Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I have a lot of questions about Genesis...I wonder if the geographic references come from Pangea rather than after the continents broke apart...But it all depends on when it all was written down and edited....Like reading a diary of someone long ago who makes reference to his birth in a state called Franklin...But in another source you read the he was born in the state of TN....
Mankind didn't exist on Pangaea. The authors of the Bible didn't know of it's existence. Pangaea broke apart some 240 million years ago. Long, long, long before Man. (At least by 235 million years or so)
Well, yes. It looks like the Genesis story is set in Mesopotamia because of the Tigris and Euphrates names, in addition to being located east of Assyria. This is clearly derived from the original creation -stories of Sumer which was the basic creation - story of Mesopotamia and the middle -east, including the Flood and Ut - Napishtim's ark.
The ongoing attempts to try to fit Genesis to what science has discovered and the objections to a literalist reading of the flood -story resulted in this latching onto the very ancient all -in-one continent of Pangea to have all the animals handy without the bother of Noah having to collect them or (as the Bible suggests) they trekked to the ark -site and so some way of getting them across the sea needed to be devised. Pangea was grabbed as a handy idea that Eden was Pangea and, after the flood it broke up (just as science says) carrying the various species to their present locations.
Apart from (as Rifleman says) Pangea being millions of years before the events of the flood (but that is easy disposed of - just deny the validity of the dating) the whole story makes no sense, there are insurmountable problems (I know because debate generally ends up with 'It must have happened because the Bible says so', or God doing a bit of magic to get over otherwise stumping objections) and Pangea is really just a stopgap argument that only stops the deluge of doubt for a short while.
As I say, it doesn't matter that the Flood enthusiasts won't give in no matter how flimsy their evidence looks after a while and we are all familiar with the "is not" - "is so, too" exchange of whether the creation museum bods or the palaeontologists are the ones with real scientific validity. The point is that the people out there who are looking for answers will see which arguments stand up better.
Back in the mid 80s, I remember watching a "documentary" where they were talking of the fludd and they postulated the split from Pangea was in fact caused by the "fountains rising from the deep" which pushed water 20km into the atmosphere and the continents raced away from each other at the rate of 40km/h. Of course not based on real science, yet do not blame these folk for the idea of Pangea. They must have seen this on Tee Vee or in a church so it is obviously true. They even went on to suggest the Rockies were formed when the American continent came to an "abrupt halt" causing a horizontal land slide which amazingly did not pop off into the Pacific ocean but stacked up just shy of the beach. Of course the rotation of the earth had nothing to do with these formations whatsoever.
Of course if you have no education in the sciences, then twits will gobble this postulation up as fact. I mean The Rockies exist on the West coast so it must be true. And of course we have sea shells in the Himalayas which means the water actually did cover Mt. Everest. Never mind that gravity would insist sea shells kinda find their way to the bottom of the ocean. Tectonics however tells us a vastly different story based of course on solid science like ocean mapping et al.
Meanwhile, the silly little rudderless wooden boat with a huge side door still manages to survive this ravaging event and floats happily unaffected to settle on the new and improved version, "mountains of Ararat" not THE mountain. The critters disembark, and old Capt Noah does the unthinkable, he actually kills one of the critters and makes a burnt offering with 18 month old drenched drift wood that just happened to land with the ark, or they used the ark wood itself. Or perhaps he used all that dung that had accumulated to fire the furnace?
Did I mention the "documentary" was American?
And with this "advanced" knowledge you put man on the moon? No frigging wonder there are sceptics concerning the moon landings.
Meanwhile back in reality far from the shores of Kansas....
Of course, we kinda have similar formations to what you see in the US right here in our back yard and Africa really did not move that much did it?
Then there is always that pesky "island" called Australia with critters vastly different to any other critters in the wurlde.
Our now infamous Doctor of Godology Ken Ham and co. suggests the Aussie critters were blown there (a 13 hour trip by 747) b/c some volcano exploded and sent them on a trajectory which would have implied a short (about 6 hours) duration in the vacuum of space. Not only did they survive the eruption/explosion, the space walk but also managed to bend their knees while landing so they did not break their widdle legs.
So folks, remember next time you fall out of a aireeplane and forget your parachute, just relax, bend your knees on impact and you will be just fine and dandy....
Perhaps b/c Australia is upside down, the gravity is not as strong there so they floated down.
Even the Onion cannot make up stories this funny, they just have to browse a creationists website for content.
Back in the mid 80s, I remember watching a "documentary" where they were talking of the fludd and they postulated the split from Pangea was in fact caused by the "fountains rising from the deep" which pushed water 20km into the atmosphere and the continents raced away from each other at the rate of 40km/h. Of course not based on real science, yet do not blame these folk for the idea of Pangea. They must have seen this on Tee Vee or in a church so it is obviously true. They even went on to suggest the Rockies were formed when the American continent came to an "abrupt halt" causing a horizontal land slide which amazingly did not pop off into the Pacific ocean but stacked up just shy of the beach. Of course the rotation of the earth had nothing to do with these formations whatsoever.
Of course if you have no education in the sciences, then twits will gobble this postulation up as fact. I mean The Rockies exist on the West coast so it must be true. And of course we have sea shells in the Himalayas which means the water actually did cover Mt. Everest. Never mind that gravity would insist sea shells kinda find their way to the bottom of the ocean. Tectonics however tells us a vastly different story based of course on solid science like ocean mapping et al.
