geological evidence disproving global flood (noah)

[Maya]

That is it! I am leaving the church, Wikipedia and Paul H Sealy have sealed it for me! No flood, no church, no credibility left in the wisdom of the scriptures. Satan has triumphed, lets all go to watch football on Sunday! I can have hotdogs and pop corn while I worship!

[nickleus]

And that reminds me, regarding the bogus claim about no apostles offering public testimonies of having seen Jesus.

David B. Haight, October Conference, 1989. Here is the reference for those inclined to embrace the sacred, reverently declared.

http://lds.org/ensig...rifice?lang=eng

haight testifies he was unconscious and dreaming. besides, i read the entire talk and there is absolutely no new information. haight repeats things written in the scriptures, things he knew, read and heard before this dream, things that are publicly available to everybody. it is indeed no *special witness* and neither is it a visitation by jesus christ. e.g. we wouldnt say that haight has seen superman if he dreamed about superman once. let me qualify the word "seen": seen in person, as you and i would use the word, e.g. i have seen gordon hinckley in person, which does not qualify simply by:

* seeing him in a dream

* seeing a picture of him

* seeing him on the telly

* seeing him in my mind

[Kevin Christensen]

haight testifies he was unconscious and dreaming. besides, i read the entire talk and there is absolutely no new information. haight repeats things written in the scriptures, things he knew, read and heard before this dream, things that are publicly available to everybody. it is indeed no *special witness* and neither is it a visitation by jesus christ. e.g. we wouldnt say that haight has seen superman if he dreamed about superman once. let me qualify the word "seen": seen in person, as you and i would use the word, e.g. i have seen gordon hinckley in person, which does not qualify simply by:

* seeing him in a dream

* seeing a picture of him

* seeing him on the telly

* seeing him in my mind

Truth does not have to be new to be true. Nor clothed in new language. Elder Haight humbly reported a sacred experience. I noticed the sacredness when I first heard it and, and when I read it. You approach it with a rather different set of eyes and values, a different mindset, and consequently reap a different harvest from the same seeds.

While Raymond Moody was discussing his research on NDEs on one occasion, an indignant cardiologist stood up and said, "I've resuscitated hundreds of people and I've never heard any of this." Immediately a women stood up behind him and said, "I'm one of the last people you resuscitated, and believe me, you are the last person I would tell about my experience."

Those who appreciate sacred experiences treat them as sacred. As for those who do not, as William Blake says, "Jesus could not do miracles where unbelief hinderd; hence we must conclude that the man who holds miracles to have ceased puts it out of his own power to ever witness one." The people I know who have had sacred experiences guard them closely, sharing rarely, typically to people they trust, in moments of intimacy.

Knee-jerk skepticism is very old. It's a mode of thinking, of deciding what to notice, what to value that results in very old behaviors, providing, as it happens, little or nothing we have not heard before. As Nibley observed, "The Sophic claims (A) all knowlege for its province, to the exclusion of all other claimaint and (B) rejection of all other approaches. © It is as aggressive as it is negative, and (D) is filled with a crusading and reforming zeal." (Ancient State, 400).

So to you, Apostle Haight is merely a "visionary man." Not a blindingly new opinion, is it?

I've read research on the after-effects of authentic NDEs. (See my essay in JBMS 2/1) Apostle Haight demonstrates them. Alma the younger demonstrates them. Brigham Young demonstrates them. Jesus does in 3 Nephi demonstrates them.

Kevin Christensen

Bethel Park, PA

[shalamabobbi]

general reference: http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/icecores.html

While ice-cores are indeed the least precise in comparison to lake varves and tree rings they agree with the other methods (there are others of course, which also agree, like thermoluminescence etc). Those who would argue against this methodology (or indeed any of the others) will have to explain why there exists this correlation across methodologies that are physically distinct and independent of one another. If they are all wrong, why are they wrong in unison with one another?

I work with radiation detectors frequently and lithium-drifted germanium detectors have very high resolution compared to NaI detectors, but they agree with one another, kind of like the way a very near-sighted person will agree with somebody that has 20-20 vision that there is someone standing in front of them.

reference: http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CD/CD410.html

(buried planes issue brought up elsewhere)

And as to the *assumptions*.. if the results prove valid by agreement between methodologies the assumptions (some of which are always necessary) have been vindicated.

