Implications Of Noah's Flood Not Being Global

[ryanelwood]

I don't know man. I'm just going to sit back and watch it play out, but I do think Ryan could tone it down a bit. I agree that Grego and Rob are looking at the data without understanding the science that underpins it, but nobody will get anywhere calling people flat-earthers or holocaust deniers, or whackos, to their face.

I don't think these two believers are whackos. They just don't understand the science behind the phenomena they're talking about. For instance, yes, there are sedimentary layers in lots of high-altitude places where it might surprise one to find them. At least, it would surprise one who wasn't familiar with plate tectonics and how some landmasses are pushed up as multiple plates collide into each other.

As stated above, I have committed to tone it down. My parallel to Flat Earth people and holocaust deniers are simply to demonstrate that such people are just as respected in their fields as creationists. I am not accusing them as being Flat Earth people or holocaust deniers (I did accuse them of being whackos though). But I will put the whacko label on the shelf for now.

[Sethbag]

As stated above, I have committed to tone it down. My parallel to Flat Earth people and holocaust deniers are simply to demonstrate that such people are just as respected in their fields as creationists. I am not accusing them as being Flat Earth people or holocaust deniers (I did accuse them of being whackos though). But I will put the whacko label on the shelf for now.

I don't think it's a convincing argument to try to demonstrate, via parallel, how respected one's position is. I think it's better to stick to discussions of their actual beliefs. In the case of Grego and Rob, the problem is they're getting their clue about science from the wrong people.

Answers In Genesis, for example, are the wrong people to go to for a lesson in any of the hard sciences. They're great if you want a lesson in hardcore Biblical fundementalism, however.

[Calm]

I am trying to understand the reasoning behind using the sedimentary rock in higher altitudes as evidence of a global flood. The questions below are not to challenge, but to fill in the gaps of my understanding of your position.

Why specifically do you believe this is evidence? I understand that for that type of rock to be formed, the land beneath it has to be covered with water laden with silt, but are you suggesting the land was all originally flat so the silt settled down rather than running down the side of the mountains? If so, why aren't the layers relatively consistent over the entire earth both in type and variations of depth rather than so varied as they are?

Also what is your explanation for the tilting and folding of such layers? Do you believe that the plates moved, just much, much faster than typically believed? If so, how do you account for the sedimentary rock not melting and forming metamorphic rock due to the high heat and pressure this would create?

I'd also like an explanation of why there aren't more Grand Canyons out there if it was formed by an event that was experienced globally.

Another question occurs to me---how populated do you believe the earth was at this time in terms of flora, fauna and mankind. What happened to the remains of all these drowned in the flood? Wouldn't we find some trace of them on the bottommost layer of the sedimentary rock if they had been drowned and sunk to the bottom of the flood?

add-on: speaking of Everest, found a fun site with animations of the Himalayas forming: http://www.classzone.com/books/earth_scien...o=visualization

PS: have you considered that a relatively quick folding and raising of the mountains, etc. would result in the cracking whose lack you referred as evidence of the global flood earlier if I understood you correctly? ("If the layers were laid down over millions and millions of years, how come they didn't crack when they moved/ overlaid?") Moving a semi-rigid material quickly will cause it to shatter, moving it extremely slowly will result in less abrupt deformations, thus the layers keep their integrity more or less. You can experiment with a hard caramel candy bar as to the shattering if quick and if you are very patient might be able to pull of the bending slowly. It's getting late unfortunately and I can't think of a better example, perhaps someone more awake can come up with a better example.

[HiJolly]

Very well put HiJolly. I would only add one thing: The church being true is validated by all things. Because it is of God, inspite of the weakness of men, it thrives, but not just in the physical world, but in the spiritual progressions of those who will completely set themselves into its doctrines and Christ Himself.

I agree. And I think that the Church is an interesting topic of discussion, in and of itself. The fact is, as so ably pointed out by maupayman, that those who grow up in, or whom otherwise find themselve believing in, a given spiritual tradition, church or religion, tend to believe in that. They tend to contextualize their experiences within that framework, and thus, believe that the experiences they have are evidence for the truth of that tradition/church/religion. This is to be expected, and despite Sethbag's greivances, I don't think its a bad thing, any more than a flat tire is a bad thing.

