Jump to content

Archived

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

Bill "Papa" Lee

Do You Believe The â??biblical Accountâ?�?

Recommended Posts

No we wouldn't. The above is an example of a catestrophic event. Not all of the flood was such a catestrophic event in the sense of the above you have stated. The waters rose gradually for much of it. Gradual rises in water levels do not produce the same results as in such catestrophic events as given above. You can experiment with this in your bathtub, if you wish. Produce two platforms of soil with geological features and place one in the bathtub. Make this one the catestrophic event mentioned above. Record the results.Next, clean up the mess and take your second platform and place it in the bottom of the bathtub. Get a watering can and "turn on the rain" while at the same time gradually filling up the tub. Make sure you do this over several days and not too quickly. Then, slowly drain the tub a cup at a time over several days. Record the results. They will be quite different in how they look, I can assure you. The latter experiment will not display the same details and features that you saw in the first experiment. You will see little to no evidence of "global flooding" and washing of soil on the second model unless you performed the experiment too quickly.
Hogwash. There was no "gradual rise" in water levels. This was a huge deluge where water was being dumped on them from above and below simultaneously for forty straight days until the tops of the mountains were covered. Every natural body of water--rivers, lakes, oceans, would have been in utter chaos. And if that weren't enough, a huge wind (huge enough to drive the waters back) was brought out after it stopped raining. This was no gradual rise and no gradual fall. It would have been a whirlpool of destruction.
The probable original source of the information for Katherine the Great's above remarks:See my remarks above regarding the possible reasons why such evidence has not been found including proposed experiments as potential empirical examples.
Nice try. I haven't even heard of that source.

Share this post


Link to post

The LDS have never been Literalists, and we certainly are not inerrantists. It is this All or NOTHING mentality that has me concerned. Some would have us deny symbolism, metaphor, allegory, and parable, all of which are abundant in the Bible in order to discredit us.

Share this post


Link to post

The problem here is that some people come to love science and worldly ideas more than the scriptures and they start measuring the former by the latter. Others, on seeing this, then try to defend the more literalist position in hope of staving off what is perceived as worldliness/relying upon the arm of flesh.

It is true that the LDS position on many things - including the Flood and Creation - does not go into detail or espouse dogmatism on things which have not been fully revealed. It is also true that many inspired men have shared counsel and sometimes statements which tend to support a more literal view rather than anything else.

Personally I believe many people put too much store in science. If you take the time to read different schools of thoughts one finds very cogent evidence for ideas other than what is considered mainstream, one finds also huge assumptions and very biased interpretations. Evolution, for example, has also been shown to have had its own fair share of fraud and pseudo-science (though some like to throw this criticism only at Creationists).

A scientist, or a body or movement of scientists, are not less susceptible to error and vested interest than anyone from any other discipline, including theologists. This false idea that scientists are different, that they are neutral is a notion that should be driven from the mind of every honest person...

Science is based on theories, models and interpretations. Evolution, for example, is widely taught today and yet there are facts which seem to contradict it at the very foundation of its doctrine. And why does it still stand? Because people *believe* in it.

Share this post


Link to post
Anyway, I was curious about this one since I agree with the scientific views, see members argue both sides, but have never seen anyone from either side of the discussion bring up the theological arguements regarding baptism and the need for the earth to have been baptised. If I still had GospelLink, I would do a search and dump just to see what shakes out from all of the prophets, etc., on the matter to see how progressive these views are. But I gave it to my Dad, and all I have are my books. It would take some time to go through and post the quotes from all of those writings.

He was a scientist as well as an apostle. You might also include James E. Talmage among those who had some doubts as to the historicity.

Share this post


Link to post
Hogwash. There was no "gradual rise" in water levels. This was a huge deluge where water was being dumped on them from above and below simultaneously for forty straight days until the tops of the mountains were covered. Every natural body of water--rivers, lakes, oceans, would have been in utter chaos. And if that weren't enough, a huge wind (huge enough to drive the waters back) was brought out after it stopped raining. This was no gradual rise and no gradual fall. It would have been a whirlpool of destruction.

Hmmm.... No, your view is hogwash. The rain took place over a 40-day period. The blowing of the wind took place over time and caused evaporation. Land broke up in places, releasing underground water. All of these are listed in the Bible (as well as accompanying earthquakes mentioned in another biblical passage relating to the flood). All of these are shown by the text itself to be gradual processes. Therefore, my point about gradual processes still stands.