Hint.. has anyone taken a core sample at the location of the airplanes?

reference: http://asa.chm.colostate.edu/archive/asa/200101/0247.html

And yes I am an active LDS member called most recently to the high priest's group leadership, even had a dream a few days before of the call with a witness from the spirit before being informed of it by the bishop.

Before adopting arguments from icr and similar sources (Kent Hovind comes to mind) look into rebuttals by talk origins. You will find that the arguments put forth by the YEC sources are most often based upon misrepresentations of some of the facts.

[nickleus]

Truth does not have to be new to be true.

So to you, Apostle Haight is merely a "visionary man." Not a blindingly new opinion, is it?

we're talking about actually seeing jesus and that "witness" being "special". "truth" was never mentioned.

haight is just like everyone else, who dreams about things he's experienced before. "visionary" is your word. you continue to attempt to put words in my mouth, 2 times in the post i am quoting and once before. you should start putting "straw man" in between "kevin" and "christensen" in your signature...

as previously stated, i cant say ive seen gordon hinckley if ive only dreamed about him.

[Rob Osborn]

for 100th time, i only brought this up to answer an outlandish off-topic claim by someone else. then you claimed that what i wrote was untrue so i asked you to tell me *which point you claim is untrue* and then back it with a reference, not the whole list. most of what i wrote is well known, but for some of the points i thought might be less well known i DID cite a reference (hence the clickable link).

Ok, then let's pick one topic from the list. you stated-

* whispering to small children what they should say they "know" when bearing a testimony in church (brainwashing)

Obviously this is your mere opinion on the matter. What studies have they done to prove that whispering to little children what they should say is brainwashing?

[nickleus]

general reference: http://www.talkorigi...s/icecores.html

reference: http://www.talkorigi...c/CD/CD410.html

reference: http://asa.chm.colos...00101/0247.html

Before adopting arguments from icr and similar sources (Kent Hovind comes to mind) look into rebuttals by talk origins. You will find that the arguments put forth by the YEC sources are most often based upon misrepresentations of some of the facts.

great links, thanks!

[Zakuska]

Before adopting arguments from icr and similar sources (Kent Hovind comes to mind) look into rebuttals by talk origins. You will find that the arguments put forth by the YEC sources are most often based upon misrepresentations of some of the facts.

great links, thanks!

With all due respect... they do a pretty good and balanced job with their rebuttles... however they also engage in "misrepresentations of some of the facts", themselves. Such as when they claim that all sea life would have had to have been on the ark as well (such as penguins) when the text of the Bible says nothing of the sort nor would a global flood even warrant such an extreme view.

As with any source (all sources have bias) take what they say with a grain of salt. And weigh the balances evenly.

[Robert F. Smith]

great links, thanks!

The above is one of the few comments from you which makes any sense and shows good manners.

nickleus, on 17 December 2010 - 09:03 AM, said:

for 100th time, i only brought this up to answer an outlandish off-topic claim by someone else. then you claimed that what i wrote was untrue so i asked you to tell me *which point you claim is untrue* and then back it with a reference, not the whole list. most of what i wrote is well known, but for some of the points i thought might be less well known i DID cite a reference (hence the clickable link).

In the meantime, you have successfully derailed this thread and then born false witness as to why you did it. Shifting blame from yourself to others is not just bad manners, its an indicator of poor character.

Any of your hate-the-Mormons laundry list items would be welcome on another thread, and I would be happy to participate in your new topic of choice. Not only do you apparently not understand that concept, but you don't care. Why? Do you generally flout the rules of whatever group or institution you are a part of? Or just those you have contempt for?

[nickleus]

Obviously this is your mere opinion on the matter. What studies have they done to prove that whispering to little children what they should say is brainwashing?

