|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
EvC Forum active members: 64 (9164 total) |
| |
ChatGPT | |
Total: 916,742 Year: 3,999/9,624 Month: 870/974 Week: 197/286 Day: 4/109 Hour: 0/0 |
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Earth of Genesis 1:9 | |||||||||||||||||||||||
ICANT Member Posts: 6769 From: SSC Joined: Member Rating: 1.6 |
Hi Peg,
Peg writes: 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. You can base what you believe on assumptions, your reason, and notions if you want too. But I believe the Bible gives us enough information to know that the land mass was all in one place at one time and the inhabitants of the earth was scattered over the face of the earth and that the land mass was divided into the continents we have today. 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."
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Granny Magda Member Posts: 2462 From: UK Joined: Member Rating: 3.8 |
I don't remember saying I was not interested in evidence. In Re Water (Message 8) I said:
Sure I believe it happened. Why do I need any evidence? You said that in response to my request that you provide evidence for your absurd claim. You used that comment to weasel out of doing so. You can't have it both ways. If you expect others to provide evidence, you must provide evidence. Waving a Bible around does not count as evidence of a damn thing, as you well know.
quote: Damn right I won't. The Bible only provides evidence of what the Bible says. Nothing more (certainly nothing in this case). The truly appalling thing is that you aren't even willing to defend your lunatic interpretation of the Bible. I keep asking you;
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, since you are now keen on evidence once more;
Of course, you are not only suggesting that the Bible makes this claim, but you think that it actually happened, isn't that right? If this is true, then you must have a shit-load of evidence right? Right? Where is your evidence of human habitation of Pangea? This is your theory. It is up to you to provide evidence for it. If you have none, you must be dismissed offhand as just another crank. It's your theory. Provide evidence or shut up.
quote: And you have repeatedly ignored other people's refutations of that claim. Or are you finally going to answer this;
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"? Well?
quote: You say that as though plate tectonics were that simple. In actual fact, there are multiple converging lines of evidence that place Pangea in the far distant past. Here is one.
Take a look at that picture. Those fossil distributions confirm that dinosaur species such as lystrosaurus ranged over Pangea. There is no other explanation for the distribution of their fossils. Lystrosaurus lived in the Triassic ICANT. Humans were rare then. Now, unless you think that lystrosaurus is any less than millions of years old, this puts Pangea quite out of reach of human contact. It also leaves your silly theory totally out of step with all of geology, palaeontology, stratigraphy, archaeology and radiometric dating, as well as being contrary to the damn Bible. By the way, the final break-up of Pangea was about 185 mya. That's where you need to be looking. 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
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Michamus Member (Idle past 5183 days) Posts: 230 From: Ft Hood, TX Joined: |
Excellent and informative post GM.
Still waiting on your reply to the rest of my post [Message #28] ICANT.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Peg Member (Idle past 4955 days) Posts: 2703 From: melbourne, australia Joined: |
ICANT writes: But I believe the Bible gives us enough information to know that the land mass was all in one place at one time and the inhabitants of the earth was scattered over the face of the earth and that the land mass was divided into the continents we have today. i agree that you are correct...the land mass, as the bible says, was all in one place at one time and it was way back in the first creative 'day'...likely millions of years ago. its not hard to imagine this...take away a large portion of the oceans and many of the continents are connected now add the oceans and watch them be separated again. I just disagree with you that the division happened AFTER the flood. I believe the 'days of Peleg' is a reference to the division of the languages rather then of the land. Edited by Peg, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Peg Member (Idle past 4955 days) Posts: 2703 From: melbourne, australia Joined: |
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. the earth must have had less water then before the flood because as the bible says, the 'flood gates of the heavens were opened' and the world became flooded by water. The waters were said to come from 'above'Previously it wasnt flooded, then it was... The floodwaters are still here, previously they were not. ICANT writes: 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. Im not sure anyone knows how far above sea level the land was before the flood. But we do know how much water would cover it if the earth was leveled out.The New Encyclopdia Britannica says: The average depth of all the seas has been estimated at 3,790 metres (12,430feet), a figure considerably larger than that of the average elevation of the land above the sea level, which is 840 metres (2,760feet). If the average depth is multiplied by its respective surface area, the volume of the World Ocean is 11 times the volume of the land above sea level. So, if we could level it out, the sea would cover the whole earth to a depth of thousands of meters.
ICANT writes: 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. yes, likely it was... the land was pushed upwards creating depressions where the waters drained into. Then at the time of the flood, more water (waters from the expanse above) was released onto the earth...this water was also enough to completely cover everything again. But how did the water drain off the earth? Eventually it did because the bible tells us that after a length of time the Ark came to rest on a mountain. So obviously the waters were able to drain into the much larger oceans then were previously there. And more ocean means less land.
