Jump to content
Seriously No Politics ×

geological evidence disproving global flood (noah)


nickleus

Recommended Posts

That isn't a particularly strong argument either. An event can be described in mythological terms, yet still have happened. A case in point is Psalm 29. The thunderstorm and rain are described in patently mythological terms, yet nobody is seriously arguing against there being thunder and rain in ancient Israel.

Certainly it's at least a strong argument against any literal view of the flood as described in Genesis. Would you at least agree with that statement?

Link to comment

Exactly, the word firmament does not imply a dome. The dome concept is a modern attempt to understand the Hebrew cosmology, as to how close that is to the ancient view is disputable. Nothing in the etymology and nothing in the usage requires a dome to be the intended imagery.

CFR.

Again, not that the shape has anything to do with it. Any physical object in the sky holding up the stars and the waters above the firmament is equally fantastic (as in, a fantasy). It doesn't matter if the shape of the firmament was like a pyramid. It's equally fictitious.

Link to comment

its implied in the 7% (100-93 =) belief in god.

and for an extra humorous tidbit, search nasonline.org for "belief in god" and you'll get:

=)

So in other words, you can't show that 93% percent of all scientists believe that Mormonism is a joke. All you showed is that according to a couple of decrepit polls, 93% of the scientists polled did not believe in God.

Link to comment

So in other words, you can't show that 93% percent of all scientists believe that Mormonism is a joke. All you showed is that according to a couple of decrepit polls, 93% of the scientists polled did not believe in God.

Are you suggesting that of the 93%, any of them might give credence to LDS theology?

Link to comment

CFR.

I would have thought that the lack of any clear references to a dome structure when talking about the raqia and modern attempts to reconstruct ancient Hebrew cosmology using obscure references such as the fish and bolt story in the Enuma Elish would have made my point clear enough.

Again, not that the shape has anything to do with it. Any physical object in the sky holding up the stars and the waters above the firmament is equally fantastic (as in, a fantasy). It doesn't matter if the shape of the firmament was like a pyramid. It's equally fictitious.

You must have missed my earlier post where I said pretty much the same thing. I just find it frankly silly when you bash the Bible and the ancients for being incorrect when you are incorrectly presenting their beliefs as well.

Link to comment

Certainly it's at least a strong argument against any literal view of the flood as described in Genesis. Would you at least agree with that statement?

If by literal you mean that the firmament and the deep literally opened up and water came through, then yes, it is a strong argument against that. If by literal you mean the occurence of a flood, then no, it is not much of an argument.

Link to comment

Are you suggesting that of the 93%, any of them might give credence to LDS theology?

No. Are you suggesting that 93% of them are really aware of LDS doctrines and belief, let alone posses such a negative, jaded and uncharitable view of it as implied by the phrase "consider it a joke"?

Link to comment

You must have missed my earlier post where I said pretty much the same thing. I just find it frankly silly when you bash the Bible and the ancients for being incorrect when you are incorrectly presenting their beliefs as well.

Again, CFR, please. If I am incorrectly representing their cosmology, please present the correct version.

Link to comment

If by literal you mean that the firmament and the deep literally opened up and water came through, then yes, it is a strong argument against that. If by literal you mean the occurence of a flood, then no, it is not much of an argument.

What about a literal global vs regional distinction?

Link to comment

Again, CFR, please. If I am incorrectly representing their cosmology, please present the correct version.

I've already provided my reasons for considered your representation mistaken. All that can be confidently said about ancient Hebrew cosmologies is that the firmament was a solid substance of sorts. From the Bible verses as well as the etymology of raqia, it seems far more likely that the predominant view was one of a stretched-out surface.

Link to comment

What about a literal global vs regional distinction?

Has little bearing on the scope. After all, the early chapters of Gensis describing the creation are a mythological explanation of how the world came into being and the origin of species, pardon the anachronism. That the world came into being is indisputable, how it came into being is another matter entirely.

Link to comment

as thesometimesaint pointed out about your dog comment, you clearly have no idea what you are talking about when it comes to science.

Whew! I'm glad I made no claims that I knew anything about science then. Thanks for not refuting my point though.

Link to comment

I've already provided my reasons for considered your representation mistaken. All that can be confidently said about ancient Hebrew cosmologies is that the firmament was a solid substance of sorts. From the Bible verses as well as the etymology of raqia, it seems far more likely that the predominant view was one of a stretched-out surface.