As to waters mixing to the point of being in utter chaos, that is not necessarily the case. Both salinity and water temperature and composition have much to do with mixing of certain types and kinds of waters. In addition, rain would have further diluted more saline waters in areas where there was land. Oceans would become more saline over time again and water features on what would become land would become less saline if they ever became such to the point of wiping out life. Mass extinctions occur all the time in earth's geological history. You have much to learn, but that is alright. We all do in various degrees. ;)

Nice try. I haven't even heard of that source.

:crazy: Ok. Fine. Both you and that source relied on information from another common source. Same diff and same kind of content. :P

Share this post


Link to post
Part of it, minus the discussion of relative sizes of animals, comes from Joseph Fielding Smith, Man, His Origin and Destiny. Where else the above comes from I do not now recall.

I believe this is the same tome that David O. McKay told his then counselor to keep to himself when Pres. Smith and James Talmage was arguing over the subject of man's origins.

http://www.signaturebookslibrary.org/harmo...er6.htm#roberts

^ Richard Sherlock, "'We Can See No Advantage to a Continuation of the Discussion': The Roberts/Smith/Talmage Affair," Dialogue: A Journal of Mormon Thought 13(3):63â??78 (Fall 1980).

Share this post


Link to post
The problem here is that some people come to love science and worldly ideas more than the scriptures and they start measuring the former by the latter. Others, on seeing this, then try to defend the more literalist position in hope of staving off what is perceived as worldliness/relying upon the arm of flesh.

It is true that the LDS position on many things - including the Flood and Creation - does not go into detail or espouse dogmatism on things which have not been fully revealed. It is also true that many inspired men have shared counsel and sometimes statements which tend to support a more literal view rather than anything else.

Personally I believe many people put too much store in science. If you take the time to read different schools of thoughts one finds very cogent evidence for ideas other than what is considered mainstream, one finds also huge assumptions and very biased interpretations. Evolution, for example, has also been shown to have had its own fair share of fraud and pseudo-science (though some like to throw this criticism only at Creationists).

A scientist, or a body or movement of scientists, are not less susceptible to error and vested interest than anyone from any other discipline, including theologists. This false idea that scientists are different, that they are neutral is a notion that should be driven from the mind of every honest person...

Science is based on theories, models and interpretations. Evolution, for example, is widely taught today and yet there are facts which seem to contradict it at the very foundation of its doctrine. And why does it still stand? Because people *believe* in it.

Yes, science contains many theories and so forth. I understand that. But, you seem to have ignored what I said about counting rock layers. The counts of the layers do not support a literal 6,000 year existence for the earth. There are more layers than this number of years in the geological strata that can be examined. It has nothing to do with C14 dating, or really much of anything else but counting the numbers of the layers. However, when the dates match the layering, what does one do at that point? Ignore everything because it become uncomfortable? I think not.

As to evolution, there is much in favor of it, including new evidence that pours in every day. Yes, some has over time been falsified and other evidences used were indeed fraudulent, but that does not mean that all of the information was obtained in like manner. I understand what you are saying about science and the problems and pitfalls of scientific inquiry, but I also would not turn around and ignore it all in attempting to understand the world around us. The scriptures are nice and they are preferable in most regards to other information, but the problem with the Bible is that it has been rewritten in places over time and this rewritten Bible definitely could affect later writers who made use of such texts, including those of the Book of Mormon and so forth.

Many of the so-called facts called upon to refute organic evolution are themselves fraudulent or misunderstood and misrepresented. Best be careful not to be misled by them. We do not know precisely the methodology used by God to create worlds and life thereon. The Church's official position on Evolution vs. Creationism is that there is no official Church position on either at this time. If the Church can keep an open mind, why then cannot members of the Church do so without being accused of trying to harmonize science with religion and religious texts to the detriment of the texts? I do not see the problem.

Share this post


Link to post
A scientist, or a body or movement of scientists, are not less susceptible to error and vested interest than anyone from any other discipline, including theologists. This false idea that scientists are different, that they are neutral is a notion that should be driven from the mind of every honest person...

Science is based on theories, models and interpretations. Evolution, for example, is widely taught today and yet there are facts which seem to contradict it at the very foundation of its doctrine. And why does it still stand? Because people *believe* in it.

You're missing a vital component. Scientists, unlike theologians, must base their theories on observable results obtained through a peer reviewed process that has taken years and even centuries to refine. It is not just random speculation. The very fact that we can challenge aspects of the biblical account is based on science and empirical thought. Without searching and questioning we are no different than the cows in the field chewing cud.

In the case of the flood there are numerous scientific realities that come into play...

  • The effects of vast amounts of water on the earth and atmosphere
  • The existence of pre-Hebrew writings on the subject
  • The cosmology and linguistic nuances employed by Hebrew writing.