ICANT writes: Why did there have to be a difference? It had already been covered with the same water. it wasnt the same water because the bible tells us at Gen 7:11In the six hundredth year of Noah’s life, in the second month, on the seventeenth day of the month, on this day all the springs of the vast watery deep were broken open and the floodgates of the heavens were opened.' so the waters came from the heavens....waters that previously were not on earth.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
ICANT Member Posts: 6769 From: SSC Joined: Member Rating: 1.6 |
Hi GM,
Granny Magda writes: I don't remember saying I was not interested in evidence. In Re Water (Message 8) I said: Sure I believe it happened. Why do I need any evidence? You said that in response to my request that you provide evidence for your absurd claim. You used that comment to weasel out of doing so. Actually I made this statement in response to a statement you made.
Message 3 Granny Magda writes: Of course, you are not only suggesting that the Bible makes this claim, but you think that it actually happened, isn't that right? If this is true, then you must have a shit-load of evidence right? Right? Remember, the evidence not only has to explain why your hypothesis is correct, it also has to deal with the evidence for plate tectonics and an old Earth, etc. I have a funny feeling that the Earth would explode if the continents were moved that quickly. Nowhere do you ask for evidence. My question was why do I need evidence? I have the evidence the Bible gives me and that is sufficient for me. In Message 24 you said:
Granny Magda writes: 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. My Evidence:
Genesis 1:9, 10 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. Genesis 1:10 And God called the dry land Earth; and the gathering together of the waters called he Seas: and God saw that it was good. The Hebrew word translated seas is singular not plural. The Bible says the water was in one place. That would mean the land mass was in one place. Scientific verification.
Wikipedia writes: Gaea, meaning Earth in Ancient Greek) was the supercontinent that existed during the Paleozoic and Mesozoic eras about 250 million years ago, before the component continents were separated into their current configuration. That says the land mass was in one place. That says the land mass was separated into the current configuration.
Wikipedia writes: The single enormous ocean which surrounded Pangaea is known as Panthalassa. That says all the water was in one place. That should refute your two island hypothetical. You can find more on Pangea Here, Here, and Here. Do you deny the land was in one place? Do you deny the water was in one place?
Granny Magda writes: Where is your evidence of human habitation of Pangea? This is your theory. It is up to you to provide evidence for it. If you have none, you must be dismissed offhand as just another crank. No my theory (as you call it) is what the Bible says. The Bible says the land mass was in one place. The Bible says the land mass was inhabited by humans. The Bible says the humans were scattered over the face of the earth. The Bible says the land mass was divided. This is what I put forth in the Op. Science agrees that the land mass was in one place at one time. Science seems to agree the land mass has been divided. Science does not agree humans inhabited the single land mass as Pangea was supposed to have been 250 million years ago. Science seems to agree that humans have been scattered over the face of the Earth from one location with the out of Africa theory. So we have a time problem. In Message 24 you said:
Granny Magda writes: That time was 250 million years ago. That's about 249.9 million years before humans existed. In message 27 I asked upon what you based that assertion. In Message 49 you stated:
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. So I ask again, upon what do you base your assertion that was 249.9 million years before humans existed?
Granny Magda writes: Now, unless you think that lystrosaurus is any less than millions of years old, this puts Pangea quite out of reach of human contact. What difference does it make whether they are over one million years old or one billion years old. At one time there was no ocean at all and they could roam anywhere they pleased.
Granny Magda writes: By the way, the final break-up of Pangea was about 185 mya. That's where you need to be looking. Did one of them little voices in your head tell you that or do you have something a little more substantial. I would love to read it. 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."
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
ICANT Member Posts: 6769 From: SSC Joined: Member Rating: 1.6 |
Hi Mich,
Michamus writes: Still waiting on your reply to the rest of my post [Message #28] ICANT. Sorry but I am having a hard time finding Hebrew Lexicons that give flown together for the collection of the waters, and eruption from the sea for the land appearing. But I am still looking. 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."
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
ICANT Member Posts: 6769 From: SSC Joined: Member Rating: 1.6 |
Hi Peg,
I am glad to see we agree on some things.
Peg writes: I just disagree with you that the division happened AFTER the flood. I believe the 'days of Peleg' is a reference to the division of the languages rather then of the land. You are welcome to disagree with any of what I have said. As far as the lands coming together you see the prediction for the future HERE Technologies | The world's #1 location platform. 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."
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Granny Magda Member Posts: 2462 From: UK Joined: Member Rating: 3.8 |
Right, I'm done with you.
I have no interest in engaging in a conversation with you if you are going to play fuck-witted games like this.
Granny writes: Of course, you are not only suggesting that the Bible makes this claim, but you think that it actually happened, isn't that right? If this is true, then you must have a shit-load of evidence right? Right? ICANT writes: Nowhere do you ask for evidence. You are a pathetic child. Grow up. If anyone else feels that they might be able to crowbar some sense into the dormant organ that is ICANT's brain, feel free to try. I have had enough. 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
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
ICANT Member Posts: 6769 From: SSC Joined: Member Rating: 1.6 |
Hi Peg,
Peg writes: the earth must have had less water then before the flood because as the bible says, the 'flood gates of the heavens were opened' and the world became flooded by water. The waters were said to come from 'above'Previously it wasnt flooded, then it was... The floodwaters are still here, previously they were not. Are you saying those waters could not return to their original location? So there should be no problem for God to find enough water to flood the earth today if he decided to do so?
