Pangea in the Old Testament?

[MrsFoundit]

. Humans are great apes .

I could have sworn that was just a common ancestor thing.

 

[Brightmoon]

That’s why we are great apes . The orangutan lineage split off first . Then the gorilla lineage . Human Lineages and the chimp/bonobo lineage split off also . The gibbons ( lesser apes) and some extinct lineages are also shown

 

[Job 33:6]

I could have sworn that was just a common ancestor thing.

Stating that humans are great apes is similar to stating that we are warm blooded or that we are mammals. It's not necessarily a statement related to common descent. It's more of a statement of taxonomy. Much in the same way that we describe a carrot as a plant without necessarily suggesting that all plants are related (though we later discovered that they were).

This discussion reminds me of the classic topic of drop stones.

There were originally competing theories between geologists in which some believed in a theory of catastrophism in which case, drop stones were deposited by a global flood. While other geologists believed that they were deposited by glaciers.

The "fact" of the existence of drop stones has never changed. Rather more facts were found, including the discovery of things like glacial moraines, glacial striations, glacial scours and kettle lakes etc.

More and more and more facts were discovered, and the facts tipped accepted theory in favor of ice ages over flood geology.

The facts never changed. Rather the theories bend as more facts fine tune them.

Newton's theory of gravity in large part remains true. Yet it is rejected because Einstein's theory of gravity explains more facts. But Newton was never truly wrong in many of his equations, even though his theory is now rejected. Facts if his theory remain in use in modern physics. The facts guide theory moreso than theories guide facts, as history has shown us.

 

[Brightmoon]

Stating that humans are great apes is similar to stating that we are warm blooded or that we are mammals. It's not necessarily a statement related to common descent. It's more of a statement of taxonomy. Much in the same way that we describe a carrot as a plant without necessarily suggesting that all plants are related (though we later discovered that they were).

This discussion reminds me of the classic topic of drop stones.
There were originally competing theories between geologists in which some believed in a theory of catastrophism in which case, drop stones were deposited by a global flood. While other geologists believed that they were deposited by glaciers.

The "fact" of the existence of drop stones has never changed. Rather more facts were found, including the discovery of things like glacial moraines, glacial striations, glacial scours and kettle lakes etc.

More and more and more facts were discovered, and the facts tipped accepted theory in favor of ice ages over flood geology.

The facts never changed. Rather the theories bend as more facts fine tune them.

Newton's theory of gravity in large part remains true. Yet it is rejected because Einstein's theory of gravity explains more facts. But Newton was never truly wrong in many of his equations, even though his theory is now rejected. Facts if his theory remain in use in modern physics. The facts guide theory moreso than theories guide facts, as history has shown us.

Actually humans ARE great apes . The former name for the other great ape family Pongidae is officially retired. They’re classified as Hominidae now. Also being classified as mammals is definitive evidence that we share a common ancestry with other mammals. However, warm bloodedness is a variable trait in vertebrates. Some are warm blooded , some aren’t, and some are partially warm blooded . Unlike the case with Mammalia , warm bloodedness is not definitive for common ancestry even though being a vertebrate is

 

[Job 33:6]

Actually humans ARE great apes . The former name for the other great ape family Pongidae is officially retired. They’re classified as Hominidae now. Also being classified as mammals does imply that we share a common ancestry with other mammals

Sure.

Would you agree that if hypothetically, theories around common descent disappeared tomorrow, we would still be considered great apes, mammals, hominids etc.? On the basis that taxonomy predates Darwin's studies.

I otherwise agree that as we now understand the world, saying that a carrot and a potato both come from plants, tells me that a carrot and potato are related, despite appearing different.

 

[LoG]

Actually humans ARE great apes . The former name for the other great ape family Pongidae is officially retired. They’re classified as Hominidae now.

Since apes are the ones being reclassified as Hominidae, it would make them humans rather than us apes.

 

[Brightmoon]

Humans would still be great apes, primates, mammals, vertebrates, Sarcopterygii ( lobefin lungfish) , bilaterians, animals, and eucaryotes

 

[Brightmoon]

Since apes are the ones being reclassified as Hominidae, it would make them humans rather than us apes.

there was a little spat within the biology community about which name to use (Pongidae or Hominidae ,) for both lineages before they settled on calling both Hominidae. They basically moved the pongid apes back into Hominidae.IIRC the Victorians had started that Pongidae lineage because they didn’t like that humans were mere animals

 

[now faith]

While reading lineage in Genesis chapter 10, we come across a man named Peleg. This is what it says(in 3 different versions):

1.
“To Eber were born two sons: the name of one was Peleg, for in his days the earth was divided; and his brother’s name was Joktan.”
‭‭Genesis‬ ‭10:25‬ ‭NKJV

2.
“To Eber were born two sons: the name of the one was Peleg, for in his days the earth was divided, and his brother's name was Joktan.”
‭‭Genesis‬ ‭10:25‬ ‭ESV‬‬

3.
“To Eber were born two sons: the name of the one was Peleg, for in his days the earth was divided, and his brother's name was Joktan.”
‭‭Genesis‬ ‭10:25‬ ‭NRSV-CI‬‬

In his days the Earth was divided. Some may say that this alludes to nations at war, but, it would have said “the nations were divided” but it doestnt. This is very interesting and lead me to think of “Pangea” if you are unfamiliar, scientists have a theory that at a point in history all of the continents were connected and then due to the shifting of plates and continental drift, the continents are now separated.