You haven't addressed Hebrew cosmology at all, only definitions of the word raqia.

From the Jewish Encyclopedia:

"The Hebrews regarded the earth as a plain or a hill figured like a hemisphere, swimming on water. Over this is arched the solid vault of heaven. To this vault are fastened the lights, the stars. So slight is this elevation that birds may rise to it and fly along its expanse."

http://www.jewishencyclopedia.com/view.jsp?artid=807&letter=C#2736

Link to comment

A great deal. Most aren't as jaded or obnoxious as, say, Dawkins.

If you are saying though that I am wrong, and most atheists are like that, then the world is a sadder place.

dawkins has actually examined lds theology... so its probable that atheists who havent, if they took the time, would come to a similar conclusion...

Link to comment

You haven't addressed Hebrew cosmology at all, only definitions of the word raqia.

From the Jewish Encyclopedia:

"The Hebrews regarded the earth as a plain or a hill figured like a hemisphere, swimming on water. Over this is arched the solid vault of heaven. To this vault are fastened the lights, the stars. So slight is this elevation that birds may rise to it and fly along its expanse."

http://www.jewishencyclopedia.com/view.jsp?artid=807&letter=C#2736

Ah yes, a source from 1906. Also note that sources are not given for that assertion. As I pointed out, the verses regarding the raqia do not require it to be a dome in order for the verses to work, nor does the etymology of the word really support such a cosmology. Why come up with a word that doesn't really apply to your concept, when there are others better suited? You are going to need to provide somethinbg a lot more substsntial in defence of your dome.

Link to comment

dawkins has actually examined lds theology... so its probable that atheists who havent, if they took the time, would come to a similar conclusion...

So in other words you are engaged in wild speculation based on your own personal bitterness and bias. I thought as much.

Link to comment

dawkins has actually examined lds theology... so its probable that atheists who havent, if they took the time, would come to a similar conclusion...

So it's true that Dawkins is a bad researcher and as you imply, perhaps all atheists also. So....basically what you are saying is that people who trend towards atheism, especially scientists, are biased/bad researchers and as such any research work they do will only favor their own preconcieved ideas anyway.

Perhaps you could tell me something i don't already know. I have known that Dawkins is horrible when it comes to research. Pretty much the whole of Christianity and organized religion already know that.

So, are you atheist?

Link to comment

So it's true that Dawkins is a bad researcher and as you imply, perhaps all atheists also. So....basically what you are saying is that people who trend towards atheism, especially scientists, are biased/bad researchers and as such any research work they do will only favor their own preconcieved ideas anyway.

Perhaps you could tell me something i don't already know. I have known that Dawkins is horrible when it comes to research. Pretty much the whole of Christianity and organized religion already know that.

So, are you atheist?

Link to comment

You haven't addressed Hebrew cosmology at all, only definitions of the word raqia.

From the Jewish Encyclopedia:

"The Hebrews regarded the earth as a plain or a hill figured like a hemisphere, swimming on water. Over this is arched the solid vault of heaven. To this vault are fastened the lights, the stars. So slight is this elevation that birds may rise to it and fly along its expanse."

http://www.jewishenc...7&letter=C#2736

Now that you have provided a definition, perhaps you could explain how that applies to Raukeeyang in Book of Abraham facsimile 1:12 and 2:4, or to the pillars of heaven in facsimile 1:11, or to the other cosmological terms in that book?! In for a penny, in for a pound, mon ami. Brother Joseph was not shy about it, nor should you be.

Link to comment

CFR. CFR is a call for references. You are required by board rules to back up an assertion with references, when called upon to do so.

Nickleus should read Robert Jastrow's God and the Astronomers to get a sense of perspective. Jastrow was head of JPL at CalTech, and was an atheist or agnostic. He was intrigued by the fact that many scientists believe in God, although the definition of that god may vary from the mainstream.

In my view, if this vast array of scientific minds gave Mormonism a whirl, they would be likely to see the advantage of a religion which is both reasonable and logical, and which does not deride science by the appeal to so-called "miracles" which abrogate the laws of science.

Link to comment

So it's true that Dawkins is a bad researcher and as you imply, perhaps all atheists also. So....basically what you are saying is that people who trend towards atheism, especially scientists, are biased/bad researchers and as such any research work they do will only favor their own preconcieved ideas anyway.

Perhaps you could tell me something i don't already know. I have known that Dawkins is horrible when it comes to research. Pretty much the whole of Christianity and organized religion already know that.