It is something that has to be dealt with if you are of the introspective persuasion. The 'true believer' brings into being spiritual experiences, even spiritual power. That's how it is, all around the world, through all known history.

I have a firm testimony that the Church (LDS) was established through Joseph Smith in just the way it was, faithful history and secular history both informing that view. Yes, people (such as George Q. Cannon) have whitewashed Church history and built a non-realistic picture. Yes, others(such as Grant Palmer) have panned it and cast public disparagement on its divine source. Yet, there it is, producing prodigious good works and shining out to the world as a light. The truth is there to be found, by those who are not too jaded by the tactics and methods of worldliness. For those who can still believe, the Church awaits and fulfills.

Yes, it has a large number of ignorant, blind followers. I don't think it did, in its first 20 or 30 years. But this is not avoidable, over time. It cannot be helped, for it is the nature of things in this world. We simply need to learn to deal with it, ourselves, and not let it suck the life from our faith.

HiJolly

[Rob Osborn]

calmoriah,

The reason that the sedimentary layers vary has to do with the catastrophic event itself. Take a large glass jar and put at least 5-10 different ingredients in it including small rocks, sand, clay dirt and then add enough water to the mix and shake it up gently for about an hour. Now let it settle and you will find that as you turn that glass jar from side to side you will notice how although the sedimentary layers do exist, they are not perfectly parrallel. Some sedimentary layers are thicker in some areas while thinner in other areas. Some layers even run into other layers disappearing into themselves. This is exactly what we see in the real world in the sedimentary layers of the earth.

Pressure of surrounding sedimentary layers while still in a tach-like mud state will suspend and hold layers together nicely. There are some twisted rock formations that are folded so bad and yet remain unbroken that it just tells me that they were in a more liquified form when they folded upon each other. The heat generated from the pressure, chemical reactions, movement is what led to the rocks ability to harden rather quickly after it was laid down. Sedimentary layers that had already set and hardened and were still in motion after that show signs of cracking, breaking and fatigue while others of the same material are bent and intact- obviously one had hardened quicker or one had stopped moving while the other was still in motion.

There are actually Grand Canyon like structures all over the world- deep gorges cut out of the sides of mounatains and such that were cut away by heavy amounts of flood waters cutting through them. The Grand Canyon is a special feature in that the gash cutting through the canyon is so big it dwarfs almost all other features on the earth. It has now been recognized though that the area above the Grand Canyon was once a lake of absolute gigantic proportions- possibly the largest land locked pocket of waters left over from the flood. As the earth continued to have volcanic and other geologic events, the great ice sheets left over from the flood melted and cause d a swelling of this lake. It then broke through its dammed area and literally tore out the gorge of the grand canyon rather quickly as the water escaped to the ocean.

Obviously, the world before the flood was heavily populated with all kinds of life. The remains of their watery grave now lie in all levels of the sedimentary layers. Different animals have a different bouyancy and that is why we see the smaller animals towards the bottom as they would sink quicker while larger bones such as dinosaurs would be near to the top layers- exactly what we see. There are even fossilized humans that have been found but you know how that goes- never credited towards the same flood event!

I do find it quite interesting that the lower levels of sedimentary rock contain small ocen dwelling types of fossils- exactly what one would expect to find as they would be the first ones affected by the flood. Smarter and quicker land dwelling animals would generally be the closest layers- again, exactly what we see. Also, research has now been done on carbon dating fossils and it has been shown that all fossils contain basically the same amount of carbon. There would be no carbon if the fossils were as old as science claims them to be.

[ryanelwood]

calmoriah,

The reason that the sedimentary layers vary has to do with the catastrophic event itself. Take a large glass jar and put at least 5-10 different ingredients in it including small rocks, sand, clay dirt and then add enough water to the mix and shake it up gently for about an hour. Now let it settle and you will find that as you turn that glass jar from side to side you will notice how although the sedimentary layers do exist, they are not perfectly parrallel. Some sedimentary layers are thicker in some areas while thinner in other areas. Some layers even run into other layers disappearing into themselves. This is exactly what we see in the real world in the sedimentary layers of the earth.