Does this verse back up scientists theories? Here are a few other verses that relate or tie in to this subject:

“When the Most High apportioned the nations, when he divided humankind, he fixed the boundaries of the peoples according to the number of the gods;”
‭‭Deuteronomy‬ ‭32:8‬ ‭NRSV-CI‬‬

“To Eber were born two sons: the name of one was Peleg, for in his days the earth was divided; and his brother’s name was Joktan.”
‭‭I Chronicles‬ ‭1:19‬ ‭NKJV‬‬

What do you guys think?

With the discovery of things such as spear heads found in America,that originated in Europe I agree.

The Gentiles went to land called isles of the Gentiles.
You could also presume they built sea going vessels,but I doubt they had that ability.
Yes Noah did do just that,under Gods instruction.
Noah had no need for navigation.
It took many years to build the Ark,after Noah God limited man to a 120 year life span.

Genesis 10: 1. Now these are the generations of the sons of Noah, Shem, Ham, and Japheth: and unto them were sons born after the flood. 2. The sons of Japheth; Gomer, and Magog, and Madai, and Javan, and Tubal, and Meshech, and Tiras. 3. And the sons of Gomer; Ashkenaz, and Riphath, and Togarmah. 4. And the sons of Javan; Elishah, and Tarshish, Kittim, and Dodanim. 5. By these were the isles of the Gentiles divided in their lands; every one after his tongue, after their families, in their nations.

Now here is the kicker:

Genesis 10: 22. The children of Shem; Elam, and Asshur, and Arphaxad, and Lud, and Aram. 23. And the children of Aram; Uz, and Hul, and Gether, and Mash. 24. And Arphaxad begat Salah; and Salah begat Eber. 25. And unto Eber were born two sons: the name of one was( Peleg; for in his days was the earth divided and his brother's name was Joktan.

For me Gods Word is very plain on this topic,it mentions islands and the earth being divided.
Out of Hams bloodline you find his Children formed Sodom Gomorrah,
Ninevah and,Egypt.
Hagar was Egyptian.
From Abraham and his maidservant you find the Arabic people.

Genesis 16: 8. And he said, Hagar, Sarai's maid, whence camest thou? and whither wilt thou go? And she said, I flee from the face of my mistress Sarai. 9. And the angel of the LORD said unto her, Return to thy mistress, and submit thyself under her hands. 10. And the angel of the LORD said unto her, I will multiply thy seed exceedingly, that it shall not be numbered for multitude. 11. And the angel of the LORD said unto her, Behold, thou art with child, and shalt bear a son, and shalt call his name Ishmael; because the LORD hath heard thy affliction. 12. And he will be a wild man; his hand will be against every man, and every man's hand against him; and he shall dwell in the presence of all his brethren.

For me the flood and,events after reconcile so many mysteries that science has yet to understand.

I am in no way suggesting the sons of Ham could not have Salvation.
All you need do is read the book of Jonah to see the Lord Bless Ninevah.

 

[now faith]

Humans would still be great apes, primates, mammals, vertebrates, Sarcopterygii ( lobefin lungfish) , bilaterians, animals, and eucaryotes

The flood is to the theory of evolution as a bull would be in a China shop.
Fossil records show fish eating perfectly preserved instantly from a catastrophe.
Evolution would not even preserve fish without decay setting in.
I would suggest a look at Professor Walter Vieth on YouTube.
His lessons on Gods Word verses Evolution are solid.

 

[Job 33:6]

The flood is to the theory of evolution as a bull would be in a China shop.
Fossil records show fish eating perfectly preserved instantly from a catastrophe.
Evolution would not even preserve fish without decay setting in.
I would suggest a look at Professor Walter Vieth on YouTube.
His lessons on Gods Word verses Evolution are solid.

There are many non-global flood occurances that can bury living beings.

I took a minute to Google one:

10 years after fatal mudslide, tiny La Conchita accepts the risks


"The events of Jan. 10, 2005, when 400,000 tons of mud slid down the bluff behind La Conchita, killing seven adults and three children, are frozen in the eerie tableau — a reminder of the hidden dangers lurking beneath the surface. The tragedy came 10 years after the hill collapsed in 1995 when nine homes were lost."

