 by shalamabobbi, posted 03-21-2009 1:35 AM Peg has replied

  
shalamabobbi
Member (Idle past 2849 days)
Posts: 397
Joined: 01-10-2009


Message 54 of 112 (503663)
03-21-2009 1:35 AM
Reply to: Message 53 by Peg
03-21-2009 1:12 AM


Re: Land Mass
In the 2nd creative 'day' we are told that the 'expanse' was created to make an open space between the waters covering the earth and other waters above the earth...
There is an upper limit to how much water vapor can exist in the atmosphere. It is rather an insignificant amount of water compared with the oceans. Don't you think that the waters above the firmament sound like rain clouds?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 53 by Peg, posted 03-21-2009 1:12 AM Peg has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 55 by Peg, posted 03-21-2009 2:01 AM shalamabobbi has replied

  
Peg
Member (Idle past 4930 days)
Posts: 2703
From: melbourne, australia
Joined: 11-22-2008


Message 55 of 112 (503665)
03-21-2009 2:01 AM
Reply to: Message 54 by shalamabobbi
03-21-2009 1:35 AM


Re: Land Mass
shalamabobbi writes:
There is an upper limit to how much water vapor can exist in the atmosphere. It is rather an insignificant amount of water compared with the oceans. Don't you think that the waters above the firmament sound like rain clouds?
if it was rainclouds, and they covered the entire atmosphere, then not much sunlight would have got to the earth and the sun would not have been visible in the sky
besides, the expanse is the area of sky above our heads and the 'waters' were said to be 'above' the expanse. As it is now, rain clouds are prevail within the expanse so its not likely that they were rain clouds according to the bible account.
but im interested, how much water vapor can the atmosphere hold? And what might happen to the composition of the air/atmosphere/expanse if it was completely surrounded by a canopy of water?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 54 by shalamabobbi, posted 03-21-2009 1:35 AM shalamabobbi has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 56 by shalamabobbi, posted 03-21-2009 3:19 AM Peg has replied

  
shalamabobbi
Member (Idle past 2849 days)
Posts: 397
Joined: 01-10-2009


Message 56 of 112 (503670)
03-21-2009 3:19 AM
Reply to: Message 55 by Peg
03-21-2009 2:01 AM


Re: Land Mass
but im interested, how much water vapor can the atmosphere hold? And what might happen to the composition of the air/atmosphere/expanse if it was completely surrounded by a canopy of water?
There is a limit dependent upon pressure and temperature to the amount of water the atmosphere can hold. Since the pressure does not change in the atmosphere much that leaves temperature as a variable.
About 0.001% of earth's water is in its atmospheric vapor normally.
reference
In this reference, look towards the bottom and you see a chart for %100 relative humidity as a function of temperature.
Let's use a generous factor of 100 between average earth humidity and a maximum.
Then we get 0.1% of the earth's water in the atmosphere.
A hypothetical water canopy will not change the amount of water that the atmosphere can carry. It is a function of temperature and pressure. An attempt to force more water vapor into the atmosphere results in condensation.
If you have ever been scuba diving you know that you do not need to dive very deep before it becomes quite dark relative to being on the surface. You have to imagine how enough light is going to reach the earth to keep it from freezing to death as well as how this water canopy can be held up and kept from boiling off into space since there's no pressure above the atmosphere.
Things that orbit the earth do so in great circles. A solid shell of water has no way to orbit.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 55 by Peg, posted 03-21-2009 2:01 AM Peg has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 57 by Peg, posted 03-21-2009 5:35 AM shalamabobbi has replied

  
Peg
Member (Idle past 4930 days)
Posts: 2703
From: melbourne, australia
Joined: 11-22-2008


Message 57 of 112 (503675)
03-21-2009 5:35 AM
Reply to: Message 56 by shalamabobbi
03-21-2009 3:19 AM


Re: Land Mass
good articles, cheers. About the way air 'carries' water,
that article states
quote:
Air simply acts as a transporter of water vapour not a holder of it. In fact, water vapor can be present in an airless volume and therefore the relative humidity of this volume can be readily calculated.
The misconception that air holds water is likely the result of the use of the word saturation which is often misused in descriptions of relative humidity. In the present context the word saturation refers to the state of water vapor,[4] not the solubility of one material in another.
That seems to be saying that atmosphere does not necessarily hold water...is that correct?
with that in mind, if the water from the ocean was turned into vapor and put in the upper atmosphere it shouldnt change the pressure of the atmosphere at all because by decreasing the ocean size, there would be more atmospher thus preventing any additional pressure.
I also have another theory that could explain how the atmosphere held so much water...water is a combination of Hydrogen & Oxygen, so what if the 'waters above the expanse' were actually these two gasses in their natural form, then in order to bring the deluge, God combined the two gasses together and released them to the earth. That is pure speculation...im just trying to think of possiblities here.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 56 by shalamabobbi, posted 03-21-2009 3:19 AM shalamabobbi has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 58 by shalamabobbi, posted 03-21-2009 6:15 AM Peg has not replied

  
shalamabobbi
Member (Idle past 2849 days)
Posts: 397
Joined: 01-10-2009


Message 58 of 112 (503681)
03-21-2009 6:15 AM
Reply to: Message 57 by Peg
03-21-2009 5:35 AM