Peg writes: But how did the water drain off the earth? Eventually it did because the bible tells us that after a length of time the Ark came to rest on a mountain. So obviously the waters were able to drain into the much larger oceans then were previously there. I have questions about the mountains in Noah's day. I know there was mountains when the writer was writing, but was they there at the time of the flood?
Peg writes: it wasnt the same water because the bible tells us at Gen 7:11 In the six hundredth year of Noah’s life, in the second month, on the seventeenth day of the month, on this day all the springs of the vast watery deep were broken open and the floodgates of the heavens were opened.' Sure it was the same water. God did not manafacture water.The rains that came down was lifted up from the waters below. The waters from below came from the water that filled the voids when the land mass was uplifted. So why wouldn't it be the same water that had covered the earth?
Peg writes: so the waters came from the heavens....waters that previously were not on earth. But the waters that came down was put up in Genesis 1:6. 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."
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
ICANT Member Posts: 6769 From: SSC Joined: Member Rating: 1.6 |
Hi GM,
Granny Magda writes: If anyone else feels that they might be able to crowbar some sense into the dormant organ that is ICANT's brain, feel free to try. I have had enough. You could have tried using a convincing argument rather than all the insults you have typed out. 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."
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
shalamabobbi Member (Idle past 2874 days) Posts: 397 Joined: |
Hi ICANT,
The first time I came across your peculiar interpretation of genesis you made some sort of comment that you came to that view at the age of 10 and hadn't changed your mind since. That was very telling. I believe Catholic Scientist was persistent enough to debunk the view scripturally, but that didn't matter to you.Ironically your only hope is for God and an afterlife to exist since you won't learn anything new or be corrected in any of your perceptions until God takes it up with you personally. But then you may crucify him afresh for adding to the bible...
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Peg Member (Idle past 4955 days) Posts: 2703 From: melbourne, australia Joined: |
ICANT writes: Are you saying those waters could not return to their original location?
Gen 8:13"Now ...it came about that the waters had drained from off the earth"Clearly the bible writer described the waters as 'draining off the earth' as opposed to being transported in any other method. ICANT writes: I have questions about the mountains in Noah's day. I know there was mountains when the writer was writing, but was they there at the time of the flood? Gen 7:19"And the waters overwhelmed the earth so greatly that all the tall mountains that were under the whole heavens came to be covered. 20Up to fifteen cubits the waters overwhelmed them and the mountains became covered." likely there were mountains before the flood but they probably were not as high as they are today for the reason that the weight of the water likely changed the landscape. The crust of the earth is relatively thin and with enough weight, it could have been pushed upwards or downwards by the force of the water.
ICANT writes: Sure it was the same water. God did not manafacture water.The rains that came down was lifted up from the waters below. The waters from below came from the water that filled the voids when the land mass was uplifted. So why wouldn't it be the same water that had covered the earth? I dont believe we need to speculate on this subject because the bible is clear when it says'The floodgates of the heavens were opened' It was also a 'Down Pour' It also 'Rained' all three of the above indicate that the water came from the sky, not the earth. If the water came from the earth, it would have enveloped the earth like a swelling tide, but the bible does not say this is what happened. Also remember that in the creation account, a part of the water the covered the earth was lifted up to create the 'firmament' or 'Expanse' between the waters and the waters. So im sure you are correct in believing that the earth was covered in water and the dry land was bought together in one place, but you must consider the genesis account about the waters being separated on the 2nd day to create an expanse happened before the dry land was bought together on the 3rd day. Some of the water stayed on the earth, but a larger portion of it was taken into the upper atmosphere to completely encircle the earth.
ICANT writes: But the waters that came down was put up in Genesis 1:6. exactly. so if you know that there were waters above, why are you wondering where the flood waters came from?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
shalamabobbi Member (Idle past 2874 days) Posts: 397 Joined: |
Peg writes:
If you take an air mattress and lay it on a bed and push down in the center, the ends will pop up. But if you apply equal pressure to it along its entire length nothing like that happens, it is merely uniformly under more pressure. likely there were mountains before the flood but they probably were not as high as they are today for the reason that the weight of the water likely changed the landscape. The crust of the earth is relatively thin and with enough weight, it could have been pushed upwards or downwards by the force of the water. The study of soil samples indicates that mountains consist of collisions of plates not simply an uplifted crust. All knowledge is not contained in the bible. You are allowed to take a basic geology course if you like.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Peg Member (Idle past 4955 days) Posts: 2703 From: melbourne, australia Joined: |
shalamabobbi writes: If you take an air mattress and lay it on a bed and push down in the center, the ends will pop up. But if you apply equal pressure to it along its entire length nothing like that happens, it is merely uniformly under more pressure only if the foundation where it sits is of equal pressure...in terms of the earths crust, varies in depth from 5 to 25 miles. This means that the whole crust of the earth is not the same and so if pressure is exerted on one point, a weaker point of the crust will be affected differently. you may have noted i have said that the bible 'does not' contain such information
quote: just in case you missed it.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024