In sum it is not a simple subject.

Share this post


Link to post

I appreciate your recital of the scientific method but state again that it does not work that way. It is ridiculous to look at scientists as honestly and intellectually superior. Fraud, bad science and a host of other factors make it not as reliable as some like to take comfort in.

As for the false claims opposing organic evolution, well one could say they same thing about creationism. A person must look at the claims and the evidence and comes to his own mind.

As to rock layers...are you saying there are more than 6000 rock layers? And, if so, what is the reasoning behind the conclusion that each must represent a year?

Share this post


Link to post
I appreciate your recital of the scientific method but state again that it does not work that way. It is ridiculous to look at scientists as honestly and intellectually superior. Fraud, bad science and a host of other factors make it not as reliable as some like to take comfort in.

Given the amount of peer review and scholarly oversight not to mention the competition within the scientific world it is fairly easy to glean the fraudulent from the real.

Share this post


Link to post
...

As for the false claims opposing organic evolution, well one could say they same thing about creationism. A person must look at the claims and the evidence and comes to his own mind.

I have examined both sides of the issue and have come to the conclusion to keep an open mind. There are far more frauds in creationist writings than there are in modern scientific texts that have been peer reviewed carefully. I know this from examining the evidence as it was presented to me. The numbers of frauds in the paleontological sciences are far and few between. That is a substantial difference between the two.

As to rock layers...are you saying there are more than 6000 rock layers? And, if so, what is the reasoning behind the conclusion that each must represent a year?

It would depend upon the kind of rock. There are indeed many more than 6,000 rock layers, some relatively thick and others relatively thin depending upon the seasons and conditions. However, one must excavate to get to many of them. Deep strip mines can give access to many more than can be seen on the surface at times. Yet, even then, one must excavate further to get to yet earlier ones. Deep mine shafts also provide access to layers depending upon where placed.

For sedimentary rock, such as limestone and sandstone, it has been determined by careful observation over many years that these forms of sediments do indeed accumulate in such a way as to be able to determine year-by-year counts. The great thing about some areas is that there are multiple flows and deposits per year, which adds differing coloration to the edges of the yearly layers, making many of them more easily seeable and separable precisely because of the variations between seasonal flows and deposits that occur during the years' time. But, yes, these layers do represent year-by-year deposits.

Limestone is caused and created by the deposit of the shells of dead water-based organisms, which are then packed together by pressure from other layers in combination with minerals in the water, as well as the pressure caused by the water itself. Sandstone is not. One can see this layering effect in even soil and sand as well. This is how many ancient ruins become buried over time and forgotten. Checking these soil strata can given relatively accurate assessments as to the age of an ancient settlement where they are distinguishable.

Share this post


Link to post

Though it is still assumption. The observation to find the "measurement" is based upon a modern snapshot and it may not have been that way in the past, and other factors may have come into play discounted by preconceived ideas of evolutionists such as a world-wide flood.

I appreciate having more testimonies than one is beneficial in science, but money and politics and other factors can have an enormous effect. For example, when certain bodies become pro-evolution they fund research to that aim. Of the frauds I've read about perpetrated by those who claim to be scientists I have never seen them retracted. Most people go on believing what they first hear. For example, the comparison of embryos chart by Haeckel exposed as falsified in 1915 and yet it was in my school textbook - which was a great deal after 1915 btw :P - in support of the theory of evolution. It probably still is in texts to this day.

Share this post


Link to post
Though it is still assumption. The observation to find the "measurement" is based upon a modern snapshot and it may not have been that way in the past, and other factors may have come into play discounted by preconceived ideas of evolutionists such as a world-wide flood.

I appreciate having more testimonies than one is beneficial in science, but money and politics and other factors can have an enormous effect. For example, when certain bodies become pro-evolution they fund research to that aim. Of the frauds I've read about perpetrated by those who claim to be scientists I have never seen them retracted. Most people go on believing what they first hear. For example, the comparison of embryos chart by Haeckel exposed as falsified in 1915 and yet it was in my school textbook - which was a great deal after 1915 btw :P - in support of the theory of evolution. It probably still is in texts to this day.

Comparison of the selfsame patterns in the older strata that have the selfsame appearance in the newer strata studied shows the connection between all strata and that the process has not changed much if at all. This is observable in the data and is much, much less assumption than it once was. It is true that assumption plays a large part in a number of the sciences. I mean, no human being has a lifespan of the millions of years required to observe everything relevant to the situation to give us a perfect knowledge. So, there is much assumption in such sciences as Astronomy. But, we learn something new everyday--if we are watching for it, that is.