Re: Land Mass
Water vapor has a partial pressure in the atmosphere. So does Nitrogen, so does Oxygen, so do any other gases present. By saturation is meant that no more water vapor can fit into the mix without condensation removing that same amount. An equilibrium exists for a given temperature and pressure.
Water when it is vaporized expands tremendously in volume. So the water of the ocean becoming vaporized creates volume from the missing liquid but uses up much more volume from the new water vapor. The same thing can occur with what are normally gases such as atmospheric oxygen and nitrogen. If we cool them sufficiently we get liquid nitrogen or oxygen. Then the volume they occupied as gases is greatly reduced to a much smaller volumes as liquids as now the molecules are packed much more tightly together. It is called a phase change.
If you disassociate water into oxygen and hydrogen then technically it is no longer water. It is two different gases instead. This would be an unstable situation. Remember the Hindenburg. As soon as they are combined the sky would be explosively on fire. Also you have to remember that the mass of a volume of water does not go away when it is vaporized or disassociated into hydrogen and oxygen. If you turn that much water into gas or vapor and add it to the atmosphere then the atmospheric pressure will increase to the pressure at the depth of water you vaporized from the ocean level. About every 33(46 since oceans cover about 71% of surface area) feet of depth of water taken from the ocean and added as vapor or gases to the atmosphere will add another standard atmosphere of pressure to it. So it would be equivalent to diving to whatever depth in the ocean that you wanted to put into the atmosphere.
Edited by shalamabobbi, : correction due to surface area covered by ocean.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 57 by Peg, posted 03-21-2009 5:35 AM Peg has not replied

  
ICANT
Member
Posts: 6769
From: SSC
Joined: 03-12-2007
Member Rating: 1.5


Message 59 of 112 (503705)
03-21-2009 9:43 AM
Reply to: Message 49 by Granny Magda
03-20-2009 5:47 PM


Re: Land Mass
Hi GM,
Granny Magda writes:
What do you care? You have already made it plain that you are not interested in evidence.
I don't remember saying I was not interested in evidence.
In Message 8 I said:
Sure I believe it happened.
Why do I need any evidence?
I put just as much confidence in the papers called the Bible as you put in a paper written by Green, Penrose, Hawking or others.
So I have my evidence you just won't accept it.
In the OP I concluded Genesis 1:9, 10 to say all the water was in one place and the land in one place.
In Message 24 You stated:
Yes there indeed was a time when the Earth's land was in one single mass. That time was 250 million years ago. That's about 249.9 million years before humans existed.
So you agreed that at one time the land mass was all in one place at one time.
I asked for evidence that your land mass was 249.9 million years earlier than mine.
In Message 29 Capt Stormfield answered for you.
Capt Stormfield writes:
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.
I wanted a little more explanation but never got one.
Then you finally answer with:
Granny Magda writes:
I got it out of a Christmas cracker. I found it written in a toilet cubicle. The voices in my head told me.
I have a little more respect for you as we have exchanged words on many occasions.
So I will state what the 250 million years is based upon and you can correct me if I m wrong.
According to the theory of plate tectonics the continents are shifting x distance each year. Extrapolating backward using this distance we can conclude that 250 million years ago there was one land mass.
We have already agreed that at one time there was one land mass.
Can we agree that:
That land mass has been divided into the present day continents?
Man has been scattered over the face of the earth?
God Bless,

"John 5:39 (KJS) Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me."

This message is a reply to:
 Message 49 by Granny Magda, posted 03-20-2009 5:47 PM Granny Magda has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 62 by Granny Magda, posted 03-21-2009 11:05 AM ICANT has replied

  
ICANT
Member
Posts: 6769
From: SSC
Joined: 03-12-2007
Member Rating: 1.5


Message 60 of 112 (503713)
03-21-2009 10:33 AM
Reply to: Message 50 by Peg
03-21-2009 12:11 AM


Re: Land Mass
Hi Peg,
Peg writes:
my statement that the earth would have been dramatically changed after the flood is based on the evidence.
And that evidence is:
Peg writes:
The preflood world must have had less water then it did after the flood.
Why must it have less water before the flood?
If it had less water before than after where did all the excess water come from?
I propose the water was there all the time, and the location of that water just got changed.
Some was in the air and some was in the ground. All was put on the face of the earth and it covered the face of the earth.
If the land mass was all in one place how many feet above sea level did it have to be?
That would determine how much water was needed to cover it.
Peg writes:
And if anyone is confused about where the water came from see the creation account on day two.
After the firmament was placed between the uplifted water and the waters beneath the firmament there was no dry land.
There was enough water on the planet earth to cover all land.
Genesis 1:9 And God said, Let the waters under the heaven be gathered together unto one place, and let the dry [land] appear: and it was so.
There was no dry land until the waters were gathered together in one place.
That means all land mass was covered with water.
Therefore there was no problem with there being enough water to cover the face of the earth.
Peg writes:
So the pre flood earth would have been very different to the earth after the flood. With so much water now covering the surface,
Why did there have to be a difference?
It had already been covered with the same water.
Peg writes:
So in a world that was already divided by floodwater's, there would have been no need to cause further division of land. The only likely explanation is that the 'division in the days of Peleg' refers to the babel account.
You have not established how the flood waters divided the land mass into the different continents.
I can only see 2 possibilities for the continents being where they are today.
God divided the land mass like you would a jigsaw puzzle and placed the continents close to where they are today.
OR
The continents got to where they are today over the last 250 million years.
God Bless,

"John 5:39 (KJS) Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me."

This message is a reply to:
 Message 50 by Peg, posted 03-21-2009 12:11 AM Peg has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 65 by Peg, posted 03-23-2009 5:49 AM ICANT has replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024