Man was in Pangaea

[abcdef]

2 minutes ago, BeyondET said:

I didn't mean to present the flood was caused by a asteroid but I use it for an example.

After a lot of thinking about it, I would think that an asteroid would be the most likely theory.

One reason would be that Noah knew that it was coming for an estimated 120 years, if you read the narrative that way. Gen 6:3

I mean Halley's comet comes every 75 years, so it might be that when God told Noah that the time of men would be 120 years, it actually meant that there was 120 years left before the asteroid hit.

Another theory would be that Noah was observing the skies and calculated when and where it would strike the planet.

The fact that Noah built an ark for the event seems to indicate that he also knew where on the planet it would strike.

A strike on the ice sheets of the arctic during the recent ice ages would certainly cause the effects that Noah related.

Noting that there was a "short" resurgence of ice roughly 15000 years ago would fit that theory.

[The Barbarian]

35 minutes ago, BeyondET said:

Yea i can agree with that but at the same time the flood was a major event like a large rock slamming into earth. Such a event could disrupt a few normal cycles of earth. If almost the whole earth population was wiped out not many would of known. I find it interesting Noah was counting the days for whatever reason.

It doesn't take much to effect earth's spin rate, the largest dam I mentioned can slow it down a very small amount but a larger disaster could possibly have a bigger impact.

Remember that massive earthquake in Indonesia?   All the tsunamis and deaths?  India and Burma plates moved for that one, with more mass than all the water in the world.   Changed the Earth's rotation by about 0.00000268 seconds per day.  The mass of the Earth is so much greater than the mass of the oceans or of continental plates that it doesn't have much effect when those things move around.

 

 

[The Barbarian]

19 minutes ago, abcdef said:

After a lot of thinking about it, I would think that an asteroid would be the most likely theory.

One reason would be that Noah knew that it was coming for an estimated 120 years, if you read the narrative that way. Gen 6:3

I mean Halley's comet comes every 75 years, so it might be that when God told Noah that the time of men would be 120 years, it actually meant that there was 120 years left before the asteroid hit.

Another theory would be that Noah was observing the skies and calculated when and where it would strike the planet.

The fact that Noah built an ark for the event seems to indicate that he also knew where on the planet it would strike.

A strike on the ice sheets of the arctic during the recent ice ages would certainly cause the effects that Noah related.

Noting that there was a "short" resurgence of ice roughly 15000 years ago would fit that theory.

Even a small comet hitting the Earth would cause horrendous heat and tsunamis that would wash over the continents.   No boat would survive that, much less a gigantic wooden floating structure.  And it would leave a massive scar.   Nothing like that anywhere in that period.

 

 

[The Barbarian]

1 hour ago, dad2 said:

Of course non seagoing organisms would be in more than one continent. If you want to discuss then don't pretend I did not say that the reason animals were found on many continents is because the continents separated. (thereby carrying with each one the animals)

That's your problem.   No mammals like that.  The separation occurred before there were mammals, much less humans.  

If your story was right, we'd see sudden discontinuities in the rocks moving away from the Mid-Atlantic Ridge.  But we don't.  The new rock right at the ridge ages just as all the rock all the way over to North America does.    If your new doctrine was correct we'd see a clear demarcation where the rules changed.   And we don't.  Which means your imagination fails again.

1 hour ago, dad2 said:

False. Forces are invisible.

But they leave visible traces.   And there is no sign whatsoever that any physical processes changed at all over that entire time.   It works today, just as it did many millions of years ago.   And I suppose you could float yet another undocumented miracle and say "God just covered up all the evidence to fool us."   But I don't think that works for you, either.  

Rock and a hard place.

1 hour ago, dad2 said:

BTW, we know from tidal rhythmites that days a very long time ago, were shorter.   Which means more than 365 days in a year, not less.

 

1 hour ago, dad2 said:

No. The moon and sun affect that.