Pressure of surrounding sedimentary layers while still in a tach-like mud state will suspend and hold layers together nicely. There are some twisted rock formations that are folded so bad and yet remain unbroken that it just tells me that they were in a more liquified form when they folded upon each other. The heat generated from the pressure, chemical reactions, movement is what led to the rocks ability to harden rather quickly after it was laid down. Sedimentary layers that had already set and hardened and were still in motion after that show signs of cracking, breaking and fatigue while others of the same material are bent and intact- obviously one had hardened quicker or one had stopped moving while the other was still in motion.

There are actually Grand Canyon like structures all over the world- deep gorges cut out of the sides of mounatains and such that were cut away by heavy amounts of flood waters cutting through them. The Grand Canyon is a special feature in that the gash cutting through the canyon is so big it dwarfs almost all other features on the earth. It has now been recognized though that the area above the Grand Canyon was once a lake of absolute gigantic proportions- possibly the largest land locked pocket of waters left over from the flood. As the earth continued to have volcanic and other geologic events, the great ice sheets left over from the flood melted and cause d a swelling of this lake. It then broke through its dammed area and literally tore out the gorge of the grand canyon rather quickly as the water escaped to the ocean.

Obviously, the world before the flood was heavily populated with all kinds of life. The remains of their watery grave now lie in all levels of the sedimentary layers. Different animals have a different bouyancy and that is why we see the smaller animals towards the bottom as they would sink quicker while larger bones such as dinosaurs would be near to the top layers- exactly what we see. There are even fossilized humans that have been found but you know how that goes- never credited towards the same flood event!

I do find it quite interesting that the lower levels of sedimentary rock contain small ocen dwelling types of fossils- exactly what one would expect to find as they would be the first ones affected by the flood. Smarter and quicker land dwelling animals would generally be the closest layers- again, exactly what we see. Also, research has now been done on carbon dating fossils and it has been shown that all fossils contain basically the same amount of carbon. There would be no carbon if the fossils were as old as science claims them to be.

What is interesting is that the more simple life forms are found on the bottom. That is incredible because this is exactly how Charles Darwin predicted it would be, and he was not able to actually see yet. Yet he was proven correct, the more simple life forms are on the bottom due to the evolutionary process. You are way off on carbon dating, carbon dating only works on things no older than 50,000 years, so no, animals such as dinosaurs do not have carbon. Again if you doubt me ask your local scientist at your local University (please I beg you to do this at BYU). Scientists are the ones that would know, right? Bouyancy does not explain why there was not more mixing of the animals. No, it is exaclty the way real scientists predict it would be.

[SolarPowered]

What is interesting is that the more simple life forms are found on the bottom. That is incredible because this is exactly how Charles Darwin predicted it would be, and he was not able to actually see yet. Yet he was proven correct, the more simple life forms are on the bottom due to the evolutionary process.

Ryan, I'm not sure I'd go quite that far. As I understand it, the complex life forms pretty much all show up in an instant, geologically speaking, during the Cambrian Period. Since then, life forms have changed a great deal in their outward details, but I'm not really sure it's accurate to say that they have since progressed from simple to more complex. From my point of view, they in large part have merely changed, not grown more complex.

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

I agree. I have been patient, but after 30+ years of service in the church to have my testimony challenged by someone who obviously doesn't know me or my life is beyond civility and requires some admonition.

Oh, please dont take my comments as directed toward you. Just taht it wasnt right what was going on.

[ryanelwood]

Ryan, I'm not sure I'd go quite that far. As I understand it, the complex life forms pretty much all show up in an instant, geologically speaking, during the Cambrian Period. Since then, life forms have changed a great deal in their outward details, but I'm not really sure it's accurate to say that they have since progressed from simple to more complex. From my point of view, they in large part have merely changed, not grown more complex.

