Jump to content

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

Tramper

The Flood Story

Recommended Posts

I can't even believe people are arguing over this.

Forget looking at the fossil and geological record. Nine people could not gather hundreds of thousands of animals from every corner of the planet, put them on a ship, feed, water, and clean up after them for forty days, and then return them all to the places where they found them.

That simply did not happen, and I can't believe anyone would be dense enough to say it did.

AMEN!

Share this post


Link to post
I can't even believe people are arguing over this.

Forget looking at the fossil and geological record. Nine people could not gather hundreds of thousands of animals from every corner of the planet, put them on a ship, feed, water, and clean up after them for forty days, and then return them all to the places where they found them.

That simply did not happen, and I can't believe anyone would be dense enough to say it did.

Actually this seems to be the most covinceing argument I have heard, seriously.

Share this post


Link to post
I can't even believe people are arguing over this.

Forget looking at the fossil and geological record. Nine people could not gather hundreds of thousands of animals from every corner of the planet, put them on a ship, feed, water, and clean up after them for forty days, and then return them all to the places where they found them.

That simply did not happen, and I can't believe anyone would be dense enough to say it did.

Well if you believe in a god that puts fake evidence in the ground for us to find that refutes what his holy book says to you, I don't expect you would have a hard time thinking your god could magically be wisking around animals or shrinking them to fit on an ark, etc.

Share this post


Link to post
I bring up the resurrection in perspective in the willingness to believe something only if it pertains specifically to our eternal well being. A resurrection, speaking from a scientific standing defies all the physics of what we know about modern biology. Modern biology cannot ever explain just how and why the resurrection is plausible and yet it exists and obeys the very laws of physics we try to analyze. So then, if we know that the resurrection is a fact and does exist, and obeys the very laws of nature we have that exist around us, can that same logic be used in the justification for believing in a worldwide flood aknowledging that once again modern science just cant possibly fathom the very operations of nature around them?

For instance- we have no way of truly dating rocks and the fossils found in them. We have a speculative system for making a platform to jump off and start scientific research, but we have no solid footing as to what exactly happened and the laws of nature governing such processes. Most of our scientific research is built upon the "observation" part of the experiment. The problem with researching the plausibility of a global flood is that we have nothing in "real time" to observe. We just can't go back into time to see it happen or not see it happen and then make scientific reasonings based off of our observation.

All we are truly left with then is the evidence. Does the evidence, minus scientific inaccuracies (dating of rocks, etc), point to a worldwide deluge? Yes, very much so! For starters, fossils do not naturally form in rock under normal circumstances. Almost every modern documentation of buried alive animals (the kind that turn into fossils) in nature is the direct result of a watery flood event. Because the fossil and rock record is spread out over the entire earth, and has been shown to be the same on every continent we can conclude quite positively that the geologic column is made up of sediment laid down almost entirely under water! There is no disputing that fact! So the question really is this- Did the geologic column, found at different parts of the earth form at the same time under water or at different times under water? The question isn't "if" it formed under water, but when and under what circumstances was it formed?

If we attribute it to small localized floods, we can and should discount the entire record of the geologic column in time frames as we cannot specifically know at what point the inundation occured. For instance- if it was all localized buryings, then we cannot know at what point a fossil truly became extinct and where another started. This means that trying to date rocks by the fossils contained in them is very circular reasoning based off their own logic! Sedimentary rocks cannot be dated by themselves with current scientific methods- that is a fact. Sedimentary rocks are almost exclusively dated by the fossils found in them. The problem is however that there is no sure way to date the fossil either, especially when you apply the logic that the same species over an entire globe will all not go into extinction at the same time.

In fact, "living fossils" like the coelocanth fish has baffled biology labs for decades now. How is it possible that something like this fish which was supposed to go extinct millions and millions of years ago suddenly reappear in a fishermans net basically unchanged, alive and doing well? The fact is this- the evolutionary trees we have drawn from the geologic column are not represented by the facts and evidence! So then what is the geologic column? The geologic column in proper historical reference is the "flood column". This flood column was created in a short series of catastrophic events begining with the events leading up to the flood event, and culminated many years later as the flood waters retreated off the land due mostly to the quick and yet violent uplift of the land.

