Man was in Pangaea

[BeyondET]

2 hours ago, dad2 said:

The time in which He did it is also given, both in days and in evenings and mornings. So there is zero chance that this can be associated with evolution.

Time isn't a factor, certainly God can associate evolution in 6 seconds.

[dad2]

6 minutes ago, BeyondET said:

Time isn't a factor, certainly God can associate evolution in 6 seconds.

It didn't say or suggest that the dirt evolved animal life in 6 seconds. It said God made them. Since it also mentions that the used the earth, (As He also did with Adam) we know that in one day of one evening and one morning that God created all kinds of animals and used the earth in doing so

[BeyondET]

Just now, dad2 said:

It didn't say or suggest that the dirt evolved animal life in 6 seconds. It said God made them. Since it also mentions that the used the earth, (As He also did with Adam) we know that in one day of one evening and one morning that God created all kinds of animals and used the earth in doing so

You can say it was like clay but that doesn't mean it was.

[dad2]

19 minutes ago, BeyondET said:

You can say it was like clay but that doesn't mean it was.

I don't say it was any way. I gave a definition of the Hebrew word and there were a dozen possible meanings. I don't see God had any problem using the kind of dirt He wanted. No one says you need to know precisely what kind that was. For creating man, if I were to guess I would guess reddish dusty dirt.

 

"
Most scholars believe that the words adamah, Adam, and Edom stem from a root word with the basic meaning of “red.” The word adamah could then be more literally translated “red ground,” and the name Adam could be said to mean “red man” or “man from the red dirt.”

https://www.gotquestions.org/meaning-of-adamah.html

Edited June 9, 2024 by dad2

[RV_Wizard]

11 hours ago, The Barbarian said:

But in Genesis 1, the text says that the Earth and plants were created on different days.   They can't both be literally true.   So which one do you think is true?

How is it that a professing Christian has no clue whatever about the Bible?

Further, how is it that a purported college graduate doesn't understand the English language?  

"In the day" is a somewhat informal way of referring to past times. Like, "In the days of the French Revolution ..." Or when an older person is talking about his youth, he might say "Yes, back in the day, we used to ..." It can also be used, like "during the day", to contrast with night. Like, "In the day the spotted fwacbar bird sleeps, and it hunts at night."

"On the day" can be used to emphasize that something happened or will happen on a particular day. "On the day that my brother died, I was living in Kansas ..."  source

 

[The Barbarian]

But in Genesis 1, the text says that the Earth and plants were created on different days.   They can't both be literally true.   So which one do you think is true?    Why would you not know this?

3 hours ago, RV_Wizard said:

How is it that a professing Christian has no clue whatever about the Bible?

I suspect it's because you've mentally walled off verses that don't agree with you.

3 hours ago, RV_Wizard said:

Further, how is it that a purported college graduate doesn't understand the English language?  

Hmm... you claimed "day" meant a literal 24-hour day in the Creation account.   Have you changed your mind now?

3 hours ago, RV_Wizard said:

"In the day" is a somewhat informal way of referring to past times. Like, "In the days of the French Revolution ..." Or when an older person is talking about his youth, he might say "Yes, back in the day, we used to ..."

Ah, so "day" is literal in Genesis, unless it contradicts your new beliefs, and then it isn't literal.  Got it.

BTW, what makes you think I'm a college graduate.   Don't remember saying that.    Maybe I'm forgetting something.   And I used to know an auto body repairman who was a lot better educated than most people you'll meet.

 

Edited June 9, 2024 by The Barbarian

[Sparks]

The idea of Pangaea is entirely a theory, so 'man in Pangaea' is a theory, too.

[The Barbarian]

29 minutes ago, Sparks said:

The idea of Pangaea is entirely a theory,

So is gravitation.   But I suggest you pay attention.   

"It's only a theory" suggests a failure to understand what "theory" means in science.

 

[Sparks]

17 minutes ago, The Barbarian said:

So is gravitation.   But I suggest you pay attention.   

"It's only a theory" suggests a failure to understand what "theory" means in science.

No, I don't fail to understand.  You are our resident 'theoretician,' who somehow seems to think theory is fact. 

Why not debate what kind of actual evidence you have for the place, and not just speculation?

[The Barbarian]

So is gravitation.   But I suggest you pay attention.   

"It's only a theory" suggests a failure to understand what "theory" means in science.

42 minutes ago, Sparks said:

No, I don't fail to understand.  You are our resident 'theoretician,' who somehow seems to think theory is fact. 

Gravitation is a theory and a fact, like plate tectonics.    Gravitational theory explains why we observe gravity, and Plate tectonics theory explains why we observe continents moving about.

Your confusion is between theory and the phenomena theories explain.    It's not speculation.   We can, for example observe India moving northward into Asia, with the attendant motion of the subcontinent and the continuing rise of the Himalayas as the two plates collide.   We can see how this happens at mid-oceanic ridges where we see new crust being made, and plates moving outward.  

We can see evidence of this in fossil deposits, now-separated parts of mountain ranges, and glacial cuts. 

Would you like to learn about some of that?

 

Edited June 9, 2024 by The Barbarian