Pangea in the Old Testament?

[now faith]

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.

So you have records of more modern mudslides,that suggest instant burial.
Then you have older examples where revolution of upheavals happened.
How does this disprove the flood?
We could have a eurpution of a volcano tomorrow.
Science simply has a flawed sense of time,as I asked the OP
Can you find anywhere in the Geologic layers a time line that is complete to support millions of years on every land mass?
One land mass.
Scientists are making presumtive statements before they have a record of cohesive facts.
Or are your statements supporting a catastrophe flood?

 

[now faith]

Well it certainly turned into a rapid fire debate on Old verses New Earth.
The Thread Topic was Pangea.

 

[now faith]

If you are a Christian who denies the Book of Genesis,and rely on what you read about Geologic findings rather than Gods Word,then you have to find a record of Christ based on presumtive statement's.
Everything to support the bloodline of Christ starts in Genesis.
The generations of Noah are the rebirth of mankind.
Noah came From Adam,so did Christ.
The sons of Noah repopulated the Earth.
Somehow they formed tribes on other Continents.
And Somehow the Bat creek Stone was discovered on the American Continent along with other findings.
The Bat Creek stone was written in ancient Hebrew or Chaldean language.

 

[now faith]

3am good night and God Bless

 

[Job 33:6]

So you have records of more modern mudslides,that suggest instant burial.
Then you have older examples where revolution of upheavals happened.
How does this disprove the flood?

To say that there was a global flood is a "positive" claim. It's like if I were to say "there is a cake in the oven". I am making a statement that implies that physical reality reflects my suggestion (unless I openly stated that my claim wasn't grounded in physical reality).

And so, what I am pointing out is that the physical evidence doesn't reflect the claim being made.

For example someone stated that the: "Fossil records show fish eating perfectly preserved instantly from a catastrophe." In relation to a global flood.

I was simply pointing out that there are many causes for rapid burial of life that don't involve a global flood. And as the age old saying goes, extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.

But further, features described, such as those of the green River formation, indicate a lacustrine environment of seasonal deposits, as there are millions of varves. Millions of repetitive series of deposition is not something that a global flood would produce. Nor could a global flood produce this formation in the shape of a lake, nor would it explain why fossils are only of a fresh water environment etc.

Which basically means that physical evidence suggests local floods (or in other areas no flood at all), rather than global.

The reason for bringing up this formation is that fossils of fish eating other fish have been observed here. So it is significant to discuss the formation to understand it's origins.

Can you find anywhere in the Geologic layers a time line that is complete to support millions of years on every land mass?"

Yes.
Here are examples in North America:

The Geologic Column ~ Learning Geology

See figure 3 in Arizona and Utah.

Here on the east coast we have layers of the precambrian, Paleozoic, mesozoic and cenozoic, in superpositional order, spanning the entire geologic column as well.
Geology of Pennsylvania - Wikipedia
New York State Geologic Map - New York State • mappery
NJDEP - New Jersey Geological and Water Survey - Bedrock Geologic Map of New Jersey, 2014, Scale 1:250,000.

You have to view them in cross sectional view of course.

Surely the goal posts will move and someone might ask "but how do you know they represent millions of years of time". And with that, I'd defer back to my old earth geology series.

Old Earth Geology

 

[Job 33:6]

File:Faunal sucession.jpg - Wikimedia Commons

It should also be noted that the geologic column doesn't need to exist, 100 percent complete in every square inch of earth for us to confirm its existence.

See the above figure.

lateral continuity superposition geology geology column - Google Search

Google Image Result for https://image.slidesharecdn.com/geol162-geologictime-121105212259-phpapp02/95/geol162-geologic-time-18-638.jpg?cb=1352150635

As long as people can recognize basic patterns in geologic sequences, we can follow the geologic column through time over space.

Certainly within a thousand miles in distance and probably within 500 miles, you can find representation of every period of the geologic column on every continent in multiple instances.

 

[MrsFoundit]

I am making a statement that implies that physical reality reflects my suggestion (unless I openly stated that my claim wasn't grounded in physical reality).

My beliefs about Creation are not restricted to or demonstrated by evidence from physical reality.

Is that the same as your wasn't grounded in ?

 

[Job 33:6]

My beliefs about Creation are not restricted to or demonstrated by evidence from physical reality.

Is that the same as your wasn't grounded in ?

Yes. And that's fine if that's how you feel.

By suggesting that belief isn't grounded in the scientific method (things like observation of physical features, or tests or repeatability of experiments and results), a person relieves themselves of making false claims about science. For whatever that belief may be in.

Someone earlier in this topic was talking about fossils being found "out of place". And this is the kind of statement that we can test, and can observe and can repeat tests and observations of (but of course the one making the claim will never do these tests in any way, shape or form). And to be frank, the claim is an act of misconstruing science (an act of distorting physical reality) and it's insulting as well for people who actually do test these things.

