Pangea in the Old Testament?

[Job 33:6]

Why are you linking this? Where did I say there wasn't any bird tracks in the fossil record? All this one talks about is the diversity of bird tracks found. It doesn't even have anything in it about claiming the tracks have anything to do with a rate of time. (Full disclosure: I read the first few pages and then when I realized this I attentively skimmed to the conclusion.)



Okay, so. Multiple birds can walk in various directions in the same location, at different rates of speed, I might add. it's nice that they're walking, I hope they're getting good exercise.




Oh, now I see why you linked these. I guess you don't read properly because I said that was an example due to a lack of dealing with specific situations. So I guess these are supposed to be your specific situations. Ok, uhmmm...well...the only areas they speak on rates are when they talk about the feeding and trampling depth rate of Gulls and the Shelducks and apply the observed rates of the feeding to an annual change in sedimentary depth (pg 25 & 28-29). They don't say anything about applying this to past rates. Just that these are the rates they observed during these observations. They point out this event is seasonal. None of this bothers me or my position in any way. (Full disclosure: I read the first few pages and then attentively skimmed to the conclusion.)

Edited to add: I guess you don't plan on moving on, I do.

"Ok, uhmmm...well...the only areas they speak on rates are when they talk about the feeding and trampling depth rate of Gulls and the Shelducks "

That's right, they don't discuss how fast the birds are feeding, but they are pointing toward cases in which animals were not fleeing catastrophy.

And fossils in which animals aren't fleeing catastrophy can be found throughout the entirety of the geologic column.

 

[BroRoyVa79]

"Ok, uhmmm...well...the only areas they speak on rates are when they talk about the feeding and trampling depth rate of Gulls and the Shelducks "

That's right, they don't discuss how fast the birds are feeding, but they are pointing toward cases in which animals were not fleeing catastrophy.

And fossils in which animals aren't fleeing catastrophy can be found throughout the entirety of the geologic column.

Repeat of what I said previously:

Again, I said, "FOR EXAMPLE, (caps for emphasis) like these animals trying to escape a catastrophe. (Example due to lacking specific examples to work with. Edited to add: And no, I'm not looking to get into the weeds about it either, got other things to do.)"

Please practice proper reading comprehension. I didn't use this as an end-all-be-all example for you to mount counterpoints against.

 

[Job 33:6]

"He can buckle and crumble continents and in doing so keep a delicate nest with eggs unscathed long enough to be fossilized."

And this doesn't make any sense.

Your response implies that the animals laying the eggs pre existed the buckling and folding. Which superpositionally isn't the case.

The nests with eggs of course exist in a temporally centralized area of the geologic column.

I'll give another specific example.
USGS SIM-3067: Geologic Cross Section D–D’ through the Appalachian Basin from the Findlay Arch, Sandusky County, Ohio, to the Valley and Ridge Province, Hardy County, West Virginia

Old Earth Geology Part 1 and Part 2

In the east coast of the US, we have the Appalachian mountains, superpositionally and temporally younger than folds and buckles of the Acadian orogeny, which are further relatively younger than folds of the taconic orogeny.

However, fossils of life casually walking around, burrowing, feeding and living, exist throughout the geologic column.

It isn't a matter life living casually and then getting destroyed by a flood. It's a matter of life co existing with a flood. Which of course doesn't make sense as the flood is allegedly responsible for upturning mountains and metamorphosing rock.

So the question remains of how said nests, and animals at large continued to casually live.

We've already established that many fossils do not depict life fleeing. But rather feeding, walking, sometimes resting, burrowing, and sometimes even burrowing long and time consuming networks of tunnels.

 

[Job 33:6]

"like these animals trying to escape a catastrophe."

If you're going to give examples, they at least have to be sensible examples.

And again, this example you're providing isn't reflective of reality. Where we have animals feeding, burrowing, walking around, nesting...even birds, walking. What kind of fleeing bird walks? Giant sloth burrows with thousands of claw marks, indicating a time consuming practice of burrow making etc.

These arent animals fleeing from catastrophy. They're animals doing what they've always casually done.

 

[Job 33:6]

"And no, I'm not looking to get into the weeds about it either, got other things to do."

No young earth Creationist ever does. Those that try to, find themselves in dark and illogical places. But usually they avoid going that far, as you are now.

And that's the difference between scientists and people who just make baseless unjustified claims.

 

[The Barbarian]

Couple things for both of you so we can put this to rest and seriously move on, but I suspect neither of you won't.

First things first, presuppositions.

You bring the presupposition that young Earth revision of scripture (what you'd like it to be) is correct.

We accept it as it is. Both views influence the interpretation of the data. The problem for me with your side is that it is primarily pushed by modern revisionists, and anti-Bible people to promote a worldview apart from God's word. Its 20th-century origins are also riddled in this philosophy as well.

So in other words, your authority = man's interpretation of what he wants scripture to be, rather than the way God wrote it.

Science merely looks at the evidence and draws conclusions from it.

Moving on to the text and what it actually says, as in what is written there.

As you learned, the text itself say that the "yom" of Genesis are not literal days, since it is absurd to suppose mornings and evenings without a sun to have them.

You can believe what you want to believe; God won't judge you for not accepting the way He created things, unless you make an idol of your new doctrines and insist Christians must believe them.

Hopefully, you've come to realize that Christians who do not share your new doctrines, are generally willing to accept you as one of us. So is God. That should be enough for you, as it is for many, many creationists who recognize that the evidence points to evolution, even if they prefer their own interpretations of scripture.

Let it go, and it won't bother you any more.

 

[LoG]

You can believe what you want to believe; God won't judge you for not accepting the way He created things, unless you make an idol of your new doctrines and insist Christians must believe them.

Let it go, and it won't bother you any more.

That knife cuts both ways. I find TE's are just as adamant as YEC's that their viewpoint is the right one. Opposite extremes with one holding up a superficial reading of Genesis as their idol and the other holding up the scientific interpretation of the physical evidences as their idol.

 

[The Barbarian]

Barbarian observes:
You can believe what you want to believe; God won't judge you for not accepting the way He created things, unless you make an idol of your new doctrines and insist Christians must believe them.

Let it go, and it won't bother you any more.

That knife cuts both ways.

It does. If a Christian of any sort declares that one cannot be a Christian if one accepts YEC, then they have made an idol of TE, just as many YECs, have made an idol of their beliefs.

I find TE's are just as adamant as YEC's that their viewpoint is the right one.

Which is perfectly all right; we can disagree about those things and remain good Christians. Only when someone says that their belief with regard to creationism is the only acceptable one for Christians, have they lost their way.

Opposite extremes with one holding up a superficial reading of Genesis as their idol and the other holding up the scientific interpretation of the physical evidences as their idol.

There's a big difference between believing one is right, and believing that one's opinion is the only acceptable one for Christians.

There are many YECs who don't make an idol of their doctrines, just as there are many TEs who don't.

As I said to someone else, in another post:
You can believe what you want to believe; God won't judge you for not accepting the way He created things, unless you make an idol of your new doctrines and insist Christians must believe them.

Hopefully, you've come to realize that Christians who do not share your new doctrines, are generally willing to accept you as one of us. So is God. That should be enough for you, as it is for many, many creationists who recognize that the evidence points to evolution, even if they prefer their own interpretations of scripture.