China's Sorrow

[Lucy Stulz]

What, then, is Pangaea in the 'standard concept' of Christianity? Edom? Egypt? Galilee? Gaul? Tyrus?

What, exactly?

Well....I think many Christians would say Pangaea is Pangaea! Some Christians say Eden was a metaphor. Some Christians say this and some Christians say that and yet other Christians couldn't care less what Pangaea was.

The point being that your threats to "rub someone's face" in something would indicate you have some "superior knowledge" that you have to rub someone's face in.

And I'm reminding you that Christianity is a bit broader than your particular congregation's unique read on it.

In fact Pangaea was never even mentioned in any sermon or Sunday school class I can recall.

So, again, how do you propose to "rub someone's face" in something?

ESPECIALLY in "religious topics"? Where there is no real way to verify much.

YOUR "opinion" of what is RIGHT or WRONG or TRUE or FALSE is often offset by equally sure people that YOU are wrong or right or false or true.

Just look at this thread in which Joshua0 appears to have a remarkably different view on Genesis than you do. How does that happen?

Which of you is RIGHT? Which of you is WRONG? How do we tell?

Do you just rub each other's face in your own TRUTH?

Let us know when you guys get it sorted out in your own faith. THEN go rubbing other people's faces in the "TRUTH".

 

[Strathos]

Of course not.

Have you read Genesis 1-3?

Yes, but apparently you have access to some special version that says things that aren't in the versions available to the rest of us.

God created Eden -- a supercontinent -- then planted a Garden in the eastern (Oriental) part of it and placed Adam there.

I don't see any mention of supercontinents.

 

[AV1611VET]

I don't see any mention of supercontinents.

Look again ... it's between "Rapture" and "Trinity."

(And for the record, it's not 'supercontinents' ... it's "supercontinent.")

 

[Lucy Stulz]

Look again ... it's between "Rapture" and "Trinity."

So it is inferred from something in the Bible? At least the Rapture is indicated by being "caught up in the clouds"....but I'm still not seeing where "supercontinent" is even inferred in Genesis.

(And for the record, it's not 'supercontinents' ... it's "supercontinent.")

But there was likely at least one supercontinent before Pangaea. You did know that, right?

Pannotia
Rodinia
Columbia
Protopangaea-Paleopangaea
Kenorland
Ur (Valbaara)

They become less "certain" once you go back before the middle Mesozoic, but you get the idea.

What does the Bible say about these supercontinents?

 

[AV1611VET]

But there was likely at least one supercontinent before Pangaea. You did know that, right?

I'm familiar with the fact that higher aceldama teaches that ... yes.

For the record, whether you believe it or not, my point still stands.

God could have created 50 supercontinents, if that's what you want to believe; but the point is: the last one, Eden, had a garden planted in what is now China.

In all this arguing, we've lost focus of my main point, haven't we?

I'll restate it:

Eden was what e-scientists call "Pangaea," and the Garden of Eden would have therefore been in China.

Whether Eden is the only supercontinent, or whether Eden is last in a list of supercontinents, makes no difference to my point.

 

[Mr Strawberry]

I'm familiar with the fact that higher aceldama teaches that ... yes.

For the record, whether you believe it or not, my point still stands.

God could have created 50 supercontinents, if that's what you want to believe; but the point is: the last one, Eden, had a garden planted in what is now China.

In all this arguing, we've lost focus of my main point, haven't we?

I'll restate it:


Whether Eden is the only supercontinent, or whether Eden is last in a list of supercontinents, makes no difference to my point.

Except Pangaea formed 300 million years ago and hasn't existed as a supercontinent for 200 million years. That's before flowering plants evolved, just to compound your problems for you, not that they need compounding.

 

[Lucy Stulz]

I'm familiar with the fact that higher aceldama teaches that ... yes.

For the record, whether you believe it or not, my point still stands.

Higher academia also taught us about Pangaea. Seems you randomly chose it to be Eden. Unless, again, you can show us Chapter and Verse where Pangaea is called out to be Eden.

God could have created 50 supercontinents, if that's what you want to believe;

And by "want to believe", you probably mean "what the evidence says"?

but the point is: the last one, Eden, had a garden planted in what is now China.

The last supercontinent? So you don't think there's a chance for another supercontinent? Or do you just mean the most recent supercontinent?

I'm intrigued because you seem to have some of the pages that are missing from my copy of Genesis.

I'll restate it:


Whether Eden is the only supercontinent, or whether Eden is last in a list of supercontinents, makes no difference to my point.

So I guess the bigger question is: why does Eden need to be a "supercontinent" at all? Why couldn't it be Gondwananland? Or a the Pine Barrens in NJ? Or Iceland?

And further: why would God put man in a time and place when no humans existed? Even if one doesn't believe in "deep time" or one believes in it in some strange way, the time when Pangaea existed bears no human fossils whatsoever. In fact the mammals that might have existed then were rather different from just about every mammal we see which do exist in the record from man's earliest forms.

Seems kinda confusing for God to play it out like that.

 

[AV1611VET]

Except Pangaea formed 300 million years oago and hasn't existed as a supercontinent for 200 million years. That's before flowering plants evolved, just to compound your problems for you, not that they need compounding.

Yes, and the sun before the earth, and whales before land animals, right?

There are something like 20 different ways Genesis 1 contradicts evolution.

Believe me, my "problems" are more than compounded.