Meanwhile, the silly little rudderless wooden boat with a huge side door still manages to survive this ravaging event and floats happily unaffected to settle on the new and improved version, "mountains of Ararat" not THE mountain. The critters disembark, and old Capt Noah does the unthinkable, he actually kills one of the critters and makes a burnt offering with 18 month old drenched drift wood that just happened to land with the ark, or they used the ark wood itself. Or perhaps he used all that dung that had accumulated to fire the furnace?
Did I mention the "documentary" was American?
And with this "advanced" knowledge you put man on the moon? No frigging wonder there are sceptics concerning the moon landings.
Meanwhile back in reality far from the shores of Kansas....
Of course, we kinda have similar formations to what you see in the US right here in our back yard and Africa really did not move that much did it?
Then there is always that pesky "island" called Australia with critters vastly different to any other critters in the wurlde.
Our now infamous Doctor of Godology Ken Ham and co. suggests the Aussie critters were blown there (a 13 hour trip by 747) b/c some volcano exploded and sent them on a trajectory which would have implied a short (about 6 hours) duration in the vacuum of space. Not only did they survive the eruption/explosion, the space walk but also managed to bend their knees while landing so they did not break their widdle legs.
So folks, remember next time you fall out of a aireeplane and forget your parachute, just relax, bend your knees on impact and you will be just fine and dandy....
Perhaps b/c Australia is upside down, the gravity is not as strong there so they floated down.
Even the Onion cannot make up stories this funny, they just have to browse a creationists website for content.
As an Aussie, that Ham story was hilarious. Thanks Seeker.
He clearly has a few 'roos loose in his top paddock.
As an Aussie, that Ham story was hilarious. Thanks Seeker.
He clearly has a few 'roos loose in his top paddock.
You are welcome, this was actually found on a wiki type article designed esp for the YEC folk. There is a you tube vid that LoLs at this claim and the real physics not considered.
Thanks seeker (SA) I have got to say that idea of the animals all being blown like a chicken from a cannon in the muppet show to their present location must do more to discredit Flood apologists than anything we could do.
Essentially, taking up your Rockies idea (the Himalayas idea was similar) what this comes down to is taking everything we know about continental drift, mountain formation, geological stratification and erosion and used it speeded up like a Benny Hill sketch to fit 60 million years into one year (I'm surprised none of them have tried to argue that 'year' actually means however many years it takes to make it look credible...Noah and his family can all be freeze -dried in the snows of the Andes until it's time for them to be defrosted and magically returned to sort out some unblemished sheep to sacrifice in a rite that wouldn't be invented until millennia later.
I have to mention this idea of 'Kinds' - the baryma suggestion to scale down all the Noachian zoo to some manageable size, because despite the ingenious calculations to show that all the species could be fitted into a few boxcars, it is hard to get a few million species on a 400 foot long wooden zoo in conditions that could be relied on to have every single breeding pair survive after a year. Even worse since geology has more or less forced the dinosaurs (and thus all other prehistoric animals) to also be on the Ark, and all the birds, too and it is even beginning to look like all the fish, in massive tanks with aerated water, changed regularly. Not with that stuff outside which was the reason they needed to be inside in the first place.
The problem with the baryma (sorta dog/wolf, cat/lion, proto bovine, all -purpose antelope and sortahorse) is that this is not what we get in the fossil record, which of course represents the species that had to be taken on the Ark.
There is not a single baryma amongst them. Not one example of the basic 'kind' evolved at supernatural speed into all the present species. Transitional fossils we have in abundance, not not one example of a baryma.
Yes, the kinds they espouse actually puts evolution on steroids to get to what we have today both present and extinct. It is perhaps with this mindset they expect to see a crocoduck or an elephant hatching from a chicken egg (got a cartoon pic of that somewhere) And our favourite village idiot, banana man's BFF Kirk Cameron, went from Growing Pains to Groaning Pains as an adult.
I really cannot believe folk are this stupid but then they put it all on display in the fact checkable world of the Internet. Any one here that tried that would be laughed out of the proverbial room. Funny what happens when you leave a colony to rule itself j/k.
Mankind didn't exist on Pangaea. The authors of the Bible didn't know of it's existence. Pangaea broke apart some 240 million years ago. Long, long, long before Man. (At least by 235 million years or so)
But to a non-scientific YECer, those dates are meaningless since the Earth according to their belief is only 6000 years old, so they have no qualm with taking something that geologists discovered and insert it in Genesis 10:25, no matter how incoherent it is, and are so scientifically ill-equipped to even see the problems that creates, and feels that it is a perfectly valid connection, and believed to be part and parcel with Flood geology. "But is sounds so 'sciencey.' "
I have a lot of questions about Genesis...I wonder if the geographic references come from Pangea rather than after the continents broke apart...But it all depends on when it all was written down and edited....Like reading a diary of someone long ago who makes reference to his birth in a state called Franklin...But in another source you read the he was born in the state of TN....
Since it likely was penned around the 7th-6th century B.C.E., it's not likely they would have any knowledge of said things.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
j/k.