I have talked to several of the professors at byu explaining my discontent for their views. Apparently, the Brethren are divided on the situation and are at odds somewhat as to what to teach. The truth will come though- the flood is true, evolution is false and basic scientific beliefs will turn out to be tom-foolery.

It still amazes me that you feel you have found the truth when the entire scientific world has not. If you think the dating of rocks is inaccurate, then please let all the scientists and universities that believe it is accurate know.

Yes the coelocanth fish was thought to be extinct and science was wrong. But they are not "baffled" by it.

If the flood created all fossils we would expect to find all the animals mixed up in the layers of the earth. However, all Paleontologists at all major univeristies know this is not the case. The lower layers have simpler life forms and life gets more complex on the upper layers just as Darwin predicted so long ago would be the case.

Like I said, you need to let the scientific world know about your astounding findings. Think about the headlines, "Rob Osborn from (wherever you live) turns science on its head by proving it tom-foolery." I know it is a tall order to disprove so many thousands of scientists across the globe, but it sounds like you have the confidence to do it.

Share this post


Link to post
Joseph Antley Posted Today, 08:03 AM

I can't even believe people are arguing over this.

Forget looking at the fossil and geological record. Nine people could not gather hundreds of thousands of animals from every corner of the planet, put them on a ship, feed, water, and clean up after them for forty days, and then return them all to the places where they found them.

That simply did not happen, and I can't believe anyone would be dense enough to say it did.

I think only 8 people were on the Ark. Unless of course you think Cain was hitching a ride. ;) Maybe he hired out help to get all the animals and food in the Ark. :crazy: They would have had to take care of the animals for much longer than 40 days as well. The story says it rained 40 days and nights, and that they were on the water close to half a year. Thats a lot of Crap to clean. Almost as much crap as the story itself. :P

Share this post


Link to post
thesometimesaint Posted Today, 01:54 PM

Bender:

Not if it was a localized event.

True, but if I was Noah, I might ask God if it wouldn't be just a little easier just to move my family and animals to higher ground. Solves the problem right there. He supposedly had the time to build a big boat.

Share this post


Link to post

Bender:

Maybe yes, maybe no. But remember that initially the Ark was design to hold more people.

Share this post


Link to post

The introduction to the 1998 Ensign article is worth quoting:

Many of us have fond memories learning about Noah and his ark during our days at home and in Primary. Perhaps our parents and teachers held up a picture of Noah preaching to laughing and mocking people as he stood in front of the partially built ark, or perhaps they showed us a picture portraying the ark filled with animals standing on the deck as the great vessel rested in the water. Later, our Sunday School or seminary teachers added to our knowledge of this great man, his righteousness, his missionary work, and the revelations surrounding the building of the ark. As Latter-day Saints, we treasure this sacred, true account of one of Godâ??s great prophets who lived so long ago.

Not everyone throughout the modern world, however, accepts the story of Noah and the Flood. Many totally disbelieve the story, seeing it as a simple myth or fiction. Typical of some modern scholars, one author recently discounted the events of the Flood by using such terms as â??implausible,â? â??unacceptable,â? and â??impossibleâ?; he stated that believers who would hope to provide geologic or other evidence regarding the historicity of the Flood â??can be given no assurance that their effort, however sustained, will be successful.â? 1 Another author titled his book The Noahâ??s Ark Nonsense, 2 revealing his disbelief that the Flood actually took place.

Still other people accept parts of the Flood story, acknowledging that there may have been a local, charismatic preacher, such as Noah, and a localized flood that covered only a specific area of the world, such as the region of the Tigris and Euphrates Rivers or perhaps even the whole of Mesopotamia. Yet these people do not believe in a worldwide or global flood. Both of these groupsâ??those who totally deny the historicity of Noah and the Flood and those who accept parts of the storyâ??are persuaded in their disbelief by the way they interpret modern science. They rely upon geological considerations and theories that postulate it would be impossible for a flood to cover earthâ??s highest mountains, that the geologic evidence (primarily in the fields of stratigraphy and sedimentation) does not indicate a worldwide flood occurred any time during the earthâ??s existence.

