|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Summations Only | Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: The SEVEN "DAYS" WERE GEOLOGICAL ERAS | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
kofh2u Member (Idle past 4136 days) Posts: 1162 From: phila., PA Joined: |
But I did give you the posts where that is true, every single one of your posts is just plain bullshit.
That is what one side in a debate says, mutually, to the other side, from the get-go. But only idiots keep repeating that they are on the one side while there is the other side.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
jar Member (Idle past 155 days) Posts: 34140 From: Texas!! Joined: |
So far there is no other side.
People have shown you time after time why what you post is utter bullshit and a total misrepresentation of both what the Bible says and what science says.Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
kofh2u Member (Idle past 4136 days) Posts: 1162 From: phila., PA Joined: |
There is still more in Genesis which fits into the scientific chronology of the History of the Earth.
Things in the geology of the rocks also add to the Paleontology in regard to the credibility of Genesis as a factual set of statements on beginnings. Assuming that the "day three" in Genesis actually refers to the "evening of the Archean era and the morning of the Proterozoic era,"... ... we CAN see that Genesis recognizes that "the first sprouts of life on Earth" spontaneously generated, while during that same moment in the history of the earth, Rodinia (the first pangea-like episode) appeared in the midst of "all the waters under heaven havingbeen collected into just one place." Science support for this observation:
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
kofh2u Member (Idle past 4136 days) Posts: 1162 From: phila., PA Joined: |
People have shown you time after time why what you post is utter bullshit and a total misrepresentation of both what the Bible says and what science says.
What about the above post?Can you just deny arbritarily, that Gen 1:9-11 specifically says these same events took place or give a reason which shows Genesis or the facts are not both the same ideas?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
jar Member (Idle past 155 days) Posts: 34140 From: Texas!! Joined:
|
The above post ( Message 198 ) is utter bullshit and simply false bullshit at that.
You really haven't read the Bible have you? One continent with all the water tied up in isolated lakes would be all the land gathered in one place, but of course Genesis 1 says NOTHING about all the land being in one place. It simply says dry land appeared. Also note your own word "assume" in that bullshit. There is no reason for anyone to assume your assertion unless their goal was to try to make Genesis 1 factual which it clearly is not.Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Eli Member (Idle past 3808 days) Posts: 274 Joined: |
You've been given plenty of reason as well as evidence that shows the two are not the same.
Not even close to describing the same thing.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
kofh2u Member (Idle past 4136 days) Posts: 1162 From: phila., PA Joined: |
Lame objects to what is clearly stated in Gen 1:9-10, about all the waters UNDER HEAVEN, collected TOGETHER into ONE place is an unavoidable analogy of this first Pangea-like geography forming on the same exact geological "day" as found in Genesis.
Wiggle wiggle, secular atheists this totally unknown event before 1920 was a divine revelation from the Bible 3362 years prior. Then, the same one-to-one correspondence again,... between the events of the "evening" of the Big Bang, that first "day" when the planetesimal accretion ring of an Earth void of shape, then coalesced into a sphere,...
...AND, the molten Earth cooled... Gen. 1:2 And the earth was without form, (a spinning cloud of molten matter and gases), and void: (not valid as a sphere yet- i.e.; an accretion disk), and darkness: [choshek: obscurity] was upon the face (of the disk) of the deep: [tehowm: the deep primeval abyss of the thick ring].
And (the great Shechinah), the spirit, (the pan-en-theistic Natural Laws) of God moved upon the face: [paniym: presence] of the "waters" (i.e.; of these transitory things spinning counter clockwise around the Sun: [mayim: Hebrew])
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
jar Member (Idle past 155 days) Posts: 34140 From: Texas!! Joined: |
Yet more bullshit and misrepresenting what the Bible actually says.
Genesis 1:9-10 says NOTHING about all the land gathered together in one place. You are misrepresenting the Bible yet again.Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
kofh2u Member (Idle past 4136 days) Posts: 1162 From: phila., PA Joined: |
[qs]
/qs
"The single global ocean which surrounded Pangaea is accordingly named Panthalassa." Only one continent can exist when there is only a single global ocean as described in Gen 1:9-10: Pangaea - Wikipedia Gen. 1:9 And (Father Nature, the first cause), God, said, Let the waters under the heaven be gathered together unto one place, (Panthalassa), and let (Pangea/Rodinia), the dry land appear: (composed of the Seven Large Tectonic Plates):
1. North American Plate,2. Pacific Plate, 3. South American Plate, 4. African Plate, 5. Eurasian Plate, 6. Anartic Plate, 7. Australian Plate),... ...and it was so.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
jar Member (Idle past 155 days) Posts: 34140 From: Texas!! Joined: |
Only one continent can exist when there is only a single global ocean as described in Gen 1:9-10: Utter bullshit. There could be thousands of islands and the water still in one place.Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Theodoric Member Posts: 9489 From: Northwest, WI, USA Joined: |
There could be thousands of islands and the water still in one place.
Even a few more continents and the water could still be in one place. Edited by Theodoric, : No reason given.Facts don't lie or have an agenda. Facts are just facts "God did it" is not an argument. It is an excuse for intellectual laziness.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
kofh2u Member (Idle past 4136 days) Posts: 1162 From: phila., PA Joined:
|
Even a few more continents and the water could still be in one place.
1) But Genesis does say God collected all the waters together.So the Bible is not incorrect in any case. 2) Panthallasso is the science term for a geological condition where all the oceans/seas have been collected into one Ocean, which requires a single continent by definition. 3) Lame as these attempts are, attempting to avoid the amazing revelation 3362 years ago about the mention of this previously unknown geological event,... ... it is true that all the water was in one place called Earth, of course. 4) But Genesis says all the (separated) waters were "collected together," which tells us that the water was already on earth but separated, de facto of implying so in that verse. 5) And, even if your intellectual dishonesty were to presist with such lame defenses against the evidence in Gen 1:9, motivated by the sole attempt to bash the Bible,... .... you can not object to a rational reading of Genesis which scientifically conforms with the facts we now know and explains what Genesis meant, at the same time.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
jar Member (Idle past 155 days) Posts: 34140 From: Texas!! Joined: |
2) Panthallasso is the science term for a geological condition where all the oceans/seas have been collected into one Ocean, which requires a single continent by definition. More utter bullshit and misrepresentation. First, it is "Panthalassa" not Panthallasso and second it is not a term for "a geological condition where all the oceans/seas have been collected into one Ocean", it is the name assigned to a specific body of water at a specific time and third it does NOT require a single continent by definition.Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Coyote Member (Idle past 2422 days) Posts: 6117 Joined: |
Sorry for being late to respond to this, but I looked at it this morning and just walked away from the computer.
So now I'm back from work and looking at it again and it is still a confused mess. Your non-standard use of terms is too much for me. "Modern Homo erectus?" In all my years of graduate school, and since, I've never seen that term in the literature. Unraveling your mess is just not worth the effort.Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge. Belief gets in the way of learning--Robert A. Heinlein It's not what we don't know that hurts, it's what we know that ain't so--Will Rogers
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
New Cat's Eye Inactive Member
|
Only one continent can exist when there is only a single global ocean as described in Gen 1:9-10: False. Two continents could exist when there is only a single global ocean as if it was like this:
Or, as jar points out, it could be a thousand islands. Even today, all of the oceans touch each other and are in "one place".
To get your interpretation, Pangea would have to exist without even one single lake or pond or river or stream or any kind of body of water that was seperate from the ocean. And that's impossible. Another false interpretation from you refuted by me. Try again?
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2025