But if the person said up front that their belief in a global flood wasn't about the fossils, now they've relieved themselves of the burden of trying to defy science, or in this case paleontology.

 

[Job 33:6]

To say that there was a global flood is a "positive" claim. It's like if I were to say "there is a cake in the oven". I am making a statement that implies that physical reality reflects my suggestion (unless I openly stated that my claim wasn't grounded in physical reality).

And so, what I am pointing out is that the physical evidence doesn't reflect the claim being made.

For example someone stated that the: "Fossil records show fish eating perfectly preserved instantly from a catastrophe." In relation to a global flood.

I was simply pointing out that there are many causes for rapid burial of life that don't involve a global flood. And as the age old saying goes, extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.

But further, features described, such as those of the green River formation, indicate a lacustrine environment of seasonal deposits, as there are millions of varves. Millions of repetitive series of deposition is not something that a global flood would produce. Nor could a global flood produce this formation in the shape of a lake, nor would it explain why fossils are only of a fresh water environment etc.

Which basically means that physical evidence suggests local floods (or in other areas no flood at all), rather than global.

The reason for bringing up this formation is that fossils of fish eating other fish have been observed here. So it is significant to discuss the formation to understand it's origins.



Yes.
Here are examples in North America:

The Geologic Column ~ Learning Geology

See figure 3 in Arizona and Utah.

Here on the east coast we have layers of the precambrian, Paleozoic, mesozoic and cenozoic, in superpositional order, spanning the entire geologic column as well.
Geology of Pennsylvania - Wikipedia
New York State Geologic Map - New York State • mappery
NJDEP - New Jersey Geological and Water Survey - Bedrock Geologic Map of New Jersey, 2014, Scale 1:250,000.

You have to view them in cross sectional view of course.

Surely the goal posts will move and someone might ask "but how do you know they represent millions of years of time". And with that, I'd defer back to my old earth geology series.

Old Earth Geology

The new jersey map in my link in this post is actually pretty good. We see precambrian, Cambrian, ordovician, silurian, devonian, triassic, Jurassic, cretaceous, paleocene, eocene and miocene.

So we have most periods represented in the tiny state of New Jersey alone.

The carboniferous (including the Pennsylvanian) is very strongly presented in Pennsylvania. As is the Permian. New York has a strong representation of Paleozoic strata as well.

NJDEP - New Jersey Geological and Water Survey - Bedrock Geologic Map of New Jersey, 2014, Scale 1:250,000.

Google Image Result for http://www.creation-vs-evolution.co.uk/NotesImages/Topic61NotesImage4.jpg

An example of how in one state alone, over a distance of 100 miles, we have a rock record of almost every geologic period. And if we extend another 50 miles into Pennsylvania and new York, we have every period covered.

 

[now faith]

The new jersey map in my link in this post is actually pretty good. We see precambrian, Cambrian, ordovician, silurian, devonian, triassic, Jurassic, cretaceous, paleocene, eocene and miocene.

So we have most periods represented in the tiny state of New Jersey alone.

The carboniferous (including the Pennsylvanian) is very strongly presented in Pennsylvania. As is the Permian. New York has a strong representation of Paleozoic strata as well.

NJDEP - New Jersey Geological and Water Survey - Bedrock Geologic Map of New Jersey, 2014, Scale 1:250,000.

Google Image Result for http://www.creation-vs-evolution.co.uk/NotesImages/Topic61NotesImage4.jpg

An example of how in one state alone, over a distance of 100 miles, we have a rock record of almost every geologic period. And if we extend another 50 miles into Pennsylvania and new York, we have every period covered.

I said that what most people call dinosaur bones were found in a group that did not fall in line with the time line assigned to them by Scientists.
A very lame excuse of a theory was applied and there you have your explanation.
I called a noted creationist who calls himself Dr. Dino.
I wanted Him to see this old news story and add his expertise.
As yet I have not had a reply on that topic,but was invited to stay at his adventure park.
The idea of animals plopping into a river that never changes for millions of years and,ending in same Vortex seems ambiguous to me.

 

[Job 33:6]

"As yet I have not had a reply on that topic,but was invited to stay at his adventure park."

Interesting.

 

[The Barbarian]

So where does the Bible say that we evolved from apes?

Same place it says atoms are made of neutrons, protons, and electrons. Not everything that's true, is in the Bible.

 

[Zachm531]

Same place it says atoms are made of neutrons, protons, and electrons. Not everything that's true, is in the Bible.

Same place it says atoms are made of neutrons, protons, and electrons. Not everything that's true, is in the Bible.