So, are you atheist?

no, *you* are implying that dawkins is a bad researcher. *CFR*. here is another well-educated, well-known atheist, sam harris' evaluation of mormonism, from the debate sam harris vs rabbi david wolpe:

00:36

harris: this is whats anti-scientific, when your convictions dont scale with your evidence. i'm actually openminded about the survival of death.

wolpe: right, you say about reincarnation that there could even be evidence for it in your book.

harris: yes, i could easily tell you what would constitute evidence, i'm not saying this evidence exists. i could tell you what would constitute evidence for the truth of mormonism, its just not forthcoming.

01:05

there are all kinds of scientific things you can say about religion, which religious people tend not to want to hear. you can say, for instance, that mormonism is objectively less likely to be true than christianity. why can you say this? because mormonism is just christianity, plus some rather stupid ideas.

Link to comment

a religion which is both reasonable and logical

CFR. i would be interested to see a poll of random scientists answer logical/illogical or reasonable/unreasonable to the following issues:

* blessed is he who believe without seeing (good recipe for getting scammed). its more like "foolish is he who believe without seeing."

* adam and eve being transplanted here from outer space and being the first male and female on the earth

* pay us 10% of your income and you wont be burned at jesus' second coming, and dont ask us how we use the money, we're not going to tell you

* dont criticize church leaders even when the criticism is true (dallin oaks). excommunicating members who publicly express a difference of opinion with church "authorities".

* mark hofmann tricking the prophet, first presidency and apostles into buying false documents/artifacts. getting convicted of murder, then offered a plea bargain by utah state so as to not have to bring the church leaders to the stand to testify, so as to avoid embarrassment for being tricked

* joseph smith and polygamy and polyandry

* joseph smith being married/sealed to at least 203 women, one of which was born 169 years before him and 1 woman who was born 15 years after his death (these are only the most extreme cases, but there are many instances of this)

* the church's need for an apologist organization

* faith is necessary for god to perform "miracles" supported by the laws of science

* immaculate conception

* jeffrey holland saying he is holding hyrum's copy of the book of mormon in general conference when there is proof he wasnt

* joseph smith claiming to have done greater things even than jesus did (HOC)

* 170 years of "native americans are lamanites", but then the church changes the BOM intro in 2007 from "the principal ancestors" to "among the ancestors".

* baptism of 8 year olds, as if an 8 year old is in any position to make a life-binding decision

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

* missionaries (young and old, even mission presidents) who already pay 10% of their income must also pay themselves to serve their church, full time, for 2 years (still 1.5 years for young women? 3 years for mission presidents?)

* great inconsistencies among church leaders regarding sexual practices within marriage. some say oral sex is forbidden, others say it isnt.

* the principle of faith: if there's too much evidence that the church is true, then faith would be destroyed (god has to keep some things hidden/unproven)

* no public testimonies of living apostles/prophets ("special witnesses") saying they have seen/personally met jesus christ

* members asked in the temple to give their own lives if necessary to build up the kingdom of god

* lds campaigning to be identified as christians, yet denying flds to be identified as mormons

* denying blacks the priesthood until 1978, (note: the Civil Rights Act was passed in the US in 1964, 14 years earlier)

* no church art of joseph smith with his head in a hat, "translating" the gold plates

* boyd packer telling the church educational system teachers "There is a temptation for the writer or teacher of Church history to want to tell everything, whether it is worthy or faith promoting or not. Some things that are true are not very useful."

* church prophets giving supposedly sacred handshakes to powerful political leaders who are members of other similar secret societies: monson+bush, hinckley+cheney. lay members would most likely be excommunicated for this and "bring upon themselves the judgements of god, for god will not be mocked"

* jesus christ's church suing people for copyright infringement who post church materials online

no apologetic responses required here because that would disprove the apparent logic/reasonableness of these points

Link to comment

nickleus:

http://en.fairmormon.org/Mormonism_and_science/Global_or_local_Flood

Like other Christians, Latter-day Saints hold different views on the issue of whether Noah's flood was local or global. Members of any given LDS congregation may have of a variety of points of view, and many have no firm opinion one way or the other.

A belief in either a global or local flood is not a requirement for Latter-day Saints; traditionally, many earlier members and leaders endorsed the global flood views common in society and Christendom generally. The accumulation of additional scientific information have led some to conclude that a local flood

Link to comment

Archived

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

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...