I appreciate more having a testimony and I would never sacrifice said testimony on the "sacred altar" of science. However, the science also can be beneficial. I have found many connections with Gospel Principles in the sciences over the years and some of them are impressive to me. However, that said, I also--like the leadership of the Church and the official stance of the Church regarding creation and evolution which takes no stance on the role of evolution in creation--keep an open mind. In point of fact, the mind is like a parachute; it only functions properly when open. Think about it. ;)

As to Haeckel's chart, I have not seen it in any more modern texts discussing in-depth the theory of organic evolution unless the text itself is discussing the history of the claim and its dismissal. But, your search may turn up something different.

As to speciation, which you did not discuss but which forms part and parcel portions of evolutionary theory, minor modifications in genetics have been shown to influence the change of various forms of life into similar forms but with differing modifications through selections and adaption of life. Life adapts. Life sometimes changes in drastic ways. In some cases, however, the changes result in speciation, which causes two or more related species to cease in the ability to reproduce with one another. When that occurs, only those of like species, even if of the same genus, no longer can mate with any and reproduce except of their own species.

One example of another form of deception used by creationists is the continued existence of the Ceolecanth. The fossil record shows that there were a number of differing species of the fish, none of which have survived but one, and even that one differs in various degrees from the older species of the same fish found in older strata in the fossil record. In one time of mass extinction, 95% or so of all species ceased to exist all across the planet. Not long afterward, many other species arose over time. Speciation goes on all the time. It just is a very, very slow process. Great external changes sometimes come through this while internal changes are small or insignificant. Sometimes the opposite occurs, as in the case of Man. A man whose native land is the Andes has a greater lung capacity and different heart function than someone who lives and is descended from those who lived in lower altitudes for centuries. Life adapts and changes to survive. That is the central premise to organic evolution and its offshoots. But, because not all of that life lives in the same places, earlier specimens do often survive that are closer to the parent species.

Modern DNA studies and computer analyses can now piece together phylogenetic trees by comparing known information about DNA and how it is composed and functions, and can overlay these with the DNA of other species to determine relation or non-relation. The studies continue but some of these have led to discoveries that can now link various lifeforms that differ together. For example, the dog and the cow and the pig and the mouse have an underlying common ancestor at the genetic level that shows these kinds of interconnections and overlaps. This is believed to have been a small kind of shrew that survived a mass extinction just before the end of the Cretaceous Period. It is true that assumption must still be applied until the phylogenetic trees are completed over many years of study. But, this would not cause me just to dismiss the science out of hand as you seem perfectly willing to do.

The really interesting part of all this is that many life forms have in common the same genes, the alteration of the functioning of which can cause offspring to develop problems with their limbs that make no sense in a current species but which do make sense in a common ancestor. Much work has to be done before this will be "fixed in stone" as it were, but it is of interest nonetheless.

But, the central point to what I am saying, and which the Church officially stated, we do not know the precise processes which God used to bring the world and it species to be, and no amount of pontificating from either side will change that. The Church leaves it up to the individual--contra the views of Bruce R. McConkie and Joseph Fielding Smith--as to whether one believes in straight creation, or creation using organic evolution or related ideas. There is no official doctrine of the Church that there were pre-Adamites, and there is no official doctrine of the Church that there weren't. There is no official doctrine of the Church that animals were all created at once and there is no official doctrine of the Church that organic evolution did or did not have a part in the creation of life on earth.

Hence my call for an open mind.

Share this post


Link to post
A review of a review in Nature

How does one get to it when the link does not take one there and several searches do not show the page on the site?

Share this post


Link to post
My sincere appologies. Force of habit. Correction=== http://crev.info/

Ok, I read the article. It would have helped to have the year instead of making assumptions to 2008 but I found it nonetheless. Lyell's work does not apply to today's geological science except as a curiosity. Geologists know that catastrophism is sometimes in evidence, as in the Scablands of Washington, caused by a catastrophic event as the sudden outflow of lake Missoula, as well as in the examples of Glaciation and the carving out of lakes and raising of hills.

However, what the review of the review does not say, and this is telling, is that there are many regions which can be compared and analyzed which show consistency in much of the data--I would even say most of the data. A few anomalies do not overturn the data established by careful study and observation as a whole as the author of the review of the review would have us believe. The review of the review itself is itself a bit misleading in its approach. It also is woefully out-of-date so far as current geological science goes. :P

Share this post


Link to post

The irony is too much. :fool::):crazy:

Sitting at a computer(one of the most scientifically, and technologically advanced devices ever invented by mankind), using the Internet(using some of the most scientifically and technological advanced concepts ever invented by mankind), all powered by electricity that is at best a Theory on the supposed flow of electrons that no one has ever seen.

