Wow. I wasn't expecting that from you even though I recognized that you were more conservative than I. I most certainly am not a fundamentalist. Please note that in all my comments about how it agrees with modern science I used the words "can be seen to agree" and NOT the words "does agree".
Slowly forming Earth
Now the earth was formless and void, there was darkness over the deep, and God's spirit hovered over the water. God said 'Let there be light', and their was light.
(Gen1:2-3)
Imagine for a minute that you were sitting on the planet at the time it was first developing from slowly settling dust, moisture and stone. You would be able to see nothing, because the dust and moisture in the sky would block out all to sun's rays. Over a loooong period of time eventually as more dust settled the light of the sun could be seen even though you still could not see the sun itself. I have read where scientists have said that during this period of time it rained for over 10,000 years. We are in what the Bible calls the first day. The sun and the moon do not become visible until the fourth day. (BTW the Hebrew word interpreted as "day" can also be interpreted as "age" or "eon". Look it up.)
First of all, it does not say on day 4 the sun and moon and stars became visible. It says on day 4 he PLACED the sun the moon and the stars in the firmament. The same firmament that birds fly in. BTW, people in Mesopotamia believed the whole universe was the shape of a snowglobe. The earth was the disk, and the heavens was the dome over it. Birds flew where stars are. This is why there are legends of some birds that could fly to the sun.
The person that wrote this verse would know that the absence of light is darkness, so if there was no light, since he believed God created light, then he would naturally describe the earth as being in a state of darkness. There is no reason to think he had modern-day understanding, which he clearly did not.
I am not saying that he had a modern-day understanding of science, and yes I am fully aware of the Babylonian view of the universe that was prevalent during the time (although you left out the concept of the "pillars of the earth" being attached to a slowly moving giant turtle). I am saying that even though he knew nothing of science, and even though the story survived hundreds of years of existing as oral tradition before it was finally written down, the fact is that it STILL can be seen to agree with modern science. Isn't that what "inspiration" is all about? The Bible is full of stories of things that the author of the time could not possibly know about, but in the future came true.
Super-Continents
God said, 'Let the waters under the heavens come together in a single mass and let dry land appear'. And so it was. God called the dry land 'earth' the the mass of waters 'seas'
(Gen1:9-10)
As more dust settled, dry land appeared starting in one place with one land mass.
Notice he thinks the dry land was made to appear after the waters came together. This is not how it happened scientifically. Also, this verse says nothing about continents. It says dry land as if there was just one of them. This would have been his view. They did not know there were other huge land masses, so they spoke of one land mass. Had he understood that Pangea broke apart into continents, he would have worded this differently. He makes no mention of one mass becoming many.
You are reading much more into what I said. The Bible states that the water was in one large pool, therefore it follows that the land also was one spot. That's it. Note that I said "like Pangea". I was not referring specifically to that supercontinent, but the 9 or 10 previous supercontinents that existed before it. They had broken apart and come back together a number of times before Pangea. The earliest manifestation was Vaalbaria (?) which was much, much smaller than Pangea. I am saying nothing about how land first appeared, most certainly not making a scientific claim. Most likely it happened as a result of volcanic activity along with the settling debris. Most likely this was after the rogue planet that smashed into Earth eventually producing our Moon.
Abiogenesis
This is a discredited scientific theory about the origins of life from the primordial goo, or "dirt", but it seems that the Bible agrees with it.
God said, 'Let the earth produce vegetation: seed-bearing plants, and fruit trees...
(Gen 1:11)
God said, Let the waters teem with living creatures, and let birds fly about the earth within the vault of heaven.
(Gen 1:20)
God said, Let the earth produce every kind of living creature: cattle, reptiles, and every kind of wild beast.
Gen 1:24
Note that in each case it does not say that God "zapped" them into being, but rather caused the EARTH or the WATERS to produce them. Note also the Bible also states
This was the view back then. They believed the earth produced plants. It was a simple observation. It rained, the sun beamed, then he earth produced plants. Why did it do that? God must have caused it. It doesn't say the waters produced fish, but let the water teem with living creatures. It doesn't say how the living creatures came to be but that they came to be in the water. People back then would have no clue how water creatures came to be, so if they believed in God, they would believe God caused them to be in the water.
Notice, that the creatures in the water began to exist in the water, which contradicts evolution.
He goes on to say the same with birds. They begin to exist in the sky. That is clearly not true. Also, I doubt he believed birds began to exist in the sky for they saw birds on the ground and in nests.
Where did land animals come from if water creatures began to exist in the water? They must have begun to exist on the earth.
Evolution
Note please that in general the order of appearance of various living things corresponds to an evolutionary line-up. Simple plants, sea life, "great sea monsters", reptiles, mammals and man.
Not really. Genesis says plants day 3 and water life day 5. This is incorrect. Plants originated in the water according to evolution theory.
Wow. You are treating my comments as a scientific discourse. Sorry but that is the furthest from the truth. I wasn't trying to do that! Why you you continually say "he believes" when you have never asked me to explain what I believe. Again, look at what I wrote.... I said "in general". I was not trying to show my beliefs on the matter nor was I trying to give a scientific explanation. I was talking about the general appearance of living things and how IN GENERAL it can be seen to agree with evolution.
I can only assume that you have Jesuit training. You get hung up on minor details but miss the actual point which was being made.