There are avalanches, mud slides, rock slides, rock falls, tsunamis, mud flows, debris flows, earth flows, sturzstroms.

Natural disasters such as volcanic eruptions, earthquakes, tidal waves, hurricanes and tsunamis are all known to transport large amounts of soil which can and typically do result in the death and burial of living things.

And evidence suggests that these are the causes. For example, deposits of the green River formation are lacustrine in shape, the type, size and shape of sediment deposited also suggest lacustrine origins, as does the type of fauna present (all fresh water small fish and bugs as we would expect living around a lake). Varves suggest millions of independent depositional occurances.
Old Earth Geology Part 3 (Green River Formation)

So we not only have modern day examples of instantaneous burial, but we also have residual evidence of small scale occurances recorded in the geologic record that support these occurances as the cause of the fossils you describe.

 

[Job 33:6]

Aristotle saw sea shells at the top of mountain peaks. He suggested that this perhaps meant that mountains were covered by water.

But of course, we came to learn of plate tectonics and orogenic uplift.

If we if ignore the evidence, we might believe in a global flood. But if we examine the evidence, clearly uplift and the theory of plate tectonics comes out as the successor. The same goes with ideas of rapid burial of fish.

 

[Brightmoon]

I bought my youngest son a fossil fish from the Green River Formation for his birthday one year.

 

[Brightmoon]

The flood is to the theory of evolution as a bull would be in a China shop.
Fossil records show fish eating perfectly preserved instantly from a catastrophe.
Evolution would not even preserve fish without decay setting in.
I would suggest a look at Professor Walter Vieth on YouTube.
His lessons on Gods Word verses Evolution are solid.

. Did it ever occur to you that even a small local flood would bury animals and plants in sediment? I would suggest to you to learn basic middle school geology and how it gets its answers . As far as evolution is concerned, I’ve never met a creationist yet who actually understood mainstream science. Creationists have their own silly versions of evolution which scientists don’t use . I assume you’ve bumped into one of the silly creationist versions instead of learning the real deal

 

[MrsFoundit]

. As far as evolution is concerned, I’ve never met a creationist yet who actually understood mainstream science. l

You apply circular logic, because if examples of Creationist people who certainly understand mainstream science are cited, your response is that they are deluded.

 

[LoG]

Aristotle saw sea shells at the top of mountain peaks. He suggested that this perhaps meant that mountains were covered by water.

But of course, we came to learn of plate tectonics and orogenic uplift.

If we if ignore the evidence, we might believe in a global flood. But if we examine the evidence, clearly uplift and the theory of plate tectonics comes out as the successor. The same goes with ideas of rapid burial of fish.

Any why is it an either/or proposition rather then that there was both glaciers and a global flood? Why were geologists in the 1700's able to find evidence of a flood but the ones today supposedly can't? I can understand that some of the evidence is better suited to glaciation but surely not all. It just strikes me that secular geologists want to simply deny in any way they can the reality of a global flood in spite of numerous ancient documents and cultural histories all around the world that mention such an occurrence.

 

[Job 33:6]

Any why is it an either/or proposition rather then that there was both glaciers and a global flood? Why were geologists in the 1700's able to find evidence of a flood but the ones today supposedly can't? I can understand that some of the evidence is better suited to glaciation but surely not all. It just strikes me that secular geologists want to simply deny in any way they can the reality of a global flood in spite of numerous ancient documents and cultural histories all around the world that mention such an occurrence.

It's an either or case because only glaciers produce things such as striations and moraines. These features are glacial in origin, as we have discovered through observations of glaciers over time. Observations of floods have demonstrated that floods produce their own unique features, that glaciers do not, such as rhythmites and ripple laminae.

Each feature produces different types of rocks.

As stated before, Aristotle, who lived in 350BC, attributed sea shells on mountains to flood waters covering mountains. Geologists (at least some of them) of the 1700s attributed drop stones to a catastrophic flood.

In both of the above cases, the gathering of knowledge for ice ages and drop stones and plate tectonics, had not occurred. Continental drift was not proposed until 1912 by Alfred Wegner, and before then, how could Aristotle know of orogenesis and uplift? He had no idea. He didn't have modern kinematics and geophysics. He was a philosopher who made a best guess, but he lacked the information necessary to understand. Science didn't really exist back then.

Same with ice ages. They were not proposed until the 1700s. People had no understanding and no information about ice ages. Nobody had discovered the information necessary to make a case for an ice age. This was the dawn of geology. It just wasn't a well understood science back then. Same with biology. The father of geology as we know him (James Hutton)was around in the 1700s, so you have to understand that people just didn't know about the earth. And those that did, still needed time to publish and study and make a case for what they were uncovering at that time. Just like when landing a rocketship on the moon. People had to learn the science.