There is a third group of peopleâ??those who accept the literal message of the Bible regarding Noah, the ark, and the Deluge. Latter-day Saints belong to this group. In spite of the worldâ??s arguments against the historicity of the Flood, and despite the supposed lack of geologic evidence, we Latter-day Saints believe that Noah was an actual man, a prophet of God, who preached repentance and raised a voice of warning, built an ark, gathered his family and a host of animals onto the ark, and floated safely away as waters covered the entire earth. We are assured that these events actually occurred by the multiple testimonies of Godâ??s prophets.

Do the "multiple testimonies of God's prophets" really testify that these events actually occurred as described in the Bible? Are the multiple testimonies of God's prophets a reliable barometer for the truth?

Share this post


Link to post
thesometimesaint Posted Today, 02:13 PM

Bender:

Maybe yes, maybe no. But remember that initially the Ark was design to hold more people.

Is there scripture that says it was designed to hold more people. I haven't heard of that before. It still seems to be kinda pointless if your just trying to avoid a localized flood, to build a big ship when all you have to do is move everyone that will listen to higher ground. Building a ship would just seem a waste of time and resources that could be better spent.

Share this post


Link to post
Are you impressed with the theories of science that put men on the moon, invented computers, cars, phones, airplanes, modern medicine, etc, etc. Or are these just theories clothed in the guise of science?

Are you equating the "science of computers" et al with the science of archaeology, anthropology, geology, and so on?

Surely you can see a difference between building a microwave oven (another favorite scientific product) and understanding the past?

Share this post


Link to post
Are you equating the "science of computers" et al with the science of archaeology, anthropology, geology, and so on?

Surely you can see a difference between building a microwave oven (another favorite scientific product) and understanding the past?

The scientific method of discovery is much the same, yes. That is testing a hypothesis. Although in the case of geology or anthropology you are not testing a hypothesis with the intention of inventing something. But what we know about natural selection in Biology has been important to our understandings and creations of modern medicine that I assume you use.

Share this post


Link to post
The scientific method of discovery is much the same, yes. That is testing a hypothesis. Although in the case of geology or anthropology you are not testing a hypothesis with the intention of inventing something. But what we know about natural selection in Biology has been important to our understandings and creations of modern medicine that I assume you use.

I didn't ask you if both use the scientific method.

In some sciences 100% explained variation is required, others accept 5%. The microwave is along the lines of 100% and explaining history is along the lines of 5%. Some of the endeavors undertaken by science are clean others are dirty.

Science is generally required to be able to explain and predict. Some sciences explain the past, some sciences build things in the present, some sciences predict the future, and some do a combination of these things.

Some sciences try to address things that are not conducive to science.

Science is a method to acquire knowledge used by humans. The current method/philosophy of science is empiricism. Science has ideals and assumptions. The assumptions of empiricism are not bullet proof. Humans are imperfect. The application of the scientific method is not always pure and pristine. The fallibility of humans and in turn science amplifies the problems associated with understanding what has happened in the past, building things in the present, and predicting the future, particularly when it comes to things that are uncertain (5% explained variance issue) and/or less than 100% consistent.

Share this post


Link to post
True, but if I was Noah, I might ask God if it wouldn't be just a little easier just to move my family and animals to higher ground. Solves the problem right there. He supposedly had the time to build a big boat.

Even if Noah and family needed to be in the boat, surely a mating pair of animals could be inspired to leave the area for a year or two, then return after the flood. And the only animals that would need to be saved would be those for which the entire population lives in the limited area that is to be flooded. The rest would be fine.

But here is how the story is told in Genesis 6:

17 And, behold, I, even I, do bring a flood of waters upon the earth, to destroy all flesh, wherein is the breath of life, from under heaven; and every thing that is in the earth shall die.

