My husband and I have just been discussing about the facts that state that a lot of countries were joined together (millions of years ago???) and have since broken away. e.g Australia was joined to the greater land mass and is now separate (as we know it to be). My question is this : When God created the earth in 6 days, then came the great flood, could the waters, when they receded, changed the shape of different land masses by receding into different areas from before. Hence, Australia was supposed to be joined to a greater land mass, but now is separate? I hope you understand what I am getting at here?
There is no Biblical evidence or scientific evidence to support this idea. Genesis 2:1, states, "Thus the heavens and the earth were finished, and all the host of them." There is no reason to believe that the heavens and earth spoken of here are a different heaven and earth than God originally created. God specifically states that He created the sun, moon, and stars on the fourth day of creation. The Gap theorist must, if true to his ideas, hold that God recreated the whole universe. That idea is not supported of or even hinted at in God's word.
God very specifically states that He created the universe and the earth in six days. "For in six days the LORD made heaven and earth, the sea, and all that in them is, and rested the seventh day: wherefore the LORD blessed the Sabbath day, and hallowed it" (Exodus 20:11). The words "heaven and earth" refer to the whole of the Universe, not just to the earth. Thus God said in six days He created the Universe. This verse alone refutes any possibility of there being a pre-Adamic race or gap in time and the earth being millions of earths old.
In Exodus 20:11, the words for "days" are not used symbolically, they mean literally a 24 hour periods. The word used is the Hebrew word "yom" (day)and simply refers to a period of time. However, when the word "yom" is modified, as in the verse by the number "six," it literally can only mean a 24 hour period of time. The Bible, which is God's inerrant infallible Word, states this as fact and there is no reason to try and compromise the Word of God to fit man's false so called science.
The account of the Creation in Genesis is written to be literally accepted in the same way as salvation. There is nothing in the Bible that suggests that the Genesis account of Creation is to be understood symbolically. Romans 10:9 literally says that a man must accept Jesus Christ as His Lord and Savior and in doing so will receive eternal life. If Romans is true, so is Genesis. You cannot accept one and reject the other. Both are literal instructions from God. One instructs in the plan of salvation, the other in God's work in creating the universe.
If God wanted to reveal to man how the universe and man came into existence, why would he not just literally say exactly what happened? Why allow myths to be included in the Scriptures and have man for thousands of years believe them to be truth? Why also did Jesus quote from the Book of Genesis and regard it as fact, if it were but myths?
At the heart of the matter is the fact that many of those who deny the Genesis account of Creation deny also the inspiration of the Bible and that it is the infallible inerrant Word of God. They conclude that the Bible is merely the work of men, who down to us through the ages collected Jewish myths and stories and then passed them on from generation to generation. Further they deny all the miracles and prophecies and dismiss them as myths. God Himself is thus only one of these myths and there is no supernatural Creator.
Today, there are many Christian and secular scientists holding degrees from major universes which have questioned evolution not only from a Biblical point of view but also from their fields of science.
It is a far gone conclusion that there is no biblical or scientific reason to accept evolution. Since Darwin's book, The Origin of the Species, science has not produced one demonstrable proven evidence of evolution. Evolutionary science is basically flawed in that it discounts what must be the root and foundation of any true science, that God created the heavens and earth. To a great degree modern science is found also to be dishonest in that when the great wealth of evidence of creation is shown they refuse to accept or even consider it. They interpret the evidence to conform to their evolutionary bias. However, there is a growing number of honest scientists today outside the "Christian" community who have serious doubts about evolution because their research does not support it. The reaction of their colleagues is to ridicule any who question evolution.
The bottom line of the matter is this: Evolution is basically flawed and cannot be scientifically demonstrated or proven. Evolution is the myth, not the biblical account of Creation. There is no reason for the Christian to feel any pressure to accept evolution or try and bring the Bible into harmony with it. Further there is no gap between Genesis 1:1-2.
The evidence that science finds has to be interpreted. That means it must be determined what it actually means. For example, how do you interpret the existence of a fossil fish found in the Green River Formation in Wyoming. How did it come to be there, what were the events that buried it, fossilized it and when did it occur? The Creationist, interpreting things in light of what God's word says it was buried sometime during Noah's flood about 4000 years ago. The evolutionist will say it happened millions of years old, because it interprets what it finds in the world through the teachings of evolution. The evidence actually can be interpreted either way. The evolutionists says, ah, but we dated the fossil with one of our dating methods and it was 2.5 millions years old. The Creationist will respond, but ah...how accurate is your dating method and when did you dating method start? For example, Genesis 1-2 clearly shows the earth was created by God with the appearance of age. The animals were fully grown, Adam and Eve were adults, plant life was fully developed. The Creationist would ask the evolutionist ...if you took a rock sample on Day One of creation how old would the rock appear to be? Millions maybe? So the fact is that the dating method was assigned a starting point by the evolutionists. The Creationist, using God's word, would explain that the dating method was flawed because the earth was created with the appearance of age. See the problem with all this? However, if we honestly accept what the Bible says we can properly interpret what is found in nature.
The evidence of the design of the Universe and all life is overwhelming. The fact is the Universe shows complication and intricate design and thus the Universe had to have a Designer. The evolutionist says it just happened by random chance without design or a Design and that life came from inert matter by random chance. Yet, the evidence is in favor of there being a Designer and the Bible tells us the Designer is Almighty God. Genesis 1:1 "In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth." Nothing in Genesis 1:1 contradicts imperial science. Evolution, however does contradict science because it stated life came from inert matter and evolve by random chance. There is no evidence of that....and in fact the evidence refutes that idea as false. Random chance does not produce order or show design. So the evidence supports Creation and refutes Evolution.
As to the continents fitting together recent mapping of the ocean floors show clear evidence of great changes in the face of the earth. There is much evidence that the continents have moved from their positions in the past. The Bible in Genesis 10:25, states, "An unto Eber were born two sons: the name of one was Peleg; for in his days was the earth divided. . .". Many believe this is a reference to the separation of the continents from one giant land mass scientists call, "Pangaea", into there present positions. Most geologist today in examining the shapes of the continents conclude they in the past were connected. The present shape of the eastern shores of North and South America fix almost glove-like to Africa and Europe. Other areas of the globe also follow the same pattern. Australia seems to fit perfectly to the eastern coast of Africa and southern Asia. One must conclude that there is great evidence the continent were once connected. The early connection of the continents would explain how the America's and Australia were inhabited. It would also explain how life came to be on each continent though separated by oceans from the others. Different animals on the continents show that through genetics the animals over time changed because of being isolated from other animals of its kind and certain physical characteristics developed differently on the different land masses.
I have an article at http://bible-truth.org/race.htm titled the Origin of Race. Also I have an article at http://bible-truth.org/GEN1.HTM that is a commentary of the Book of Genesis chapters 1-12. It also explains a great deal about how the earth was created and how it has changed.
There is a good web site headed by an Azzie name Ken Ham, at http://www.answersingenesis.org/ titled Answers in Genesis. You could spend days going through the mass of information on the site.