Man was in Pangaea

[The Barbarian]

14 hours ago, dad2 said:

The bible says in his days the earth was divided actually.

"Actually" is your addition to scripture to make it more acceptable to you.  

Mark 3:24    If a kingdom is divided against itself, that kingdom cannot stand.

God does not mean that the land is actually broken into two pieces.   Why not just accept the Bible as it is,without your changes?

 

 

[dad2]

12 hours ago, The Barbarian said:

"Actually" is your addition to scripture to make it more acceptable to you.  

Mark 3:24    If a kingdom is divided against itself, that kingdom cannot stand.

God does not mean that the land is actually broken into two pieces.   Why not just accept the Bible as it is,without your changes?

 

 

Actually the bible says the earth was split or divided. Why pretend otherwise? Better to believe what it says rather than pretend it was changed etc.

Genesis 10:25

 

Two sons were born to Eber; the name of the one was Peleg, for in his days the earth was divided; and his brother's name was Joktan.

 

Brown-Driver-Briggs'

1) to divide, split

1a) (Niphal) to be split, be divided

1b) (Piel)

1b1) to split, cleave

1b2) to divide

 

https://www.studylight.org/study-desk/interlinear.html?q1=Genesis+10:25

 

We also know about when this was. You are in no position to claim that God did not mean that the earth was split.

 

[The Barbarian]

"Actually" is your addition to scripture to make it more acceptable to you.  

Mark 3:24    If a kingdom is divided against itself, that kingdom cannot stand.

God does not mean that the land is actually broken into two pieces.   Why not just accept the Bible as it is,without your changes?

3 minutes ago, dad2 said:

Two sons were born to Eber; the name of the one was Peleg, for in his days the earth was divided; and his brother's name was Joktan.

As you can see from actual scripture, it means separating people.    Why not just accept it as it is written?   

[teddyv]

1 hour ago, dad2 said:

We also know about when this was. You are in no position to claim that God did not mean that the earth was split.

There are a lot of options for the use of "earth" in that verse that do not mean the planet's tectonic plates.

[dad2]

27 minutes ago, teddyv said:

There are a lot of options for the use of "earth" in that verse that do not mean the planet's tectonic plates.

And you may chose another option. The one that makes most sense to me is that the supercontient had to have split sometime so why not in the days of Peleg? That allows man and animals to get to all continents. That is a great fulfillment of God scattering them. That limits the wickedness if it develops fast in one continent from spreading to all the world. That fits the fossil record. That fits plates moving. Etc. It also fits as a motive for the peoples who moved for some reason and wanted to secure a permanent city and build a tower so they would not be scattered all over. That fits similarities in language, customs, architecture, and legends in all the continents. Etc.

[teddyv]

10 minutes ago, dad2 said:

And you may chose another option. The one that makes most sense to me is that the supercontient had to have split sometime so why not in the days of Peleg? That allows man and animals to get to all continents. That is a great fulfillment of God scattering them. That limits the wickedness if it develops fast in one continent from spreading to all the world. That fits the fossil record. That fits plates moving. Etc. It also fits as a motive for the peoples who moved for some reason and wanted to secure a permanent city and build a tower so they would not be scattered all over. That fits similarities in language, customs, architecture, and legends in all the continents. Etc.

Unless you are invoking non-naturalistic methods for this split, i.e. a miracle, then you would completely destroy the planet.

 

[dad2]

15 minutes ago, teddyv said:

Unless you are invoking non-naturalistic methods for this split, i.e. a miracle, then you would completely destroy the planet.

 

Says who? How long would a continent move take? What if it took for example 200 years?

If such a movement was a century or so after the world wide flood, would water affect the friction? There is a lot we don't know. However I assume that the majority of the move happened in the former nature. That would be why we had magnetic reversals and etc on the way.

Edited January 29, 2023 by dad2

[The Barbarian]

8 hours ago, dad2 said:

And you may chose another option. The one that makes most sense to me is that the supercontient had to have split sometime so why not in the days of Peleg?