18 But with thee will I establish my covenant; and thou shalt come into the ark, thou, and thy sons, and thy wife, and thy sonsâ?? wives with thee.

19 And of every living thing of all flesh, two of every sort shalt thou bring into the ark, to keep them alive with thee; they shall be male and female.

20 Of fowls after their kind, and of cattle after their kind, of every creeping thing of the earth after his kind, two of every sort shall come unto thee, to keep them alive.

Chapter 7

3 Of fowls also of the air by sevens, the male and the female; to keep seed alive upon the face of all the earth.

Why in the world would Noah need to collect birds? How could a local flood threaten the extinction of birds? Maybe chickens and birds that can't fly, but they are specifically referred to as "the fowls of the air".

As the story is told, untold numbers of animals were drowned in the flood. And this by the same God that doesn't want us to "kill the little birds"? I can see the necessity for animals to die in a worldwide flood, but not so much for a local flood.

Share this post


Link to post
I didn't ask you if both use the scientific method.

In some sciences 100% explained variation is required, others accept 5%. The microwave is along the lines of 100% and explaining history is along the lines of 5%. Some of the endeavors undertaken by science are clean others are dirty.

Science is generally required to be able to explain and predict. Some sciences explain the past, some sciences build things in the present, some sciences predict the future, and some do a combination of these things.

Some sciences try to address things that are not conducive to science.

Science is a method to acquire knowledge used by humans. The current method/philosophy of science is empiricism. Science has ideals and assumptions. The assumptions of empiricism are not bullet proof. Humans are imperfect. The application of the scientific method is not always pure and pristine. The fallibility of humans and in turn science amplifies the problems associated with understanding what has happened in the past, building things in the present, and predicting the future, particularly when it comes to things that are uncertain (5% explained variance issue) and/or less than 100% consistent.

Yes, the purpose of science is to make predictions. In geology it would be to predict where fault lines are and what sort of magnaitude an earthquake will be. Geologists also predict where oil may be found due to what they know about where and how it forms. They also have accurately predicted what sort of animals will found in what layer of the earth. What is interesting is that the fossils that have been found confirm what Darwin said over 100 years ago. The higher the layers, the more complex life has become. But they have not found any evidence for a global flood. Such an event would have left enormous amounts of evidence. The complete lack of evidence should make us all close to 100% certain no such event happened.

Share this post


Link to post
Yes, the purpose of science is to make predictions.

One of its purposes.

In geology it would be to predict where fault lines are

Not 100% explained variance

and what sort of magnaitude an earthquake will be.

Not 100% explained variance

Geologists also predict where oil may be found due to what they know about where and how it forms.

Not 100% explained variance

They also have accurately predicted what sort of animals will found in what layer of the earth.

100% explained variance?

What is interesting is that the fossils that have been found confirm what Darwin said over 100 years ago.

Another issue for another day, perhaps.

The higher the layers, the more complex life has become.

100% explained variance?

But they have not found any evidence for a global flood.

Absolutely none?

Such an event would have left enormous amounts of evidence.

Enormous? Is this an assumption?

As somebody else brought up, what type of evidence would you expect for a 40 day period of continual rain and who knows how long everything stayed submerged?

The complete lack of evidence should make us all close to 100% certain no such event happened.

Complete lack of evidence?

Share this post


Link to post
Complete lack of evidence?

Do you have any evidence outside of scriptural passages of a worldwide flood?

Share this post


Link to post
I have talked to several of the professors at byu explaining my discontent for their views. Apparently, the Brethren are divided on the situation and are at odds somewhat as to what to teach. The truth will come though- the flood is true, evolution is false and basic scientific beliefs will turn out to be tom-foolery.

Okay Rob. You just keep telling yourself that...

Share this post


Link to post
The introduction to the 1998 Ensign article is worth quoting:

Do the "multiple testimonies of God's prophets" really testify that these events actually occurred as described in the Bible? Are the multiple testimonies of God's prophets a reliable barometer for the truth?

