I know there are many on the PB who've studied science and the Bible much more than I have -- what are your thoughts about the land mass in the ancient world (pre-Flood)? Were all the continents together as one land mass? Do you think there was more liveable land (meaning, receded water levels)?
Geography of the ancient world
- Thread starter nwink
- Start date
- Status
Tim
Puritan Board Graduate
I believe that this verse:
fits nicely with the concept of a single super-continent. If the waters were gathered unto one place, it follows that the land was gathered unto one place as well. Where this would differ from an old-earth framework is the speed at which the continents separated. I would attribute to rapid processes during the flood.
As for liveable land, you pose an interesting question. This would not be possible to say unless you knew the pre-flood volume of ocean and the volume of dry land above sea level. Many hold that mountains were created by the massive forces during the flood. The earth is also not a sphere, but we don't know how that might have changed during the flood either. All of these issues would seem to be relevant when discussing the amount of available dry land.
I am more confident to say, however, that a pleasant climate may have extended across the entire earth. More uniform atmospheric conditions may have enabled man to live anywhere without hardship due to regional harsh climates.
fits nicely with the concept of a single super-continent. If the waters were gathered unto one place, it follows that the land was gathered unto one place as well. Where this would differ from an old-earth framework is the speed at which the continents separated. I would attribute to rapid processes during the flood.
As for liveable land, you pose an interesting question. This would not be possible to say unless you knew the pre-flood volume of ocean and the volume of dry land above sea level. Many hold that mountains were created by the massive forces during the flood. The earth is also not a sphere, but we don't know how that might have changed during the flood either. All of these issues would seem to be relevant when discussing the amount of available dry land.
I am more confident to say, however, that a pleasant climate may have extended across the entire earth. More uniform atmospheric conditions may have enabled man to live anywhere without hardship due to regional harsh climates.
jgilberAZ
Puritan Board Freshman
It's called Pangea:
Pangea Continent Map - Continental Drift - Supercontinent
They think it took millions of years for it to spit apart, but it actually happened fairly quickly at the flood.
Pangea Continent Map - Continental Drift - Supercontinent
They think it took millions of years for it to spit apart, but it actually happened fairly quickly at the flood.
Tim
Puritan Board Graduate
I was thinking about the liveable land question. Is it possible that this verse:
means that until the flood, there was water that was not "liberated"? That is, was the volume of the single ocean of water lower, until the water in the deep and the water in the sky was added?
means that until the flood, there was water that was not "liberated"? That is, was the volume of the single ocean of water lower, until the water in the deep and the water in the sky was added?
There are oceanic fosssils high up in the Andes mountains and other mountains, so it is hard to say what was originally under water and what was dry. But yes, I too believe that there was one huge landmass that was catastrophically altered.
Some creationists believe that much of the current strata was deposited at the flood. The deep water, under high pressure and temperature, had huge amounts of dissolved minerals, and when it erupted many rock layers were formed. This would explain areas where you have many layers of coal interspersed with rock. They would say a mat of vegetation was covered by an eruption, more plant life washed over the area and another eruption, etc. All this during perhaps months, not millions of years. But this would mean that many areas that we now have with all sorts of rock layers were not part of the original pre flood land mass.
Some people believe the land separation happened at Babel, and Gen 10-11 when the earth was divided was not just language but physical ( days of Peleg) as well. I don't think we can do more than speculate. I personally think there are enough accounts of a great Atlantean civilization ( Atlantis) which was flooded to say there was more than one catastrophic event, although none on the level of Noah's flood.
You can't say how much land there was, I mean, even if water was added at the flood perhaps when the mountains pushed up the ocean basins sank lower and could hold more water. Interesting question though.
Some creationists believe that much of the current strata was deposited at the flood. The deep water, under high pressure and temperature, had huge amounts of dissolved minerals, and when it erupted many rock layers were formed. This would explain areas where you have many layers of coal interspersed with rock. They would say a mat of vegetation was covered by an eruption, more plant life washed over the area and another eruption, etc. All this during perhaps months, not millions of years. But this would mean that many areas that we now have with all sorts of rock layers were not part of the original pre flood land mass.
Some people believe the land separation happened at Babel, and Gen 10-11 when the earth was divided was not just language but physical ( days of Peleg) as well. I don't think we can do more than speculate. I personally think there are enough accounts of a great Atlantean civilization ( Atlantis) which was flooded to say there was more than one catastrophic event, although none on the level of Noah's flood.
You can't say how much land there was, I mean, even if water was added at the flood perhaps when the mountains pushed up the ocean basins sank lower and could hold more water. Interesting question though.
Peairtach
Puritan Board Doctor
You'd first have to decide whether the science for the existence of Pangea was sound, a scientific belief that has only been adopted in the past few decades. Or is it like biological evolution or the big bang?
Then there is the Q of whether Pangea, if there was a Pangea, was split during the creation week or after.
Then - if you're taking the YEC view - you've got to come up with a natural mechanism that can split massive land masses apart and move them thousands of miles in a relatively short time, unless it was done miraculously during the creation week or after.
Fogetaboutit
Puritan Board Freshman
I think this is an interesting interpretation,
The Hovind Theory (Seminar Part 6) | Creation Today - Creation, Apologetics, Evangelism
The Hovind Theory (Seminar Part 6) | Creation Today - Creation, Apologetics, Evangelism
Tim
Puritan Board Graduate
Are you not convinced that the worldwide flood was quite sufficient to accomplish this movement in a short period of time?
How do you find this reasoning?
1. From Gen. 1:9, we learn that God created one land mass and one ocean.
2. There are now several land masses (continents).
3. The bible teaches that the earth is young.
4. Therefore this continental split and move must have occurred rapidly.
5. The flood was probably the only suitable mechanism for this.
Peairtach
Puritan Board Doctor
Tim
Can a belief in Pangea rest on this one verse alone, or may it not simply mean that where the Earth had been covered in water there was now one part covered in water and one part not?
I tend to hold towards the YEC, so if there was a Pangea at one time it would have to a relatively rapid split compared to what many scientists say. But I still don't know from Scripture or science if there was a Pangea.
The Flood or thereafter might be a time when Pangea broke up, or it may have happened some other time. The Bible doesn't say.
Even if the Flood was the occasion of Pangea breaking up, the mechanism by which e.g. thousands of miles of seafloor were formed in a short space of time would have to be accounted for, if it is being claimed that it happened naturalistically.
Can a belief in Pangea rest on this one verse alone, or may it not simply mean that where the Earth had been covered in water there was now one part covered in water and one part not?
I tend to hold towards the YEC, so if there was a Pangea at one time it would have to a relatively rapid split compared to what many scientists say. But I still don't know from Scripture or science if there was a Pangea.
The Flood or thereafter might be a time when Pangea broke up, or it may have happened some other time. The Bible doesn't say.
Even if the Flood was the occasion of Pangea breaking up, the mechanism by which e.g. thousands of miles of seafloor were formed in a short space of time would have to be accounted for, if it is being claimed that it happened naturalistically.
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked
- Locked