The reason people like myself, can't find evidence for a flood, is because what was once considered evidence for a flood long ago, is no longer. When I see a drop stone, I also see striations, till and moraines, and so I know that what once was considered evidence for a flood, simply is not, as flood waters obviously cannot make these features (if you would like, I could explain why). But if I lived in the 1700s, then without awareness of striations and moraines, I might have a different opinion.

And I don't consider myself a secular geologist. I attend church, tithe, do my regular Bible studies and love Jesus just like any other Christian. But that's not what this topic is about. It's about what is. And if there are moraines and till and striations, then it is what it is. These are features that we know are made by glaciers because we see glaciers making these same features today. We see glaciers dropping drop stones today and till and moraines and striations etc. And we see floods too, but floods don't do these things. They do other things.

 

[Job 33:6]

Another good example is the difference between the scablands of Washington and the Grand canyon.

This isn't about who is the better Christian. It's about what physically exists as a creation by God.

And if we look at satellite imagery of the scablands
Google Image Result for https://www.nationalgeographic.com/content/dam/news/2016/11/28/scablands/1-scablands-MM8155_130512_6280.jpg

And we look at satellite imagery of the Grand canyon

The Loop

grand canyon meander - Google Search

We can see the drastic difference between the scablands that has a vertical, straight line, "blow-out" kind of high energy look. Versus wide meanders which are low energy features.

It's like when you turn on your water hose. If the hose is on high and lots of water is spraying out, it goes in a straight line. But if you see lots of meanders, you know that the water that made the feature, is making 180 degree turns over and over again. Which, much like when driving a car, if you're making 180 degree turns, then you're only going to have so much momentum.

In fact, satellite imagery has shown us that the wider the meanders of a river, the older is it (at least in cases of uniform geology and flow rates). So when we see drastic wide meanders, especially those that are eroding through dense rock, we know that they've been flowing a long time. And some might ask "but how do you know that the rock was dense and not a loose sand?", And to that, I say that we have things like fault breccia's and slicken lines. Sheared bilaterally symmetric fossils, cataclastic deformation and propogating faults. Features that only form in dense rock. And sometimes people say, "well how do you know the rock didn't become hard later than the river?" And I say, well, study the fundamentals of superposition and try asking again. Etc.

And along with many other lines of evidence in the rock record itself, it becomes apparent what features were formed by chaotic flood waters and what features were formed by regular everyday rivers or glaciers, or oceanic trans and regression etc.

And again, it's not about who's more or less Christian or secular than another person. It's not about whether or not someone is an atheist or a new or Buddhist etc. It's a question of geology.

 

[now faith]

. Did it ever occur to you that even a small local flood would bury animals and plants in sediment? I would suggest to you to learn basic middle school geology and how it gets its answers . As far as evolution is concerned, I’ve never met a creationist yet who actually understood mainstream science. Creationists have their own silly versions of evolution which scientists don’t use . I assume you’ve bumped into one of the silly creationist versions instead of learning the real deal

Ok Scientists rely on sedimentary layers in order to determine time lines.
Does any place on earth have even sedimentary layers that you can see a clear picture of evolution?
The Grand Canyon is sliced down the sides exposing a multiple color scheme of layers.
Why does every place on earth have missing layers that should be there?
I know personally the man who with a drag line exposed the Liecy Shell pit.
Located in Florida the first evidence was Fossils that did not belong together.
They were millions and millions of years apart according to the Geologic time line.
After a scramble to reconcile this problem,they came up with a marvel of a theory.
Millions of years ago there was a river.
Animals would die a d plop into this river.
they would drift down to a magical Vortex through millions and millions of years.
There that fixed the problem of the time line,I suppose Al Gore would love this because after all the earth's core is millions and millions of degrees.
The pond was one example that Walter Vieth used that simplifies the understanding as much as possible.
He was speaking figuratively.
You do not need to be a geologist to know when things on the bottom of the earth,are exploded you will end up with a jumble of different types of fossils.
You do not need be a Geologist to see perfectly preserved remains in the fossil record to know that something happened instantaneously.
Explain finding fossilized fish with their heads intact and,no signs of decay.
Fish start to decay within hours after they die and,the head is the first to go.
The problem with evolution is it simply does not have a way to connect the massive amount of time it proclaims.
Carbon dating is inaccurate due to differences in radiation around the world.
Using the Pond as if it was my lack of knowledge is a straw man.
Implying my ignorance in Geology has no reason other than a ad hominem response to a point that you do not like.
The man who discovered the Liecy shell pit is my Pastor and he has the orginal broadcast before it was changed.

 

[now faith]

You apply circular logic, because if examples of Creationist people who certainly understand mainstream science are cited, your response is that they are deluded.

Great answer!
Any other insults to enforce your point?
My apologies I have to work in late night so I confused your reply with a statement.