Describing what the Biblical Flood would be like.

OK, I'll assume I misread you then. Sorry.I don't see any connection between the Flood and the Bay of Fundy, no, but then I'm not quite sure what connection he intended to make

http://aventalearning.com/...007BiologyB/unit6/section3.html Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

Good grief, man, just look up "Pangaea." That's just one of the many maps you'll find of this supposed supercontinent. It ought to show you that you are wrong about a former land mass that contained all the land masses in one. Your argument is with Geological science, not with me.

I guess it just doesn't pay to contribute something to help out. I have no idea what the complaints are all about, they make no sense to me. ICANT was talking about a single land mass as described by science, not just the Bible, and to me that's Pangaea which is pretty standard stuff, THE supercontinent as found on any number of science sites. So I found A map of it and posted it only to hear how wrong it is.So Boof put up another map which has more detail and declared it right and mine wrong, though it's simply a more detailed version of Pangaea. Now ringo is accusing me of cherry-picking for some nefarious purpose having to do with the Bible, which hadn't entered my mind. I honestly don't get this. All the maps are maps of Pangaea, some are more detailed than others. The fact that passages of water appear more clearly in the more detailed one does not make it any less a supercontinent and it's always called a supercontinent, one land mass, as far as I've ever seen.(I really don't know what to make of Pangaea, how it was put together; I don't have any reason to affirm or dispute it. I accept that befpre the Flood there was one land mass that split up but whether Pangaea is a fair representation of it or not I have no opinion, and I certainly have no reason to choose one map of it over another.)Weird but just another typical weird day at EvC.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

I had followed what ICANT was saying and I couldn't see why you objected to the idea of a single land mass, and I still don't, nor why you find my "cartoon" map a problem. Pangaea is always described as a supercontinent which implies one mass; the presence of water passages seems designed more to show where it will eventually split apart than to suggest it's not a single land mass. Those water passages are also indicated on my cartoon map anyway. I think you are making a big deal out of nothing.The idea of the water collecting in one place doesn't seem to be a problem to me either, just a way of saying if the land is all in one place then so is the water in one place.But I'm sorry I interfered.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

I guess I failed to grasp that you think any interior body of water makes it not a single land mass? Does that mean that North America isn't a single land mass because of the Great Lakes and the Mississippi River etc?Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

ICANT doesn't allow interior bodies of water? Or others think that's what must be meant by the idea that the water all gathered in one place?