Because the evidence shows that would be impossible.   The dates of rocks at the area where the seafloor is spreading shows the rate of movement has always been centimeters per year.   The energy required to accelerate and then slow the continents would be released as heat and would have boiled off the oceans.   The actual rate of movement is still observed, and it is rather precisely what the other evidence shows it has always been.  It's time to let go of your stories and just let it be God's way.

8 hours ago, dad2 said:

If such a movement was a century or so after the world wide flood, would water affect the friction?

Not at all.  There is no liquid water at the crust/mantle boundary, maybe 5-40 km down.   There's a tiny film of water on the surface; the average ocean depth is about 3.7 km.   The diameter of the Earth is about 12,700 km.

8 hours ago, dad2 said:

There is a lot we don't know.

That's not license to make up fairy tales and pretend it's God's word.

8 hours ago, dad2 said:

However I assume that the majority of the move happened in the former nature.

That's one of your fairy tales.   No evidence whatever for that idea.   And God says nothing like that.

8 hours ago, dad2 said:

That would be why we had magnetic reversals and etc on the way.

We have magnetic reversals because of convection currents in the liquid core.   No magic there, either.    Why not just accept it all, God's way?

 

[teddyv]

14 hours ago, dad2 said:

Says who? How long would a continent move take? What if it took for example 200 years?

If such a movement was a century or so after the world wide flood, would water affect the friction? There is a lot we don't know. However I assume that the majority of the move happened in the former nature. That would be why we had magnetic reversals and etc on the way.

I'm not sure what you mean by "former nature". 

There are a few assumption at play in my comments. I am assuming we are starting with the OP as stated: that Pangaea was not in the distant past and that humans were present on the supercontinent. I am also assuming you are referring to Pangaea as is currently understood in geological history - a period when the continents were tectonically assembled into one area.

Current plates are moving at 1.5cm/year. So 200 years at current speed is only 2.5 metres. Over the last 4500 years that's 67.5 metres. The narrowest part of the Atlantic Ocean is about 2800 km, so that's about 1400 km of spreading. 

Organizations such as Answers in Genesis posit a hypothesis of "Catastrophic Plate Tectonics" occurring during the Flood. There is a massive heat (and radiation) problem with this that cannot be solved with standard physics. The energy is on the order of multiple 1Mt bombs per square metre over the entire earth. Another hypothesis, "Hydroplate Theory", has even bigger energy problems and seems to have fallen out of favour. Part of the problem lies in accelerating massive crustal plates to very high velocities, and then decelerating to the current pace of plate motion today.

 

[dad2]

2 hours ago, teddyv said:

I'm not sure what you mean by "former nature". 

The nature that existed in the pre flood days. Whatever laws existed then.

2 hours ago, teddyv said:

There are a few assumption at play in my comments. I am assuming we are starting with the OP as stated: that Pangaea was not in the distant past and that humans were present on the supercontinent.

I am also assuming you are referring to Pangaea as is currently understood in geological history - a period when the continents were tectonically assembled into one area.

Right, the world when it was together.

 

2 hours ago, teddyv said:

Current plates are moving at 1.5cm/year. So 200 years at current speed is only 2.5 metres. Over the last 4500 years that's 67.5 metres. The narrowest part of the Atlantic Ocean is about 2800 km, so that's about 1400 km of spreading. 

You assume that the current rate existed always. What reason do you have for that? If, for example the big rapid move took 100 years, then obviously the rate per year would not be the same. Therefore assuming it was always the same rate is a ststement of faith.

2 hours ago, teddyv said:

Organizations such as Answers in Genesis posit a hypothesis of "Catastrophic Plate Tectonics" occurring during the Flood. There is a massive heat (and radiation) problem with this that cannot be solved with standard physics. The energy is on the order of multiple 1Mt bombs per square metre over the entire earth. Another hypothesis, "Hydroplate Theory", has even bigger energy problems and seems to have fallen out of favour. Part of the problem lies in accelerating massive crustal plates to very high velocities, and then decelerating to the current pace of plate motion today.

 

Then forget the flood year. The bible says the earth was split in Peleg's day.