No point in denial.  We have in the rocks, the evidence that days were much shorter many millions of years ago.   The Earth was moving faster.   Over time, tidal forces of gravity take rotational energy from the Earth and add it to the Moon.   And that slows the Earth down.   So there would be shorter days and more days per year.   

[dad2]

2 hours ago, abcdef said:

Since everything was created through Jesus, I would believe that He did know that it was created in 6 symbolic time periods shown to souls as days, so men could relate to them.

The time periods of the symbolic days of creation are from God's measurement of time and not in the time of men. The days are not 24 hour days, but are the divisions of God's time.

So because you want to wave it away Jesus must have been aware He was misleading in mentioning 'since the beginning'?

2 hours ago, abcdef said:

 

There were people before Adam. Adam had a mother and father. 

I am trying to think of a polite word for that little turd.

2 hours ago, abcdef said:

The difference between Adam and the people who lived before him was that Adam was the first "Human soul".

He was also actually real.

2 hours ago, abcdef said:

He was designed by God to know good and evil, and be redeemed by Jesus.

 

It doesn't say that Moses got the information from God or where he got it.

Or that Moses lied or made stuff up. And we do know He talked to God a lot.

2 hours ago, abcdef said:

Does it say that Moses got it from the burning bush?

Did anyone suggest that? No. It was one place where Moses and God chatted

2 hours ago, abcdef said:

 

I'm sure that God and Jesus know. But how did Moses get the information?

We already covered that a few times.

2 hours ago, abcdef said:

No person was there at the beginning, so where did the story come from?

The beginning includes creation week in which the man and woman were created. That's where.

2 hours ago, abcdef said:

 

God gave it to Moses, yes. But how, when, and where?

NOYB

2 hours ago, abcdef said:

There is no evidence that God gave it Directly to Moses.

Or not. And since it is 'privileged information' it had to be close to source.

2 hours ago, abcdef said:

--------

Observing the elements and laws of "nature" that we live in, it doesn't seem to prove that the Gen 1 story is literal.

Nor does it seem it should.

2 hours ago, abcdef said:

 Doesn't it make more sense as symbolic? Rather trying to make the observations of our universe distorted?

No chance.

[abcdef]

1 hour ago, The Barbarian said:

Even a small comet hitting the Earth would cause horrendous heat and tsunamis that would wash over the continents.   No boat would survive that, much less a gigantic wooden floating structure.  And it would leave a massive scar.   Nothing like that anywhere in that period.

Of course it is only a theory.

But think about the situation that Noah was in before the flood.

First, he was in an area with mountains.

Second, there had to be vast forests to supply the wood for the ark.

Third, the food, shelters, tools, roads, bridges, and experienced workers had to be available.

---

Also it would depend on where Noah was in relation to the strike.

If there were great mountains between Noah and the strike, the effects would be diminished. 

----

As far as the scar, they are just now discovering many places that shows scars from strikes.

If it hit the ice sheets of the Arctic, then the scar would be presently covered with ice.

Edited February 2, 2023 by abcdef

[abcdef]

16 minutes ago, dad2 said:

 

 

16 minutes ago, dad2 said:

So because you want to wave it away Jesus must have been aware He was misleading in mentioning 'since the beginning'?

I am trying to think of a polite word for that little turd.

He was also actually real.

Or that Moses lied or made stuff up. And we do know He talked to God a lot.

Did anyone suggest that? No. It was one place where Moses and God chatted

We already covered that a few times.

The beginning includes creation week in which the man and woman were created. That's where.

NOYB

Or not. And since it is 'privileged information' it had to be close to source.

Nor does it seem it should.

No chance.

Prove that Pangaea existed.

[Guest]

2 hours ago, BeyondET said:

Yea i can agree with that but at the same time the flood was a major event like a large rock slamming into earth. Such a event could disrupt a few normal cycles of earth. If almost the whole earth population was wiped out not many would of known. I find it interesting Noah was counting the days for whatever reason.