Kudos to Frumious Bandersnatch for doing this for me:

Would someone do me a favor please, and put these in chronological order according to the Big Bang paradigm:

1. earth
2. water
3. light
4. firmament [atmosphere on earth]
5. land
6. grass
7. [angiosperms]
8. stars
9. moon
10. [first] aquatic life
11. birds
12. whales
13. cattle
14. insects
15. man
16. woman

I'll have a try. I think this is about right.
light
stars
water (in the universe)
earth/water on earth/land/atmosphere (firmament is meaningless)
moon
first aquatic life
insects
angiosperms/birds
grass
whales
Modern humans (if that is what you mean by man and woman)

PS There were plants long before there were angiosperms and I don't if by water you mean H2O or liquid water.

 

[Mr Strawberry]

There are something like 20 different ways Genesis 1 contradicts evolution.

Evolution is only one of the things Genesis contradicts. Actually it would be more fun to try and find something it doesn't contradict.

 

[AV1611VET]

So I guess the bigger question is: why does Eden need to be a "supercontinent" at all?

What do you call it?

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.
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.

Would you please interpret this passage for me; according to your belief?

I'm suspecting you are thinking the seven continents were created at this time; but it's hard to tell.

Heaven forbid you guys would ever back what you believe with Scripture.

The only time you guys ever quote Scripture is when you twist It to justify your beliefs that It teaches slavery, geocentrism, flat earth, Crusades, antizionism (in the form of Israel not being the Promised Land), incest, homophobia, genocide, infanticide, deep time, and everything else you're [evidently] required to know to get your Ph.D.'s.

 

[AV1611VET]

Evolution is only one of the things Genesis contradicts. Actually it would be more fun to try and find something it doesn't contradict.

As I have stated many times here, I believe God "jumbled" up the events of the Creation Week, knowing that, in the end times (i.e., the Dispensation of Grace), evolution would become a viable enemy of Creationism.

The more Genesis 1 looks "jumbled," the more it stands out.

How better to show they were a series of mag... er ... miracles, than to have them "out of order"?

 

[StormanNorman]

What do you call it?

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.
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.

Would you please interpret this passage for me; according to your belief?

I'm suspecting you are thinking the seven continents were created at this time; but it's hard to tell.

Heaven forbid you guys would ever back what you believe with Scripture.

Why would I? I have never read the scriptures.

The only time you guys ever quote Scripture is when you twist It to justify your beliefs that It teaches slavery, geocentrism, flat earth, Crusades, antizionism (in the form of Israel not being the Promised Land), incest, homophobia, genocide, infanticide, deep time, and everything else you're [evidently] required to know to get your Ph.D.'s.

I just needed to know how to add, subtract, multiply, and divide .... oh, and a little harmonic analysis and singular intergral operator theory on the side.

 

[Mr Strawberry]

As I have stated many times here, I believe God "jumbled" up the events of the Creation Week, knowing that, in the end times (i.e., the Dispensation of Grace), evolution would become a viable enemy of Creationism.

The more Genesis 1 looks "jumbled," the more it stands out.

How better to show they were a series of mag... er ... miracles, than to have them "out of order"?

You think God deliberately made Genesis contradict reality as much as possible because somewhere along the line His creation went horribly wrong and now gives the appearance that Creationism is rubbish? That's why you think Genesis is all [bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse]-eyed?

Lol. Sorry, that's just hopeless. Funny, but hopeless.

 

[Herman Hedning]

I'm familiar with the fact that higher aceldama teaches that ... yes.

AV, you keep using that word when referring to academia. Would you mind telling why? Are you saying that everyone in academia are dishonest?

 

[AV1611VET]

AV, you keep using that word when referring to academia. Would you mind telling why? Are you saying that everyone in academia are dishonest?

Not on purpose.

Why do you guys say "magic" instead of "miracles;" or "poof" instead of "created"?

 

[FrenchyBearpaw]

Not on purpose.

Why do you guys say "magic" instead of "miracles;" or "poof" instead of "created"?

Aaaaahhh.... someone needs a hug.

 

[Lucy Stulz]

AV, you keep using that word when referring to academia. Would you mind telling why? Are you saying that everyone in academia are dishonest?

Wow! I had completely missed that...I glossed it and missed it. So it is spelled that way on purpose by AV1611VET? As in Potters Field associated with Judas Iscariot?

That "Akeldama"????

But doesn't that mean a "place of bloodshed" in common parlance?

This is a mystery.

 

[Lucy Stulz]

Not on purpose.

So the scientists are not lying they are just stupid?

Why do you guys say "magic" instead of "miracles;"

Is there a difference?

or "poof" instead of "created"?

Well when someone creates something from nothing it does kinda seem like a "poof".

 

[AV1611VET]

That "Akeldama"????

Never heard of it.

But doesn't that mean a "place of bloodshed" in common parlance?

This is a mystery.

Feel free to ignore my question here: 70

 

[Strathos]

I'm familiar with the fact that higher aceldama teaches that ... yes.

For the record, whether you believe it or not, my point still stands.

God could have created 50 supercontinents, if that's what you want to believe; but the point is: the last one, Eden, had a garden planted in what is now China.

In all this arguing, we've lost focus of my main point, haven't we?

I'll restate it:


Whether Eden is the only supercontinent, or whether Eden is last in a list of supercontinents, makes no difference to my point.

So you take the idea of a supercontinent from scientists and add it into scripture (when it's not stated there) but you also ignore what scientists actually say about supercontinents.

So in other words you are taking parts of both science and scripture to form them into some Frakensteinian abomination that contradicts both of them.