Was that the same issue that reprinted the 1909 Joseph F. Smith presidency statement on the origin of man (condemning the belief in human evolution?)

Share this post


Link to post
Even if Noah and family needed to be in the boat, surely a mating pair of animals could be inspired to leave the area for a year or two, then return after the flood. And the only animals that would need to be saved would be those for which the entire population lives in the limited area that is to be flooded. The rest would be fine.

Why in the world would Noah need to collect birds? How could a local flood threaten the extinction of birds? Maybe chickens and birds that can't fly, but they are specifically referred to as "the fowls of the air".

As the story is told, untold numbers of animals were drowned in the flood. And this by the same God that doesn't want us to "kill the little birds"? I can see the necessity for animals to die in a worldwide flood, but not so much for a local flood.

Doesn't this all depend on the size of the flood? Some of the localized flood theories allow for some very large floods. This reminds me of a example of the flood from Montana to the Pacific at the end of the last ice age. Scientists couldn't figure out how these small hills formed in eastern washington until they realized that they were caused by a HUGE localized flood that sent an enormous amount of water from the Montana area over to the west to the Pacific. The flood was so big that the hills they were looking at were the equivalent of the little sand ripples we see after a lot of water has run over a sandy area.

Genesis also says that the water only rose 15 cubits (i.e., 22 feet) in the flood. I have heard the explanation that this refers to how high the flood rose above mount Everest. However, I don't think this explanation jives with the way it is described in Genesis. Also, my understanding is the reference to mountains should have been translated as "hills" instead. How does this jive with a worldwide flood?

Share this post


Link to post

Have you seen the photo of the fossilized human foot found in a 1950's cowboy boot? Apparently it doesn't take millions of years to fossilize. 8 people didn't go around the world collecting animals,God called the animals. Not every one of todays species would have to be represented. Genus level baria would do for most. Hibernation,natural or induced, could deal with the clean-up problem. If we assume that the pre-Noah land was of a different topography than the post-Noah( as the Bible infers ) , then fewer problems arise.

Sea life was not included on the Ark.

Science is always second guessing itself on most topics. How many times have we been told that some food is good or bad for us and then in a couple of years a different study turns the previous conclusion on its head. If science has that much trouble coming to firm conclusions with things that are here and now,where do they get the arrogance to have FIRM conclusions about things that are in the past . No evidence of world wide disaster??? Nonsense.

Take a look at the results of the Mt. St. Helens erruption and its aftermath and see how massive changes can take place in a moment of time and yet leave evidence that would,at first glance,show a very long time frame to accomplish.

Share this post


Link to post
Have you seen the photo of the fossilized human foot found in a 1950's cowboy boot?

Don't you recognize a hoax when you see one?

Share this post


Link to post
Was that the same issue that reprinted the 1909 Joseph F. Smith presidency statement on the origin of man (condemning the belief in human evolution?)

I don't think so. Here is the table of contents:

http://www.lds.org/ldsorg/v/index.jsp?vgne...0004d82620a____

Table of Contents

First Presidency Message

How Do We Show Our Love?

Thomas S. Monson

The Book That Built a Better World

Chris Conkling

â??In the Beginningâ?:

A Latter-day Perspective

Robert J. Woodford

What Modern Revelation Teaches about Adam

Arthur A. Bailey

Enoch:

What Modern Scripture Teaches

Richard D. Draper

The Flood and the Tower of Babel

Donald W. Parry

The Abrahamic Covenant

S. Michael Wilcox

The Visiting Teacher:

Obey His Voice and Keep His Commandments

With â??the Tongues of Seven Thundersâ?

Making Member-Missionary Work Work

Christopher K. Bigelow

Random Sampler

Mormon Journal

Portraits

Kindness, Goodwill, Generosity

Milly Day

Excerpts from Recent Addresses of President Gordon B. Hinckley

Gordon B. Hinckley

News of the Church

Share this post


Link to post
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×