Brainwashing, the application of coercive techniques to change the values and beliefs, perceptions and judgments, and subsequent mindsets and behaviors of one or more people, usually for political, financial, personal, or religious purposes

telling someone what they believe/know to be true, when they dont know it is true (and especially when it cannot be proven to be true) and making them repeat it out loud over and over again until they believe it themselves, is an example of brainwashing.

consider also packer's teaching: "A testimony is found in the bearing of it." (boyd packer, from "The Candle of the Lord," Ensign, Jan. 1983, pp. 54-55), i.e. bear your testimony that you know something is true, even if you dont believe/know it is true, because then you will believe it to be true.

see also this video (note the comment bubbles) of a members testimony:

[Rob Osborn]

telling someone what they believe/know to be true and making them repeat out loud what you tell them is an undeniable definition of brainwashing. there's no need for a study rob.

e.g. a mother standing next to her 3 year old child at the pulpit in sacrament meeting:

this is a classic example of brainwashing.

see also this video (note the comment bubbles) of a members testimony:

That is only opinion. There are many things to factor in. Suppose for instance that the child has been taught all his short little life about the church. Suppose also that the Holy Ghost tells him these things are true and that he receives all these special witnesses that it is all true. then, come one Sunday he decides to get up and state these things he knows to be true- he has talked about them all week to his parents. So, he then takes his mom for comfort support up to the pulpit only to forget all the things he wanted to say. So, the Mother remebering what he has been saying all week long then reminds him of what he wanted to say, like-

"I know the church is true" and-

"I know Jesus loves me".

So I ask- is this brain washing?

Let's take another example- suppose the same scenerio only this time the little child never vocally said anything at all to his parents- he just kept them to himself all the time. Then one Sunday, out of the blue, he goes up with his mom to bear his testimony. When he gets up there he forgets what he is going to say putting the mom in a nervous situation. Then without warning the spirit whispers to the mother the words in the little boys heart the boy needs reminded of saying. In this example, which is perfectly possible, the mother tells or reminds what the boy to say that he "knows", but at no time is the parent putting words into the childs lips against what he does or doesn't know.

We could go on and make several more cases to show the possible falsehood of your assumptions and accusations. Just because you see things a certain way does not mean that is how things are. I remeber when i was just 3 and 4 years old and having such a sincere and unadulterated view of heaven, of Jesus and the gospel. At that time, I knew without any doubts whatsoever that the gospel was true, that God loved me. There are recordings in our family journals of me and my sibblings praying with such sincereity and faith in the perfect knowledge of things that miracles were made manifest! I cannot deny this set of facts! And, it is no ones rights to say they didn't exist either- that I was brainwashed, or anything else.

One must be careful in judging little children and the true intentions of their hearts. We have no right to judge children or parents that help them bare their humble testimonies. Often times, the little childrens testimonies are the most true testimonies of all- the power to move mountains! Deny not the children!

[Rob Osborn]

Deny not the little children to come unto Christ.

[nickleus]

The above is one of the few comments from you which makes any sense and shows good manners.

In the meantime, you have successfully derailed this thread and then born false witness as to why you did it. Shifting blame from yourself to others is not just bad manners, its an indicator of poor character.

Any of your hate-the-Mormons laundry list items would be welcome on another thread, and I would be happy to participate in your new topic of choice. Not only do you apparently not understand that concept, but you don't care. Why? Do you generally flout the rules of whatever group or institution you are a part of? Or just those you have contempt for?

i bear no contempt for anyone. we should have started a new thread when you made your off-topic claim, you're right. i have no intention of derailing topics. i hope you are finished with your baseless, personal accusations.

[Socratic Spelunker]

The evidence only claims to falsify Noah's Global Flood because it doesn't square with what "mainstream creationists" "theorize" would have happened. That doesn't disprove anything. Mainstream creationists don't even agree with each other. There's Young-earth creationists, Old-Earth creationists, and many other flavors. At best, this disproves young-earth creationism, but then again, there's much better evidence against that than this.

I can refute this glacial core evidence easily with the following:

It is quite possible that creationists do not understand what the water currents would have been like during the flood.

There. Refuted. Since I mention it, is there a reason why they asks creationists what the water currents would have been like, and not... like... other scientists?