Complaining about how horrible science and technology is. :P;):crazy: .com :beatdeadhorse:

Share this post


Link to post

Noah's Flood? Didn't we just ride this merry-go-round?

I believe Noah's flood was not global, for reasons too innumerable to mention. But I believe the Old Testament describes a global flood.

I do not believe the flood could have been local, for reasons including the following:

- In the time it would take to build an ark, Noah and co. could have just walked to higher ground and camped out.

- An ark as huge as described in the Bible would take very deep water to float. A local flood wouldn't be deep enough.

- The ark supposedly ended up in the mountains. A local flood couldn't float a boat into the mountains.

- Local floods are inefficient and imprecise ways to kill people. Disease or war is much better, and God has used both to better effect.

- A local flood would wipe out very, very few species. Even fewer if those species could have migrated to higher ground before the flood.

- A local flood renders the covenant between God and Noah as meaningless and silly. And broken thousands of times since.

Share this post


Link to post
Noah's Flood? Didn't we just ride this merry-go-round?

I believe Noah's flood was not global, for reasons too innumerable to mention. But I believe the Old Testament describes a global flood.

I do not believe the flood could have been local, for reasons including the following:

- In the time it would take to build an ark, Noah and co. could have just walked to higher ground and camped out.

- An ark as huge as described in the Bible would take very deep water to float. A local flood wouldn't be deep enough.

- The ark supposedly ended up in the mountains. A local flood couldn't float a boat into the mountains.

- Local floods are inefficient and imprecise ways to kill people. Disease or war is much better, and God has used both to better effect.

- A local flood would wipe out very, very few species. Even fewer if those species could have migrated to higher ground before the flood.

- A local flood renders the covenant between God and Noah as meaningless and silly. And broken thousands of times since.

Here is the thing, however, continents also sink and rise. Their relative position is now believed to be upheld by heat in the underlying magma. If, for some reason, the magma becomes cooler the continent will sink to lower levels. The North American continent, for example, is help up at its current height above sea level because of the convection of heat from the directly underlying magma.

We know from the Bible that large earthquakes were also said to be happening after the waters rose to a certain level for two reasons. One of them is that the Bible as we currently have it stated that the fountains of the deep were broken up. The other text (do not recall which one but I think it is in Jeremiah) flatly states that the world shook during these times. Sounds to me like there was more going on than mere flooding but a shuffling of things around.

Suppose that continents actually had cooling waters dropped down into the magma through the broken crustal rock caused by large earthquakes in a number of locations. Do you not suppose that a continent or two might sink somewhat, making the water levels appear to be rising more than they actually were? Over a period the heat of the magma would lift the continent gradually and cause a receding of waters. Gradual processes do not result in the leaving behind of catastrophic evidence.

My personal view is that there are many overlapping processes at work here. Since we were not there to see it, I suppose that we all are stuck with speculation on both sides, eh?

Share this post


Link to post

The point is not that Lyells work is "outdated". The point is to demonstrate that science is just as vulnerable to herd mentality as any other group. I believe that was also part of what dubhdara was saying. A mind set or philosophy or attitude is created in the scientific community. That attitude establishes the tone of the debate . Instead of relying on observable evidence to establish facts,it is mandated that the facts are to be adjusted where necessary to fit the theory. If one studies the history of the "Global warming" debate one sees that the scientific community is first sceptical then grudgingly accepting then there comes a time when everyone is on board, followed by mass condemnation of anyone who provides contrary evidence. Fortunately there remain a few rebels who persist in evaluating the evidence and are open minded enough to consider that the majority opinion might have a flaw or two. And so the pendulum swings.

As for those who see irony. If I might venture an example. Western medicine is very good at fixing the acute illnesses and the tramatic injuries. It is not so good at the chronic illnesses .Eastern medicine claims a better success rate at the chronic stuff. That remains to be seen but many people have found western medicine lacking when it come to chronic problems.

The medical establishment does not hold eastern medicine in very high regard and dismisses eastern efforts as " unscientific"

Share this post


Link to post

Similarly I think Science has made excellent work in showing what the world is made up of and how it works. It is not so good at providing the "why" answers, especially when it comes to events outside of recent history. People want to know the why answers so science tries to accomidate the demand .Thats where they overstep the mark and speculation runs rampant.

Thanks,SS you just made my point.

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.

×
×
  • Create New...