Except, this is addressed in the bible very clearly Genesis 1:26

 

[The Barbarian]

Except, this is addressed in the bible very clearly Genesis 1:26

It says clearly that God created life. We both agree with Him on that. You just don't approve of the way He did it.

 

[Zachm531]

It says clearly that God created life. We both agree with Him on that. You just don't approve of the way He did it.

No it says he created us in HIS image! Not through a period of trial an error and mass evolution. If we are created in Gods image and we are products of evolution, that would mean that God is a product of evolution

 

[The Barbarian]

Barbarian observes:
It says clearly that God created life. We both agree with Him on that. You just don't approve of the way He did it.

No it says he created us in HIS image!

The Bible tells us that God is a spirit, and that a spirit has no body. The "image" is in our minds and souls. Again, you just don't approve of the way He made us.

Not through a period of trial an error and mass evolution.

The Bible doesn't say how He did it. And those who think He can't use chance to do his will, do not realize His wisdom and power.

The effect of divine providence is not only that things should happen somehow; but that they should happen either by necessity or by contingency. Therefore whatsoever divine providence ordains to happen infallibly and of necessity happens infallibly and of necessity; and that happens from contingency, which the plan of divine providence conceives to happen from contingency.
St. Thomas Aquinas, Summa Theologiae, Q22 article 4

If we are created in Gods image and we are products of evolution, that would mean that God is a product of evolution

Nope. Category error there. Apply it to the creationist belief:

"If we are created in God's image and are products of special creation, that would mean that God is a product of special creation."

You see the problem?

 

[Zachm531]

Barbarian observes:
It says clearly that God created life. We both agree with Him on that. You just don't approve of the way He did it.



The Bible tells us that God is a spirit, and that a spirit has no body. The "image" is in our minds and souls. Again, you just don't approve of the way He made us.



The Bible doesn't say how He did it. And those who think He can't use chance to do his will, do not realize His wisdom and power.

The effect of divine providence is not only that things should happen somehow; but that they should happen either by necessity or by contingency. Therefore whatsoever divine providence ordains to happen infallibly and of necessity happens infallibly and of necessity; and that happens from contingency, which the plan of divine providence conceives to happen from contingency.
St. Thomas Aquinas, Summa Theologiae, Q22 article 4



Nope. Category error there. Apply it to the creationist belief:

"If we are created in God's image and are products of special creation, that would mean that God is a product of special creation."

You see the problem?

Maybe on the last point you have me. But the fact that we are made in HIS image defeats evolution. And the Bible doesnt just say He created life. It says He created man and women in his image. God using chance? That has zero biblical support. God ordains and creates everything according to his will. For him to leave things up to chance would mean that Ge had to learn and at one point wasnt sure what would happen.

 

[The Barbarian]

Maybe on the last point you have me. But the fact that we are made in HIS image defeats evolution.

It would if the theory says that our souls evolved. But of course, it doesn't.

And the Bible doesnt just say He created life. It says He created man and women in his image.

Since that image in in our souls, not our bodies, it has no implications for evolution.

God using chance? That has zero biblical support. God ordains and creates everything according to his will.

Ecclesiastes 9:11 I turned me to another thing, and I saw that under the sun, the race is not to the swift, nor the battle to the strong, nor bread to the wise, nor riches to the learned, nor favour to the skilful: but time and chance in all.

For him to leave things up to chance would mean that Ge had to learn and at one point wasnt sure what would happen.

That idea assumes that God is not omniscient. Which is an error.

 

[BroRoyVa79]

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?

Genesis 1:9 and God caused the water together in one place and the dry land appeared.
There was one sea surrounding one land mass.

This got split into the various continents surfing the flood.

Without getting into the weeds of arguing with those who try to read evolution into the Bible, say Genesis isn't history, or prefer fallible man's every changing views over Gods, Genesis 1:9 allows for a supercontinent and superocean in the pre-flood world.

How and when it broke up is a different argument as the Bible is not clear on it. What you quote above, Zachm, can be argued to be the period of migration on the Earth as well as when the continents drifted a part a bit more. (Edited to add: Post-flood migration and extra continental drift)

There are other theories about why certain similar plant and animal life is found on different continents as well such as early post-flood migration through various means such as land bridges, etc.

 

[The Barbarian]

Without getting into the weeds of arguing with those who try to read evolution into the Bible, say Genesis isn't history, or prefer fallible man's every changing views over Gods, Genesis 1:9 allows for a supercontinent and superocean in the pre-flood world.

The problem for YE creationists, is that the energy required to move continents thousands of miles in a few thousand years would boil the seas. So that's not a realistic possibility, unless one calls in another non-scriptural miracle to cover it up. But once one does that, all stories are equally likely.

There are other theories about why certain similar plant and animal life is found on different continents as well such as early post-flood migration through various means such as land bridges, etc.

That fails for many reasons. Would you like to see some examples?