It doesn't take much to effect earth's spin rate, the largest dam I mentioned can slow it down a very small amount but a larger disaster could possibly have a bigger impact.

@The Barbarian maybe you or @BeyondET could explain to me why the Earth's spin rate be so important in understanding Genesis? Also, how does this affect a geologist's understanding of the geologic layers.

Thanks.

[dad2]

2 hours ago, BeyondET said:

Well I don't think it was a pre flood thing, more like the flood event may have caused a slow down.

Well, maybe it did not start yet when the flood year happened. After all it was over a century later, in the days of Peleg when the planet split.

 

So far I have not ruled out some sort of movement of the earth relating to spin or axis or rotation that may have triggered the division. A lot of stuff down under the earth broke up and changed during the flood. Things may have been ripe for some event to knock it a bit and set the rapid split in motion.

[dad2]

2 hours ago, The Barbarian said:

That's your problem.   No mammals like that.  The separation occurred before there were mammals, much less humans.  

Once again you echo in a parroting fashion the belief system that tries to conform the past world nature with the present world. All for no reason and with zero proof.

2 hours ago, The Barbarian said:

If your story was right, we'd see sudden discontinuities in the rocks moving away from the Mid-Atlantic Ridge.  But we don't.  The new rock right at the ridge ages just as all the rock all the way over to North America does.  If your new doctrine was correct we'd see a clear demarcation where the rules changed.   And we don't. 

That does not even make any sense. The ratios of isotopes are not age unless all the daughter materials came about in this nature. You do not know that to be true. You only believe. That is not science. Naturally ratios of isotopes that are at work doing things would change in either nature! The ratios or traces they leave must be interpreted according to what nature they happened in. You don't get to slide your beliefs in here.

2 hours ago, The Barbarian said:

No point in denial.  We have in the rocks, the evidence that days were much shorter many millions of years ago.   The Earth was moving faster.   Over time, tidal forces of gravity take rotational energy from the Earth and add it to the Moon.   And that slows the Earth down.   So there would be shorter days and more days per year.   

WE all have the rocks actually. You have your stubborn belief based dreams and ideas of what the isotopes in those rocks mean.

 

Now, your evidence specifically that the earth was rotating or spinning faster? If you want to mention the tidal sediment layers then give a source that shows a specific location of the sample etc.

 

One reason this is needed is because of some uncertainties and broad assumptions I see in jhow they are looked at.

 

example:  "Tidal rhythmites have been described from the Neoproterozoic (Williams, 1989a,b,c, 1991; Deynoux et al., 1993; Chan et al., 1994) and also from Phanerozoic and modern deposits (see Smith et al., 1991). Inferred palaeoenvironments range from estuarine to upper and lower delta slope and distal ebb-tidal delta. The ebb-tidal setting (Fig. 2) may be optimum for the deposition of tidal rhythmites: it is envisaged that fine-grained sediment is entrained by ebb-tidal currents in a tidal inlet and transported mainly in suspension by strong ebb-tidal currents, plumes or jets (O¨ zsoy, 1986) to deeper water offshore, where the suspended sediment settles to form graded laminae"

https://www.eoas.ubc.ca/~mjelline/453website/eosc453/E_prints/1999RG900016.pdf

 If things like that need to be assumed then it renders the data useless on this topic.

 

Also, they admit errors!

 

"Precambrian tidal strata are common but quantitative records documenting lunar tidal forcing are very rare. For the Proterozoic estimates of lunar periodicities, some with considerable uncertainties and likely large errors on quantitative calculations, appear to exist from five geological units;"

 

". Only a tiny fraction of Archean time was recorded and preserved in very few, small and fragmentary rock records. Thus, reconstructions of Archean tidal dynamics are rare"

https://www.eoas.ubc.ca/~mjelline/453website/eosc453/E_prints/1999RG900016.pdf

 

So you need to provide a clear sample with details.