Scientists believe that 1.8 billion years ago the first multicellular fossils appear, that is coils. Th oldes reconizable multicellular organisms date back 1.2 billion years and is red algae. Real fossils as we know it did not begin to many traces until 575 million years ago. Many of them are related to jellyfish and earth worms, very simple life forms. As time moves forward towards 570 to 550 million years ago fossils that compose muscles, who are more complex appear. Then yes, 530 million years ago during the Cambrian period the record of triploblasts exploded. This is where ancestors to modern animals can be identified. It is interesting that 85% of the history of life exists in the pre-Cambrian period. But yes, those fossils found in the pre-Cambrian period are simpler than later life forms. This is exactly how Darwin proposed it would be. Carl Zimmer, in "Evolution: the Triumph of an Idea," very eloquently recounts all this. It is a great book.

[mocnarf]

I am not sure why this subject continues to be discussed. Look, the global flood is as debatable as the earth being flat or if the Holocaust happened. It is not an issue to the educated, there was no global flood, live with it already! Remember, unlike the animals humans have a problem solving brain that can figure things out, it takes two minutes of logical reasoning to accept that fact that there was no global flood.

I would quite agree. Then, maybe the "Earth's Baptism" was more on the line of the Catholic's style baptism rather than the Baptist's style of baptism. That way every time it rains the earth get's re-baptised, surely there is enough sin going on in the world that earth needs a baptism renewal.

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

I would quite agree. Then, maybe the "Earth's Baptism" was more on the line of the Catholic's style baptism rather than the Baptist's style of baptism. That way every time it rains the earth get's re-baptised, surely there is enough sin going on in the world that earth needs a baptism renewal.

I actually think this is funny.

[ryanelwood]

I would quite agree. Then, maybe the "Earth's Baptism" was more on the line of the Catholic's style baptism rather than the Baptist's style of baptism. That way every time it rains the earth get's re-baptised, surely there is enough sin going on in the world that earth needs a baptism renewal.

Yes, unfortunately we are unware of the Moon or anyother planet in the Solar System being baptized by either method. Those poor planets wont't recieve salvation.

[mocnarf]

Yes, unfortunately we are unware of the Moon or anyother planet in the Solar System being baptized by either method. Those poor planets wont't recieve salvation.

Well, I would suppose that because those other planets don't have people on them they don't have any sinning going on so they don't need a baptism. But then a gain, who's to say a huge ice comet didn't strike those planets at some point in the past an flood the surface for the planet thus giving it a baptism and then the waters evaporated back into space. This may answer the question about why Mars appears to have riverbeds and dried up oceans beds on it's surface.

[maupayman]

Well, I would suppose that because those other planets don't have people on them they don't have any sinning going on so they don't need a baptism. But then a gain, who's to say a huge ice comet didn't strike those planets at some point in the past an flood the surface for the planet thus giving it a baptism and then the waters evaporated back into space. This may answer the question about why Mars appears to have riverbeds and dried up oceans beds on it's surface.

It's funny that you have finally come back to the main point of this thread; the implications of the flood not being global on teachings like baptism for the earth and Adam and Eve's alter being in North America. Only HiJolly addressed these points. It has still been an interesting thread though.

[grego]

Brown, Sethbag, Brown.

[Ron Beron]

This may surprise you, but there are many who accept just that view. Two books you may find interesting. One is the Physics of Immortality. The other is The Science of God by Gerald Schroeder.

Well, like I was hoping for more evidence that there were "*many* who accept just that view" than two books that aren't much more than theory.

Schroeder: Orthodox Jew.

Both "theories" get ripped on quite a bit from what I've seen. Infidels.org--the atheist version of snopes.com, from what I gather--says they are horrible, impossible ideas, overall. So do a lot of reviews.

http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/gra...ppy/tipler.html

http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/vic...ger/schrev.html

http://www.disinfo.com/archive/pages/dossi.../pg1/index.html

Esp. Tipler--lots and lots of "ifs" and bad science, and besides: Tipler's concepts of "resurrection", etc. are so different than the LDS ones, it's very misleading to say they both believe in a "resurrection". But then, believers in God seem to like them, and atheists seem not to.

There are other books, of course. But there's not much by the type of scientist I asked for. For what it's worth, I imagine the numbers who like their theories, are in line with those that believe in a global flood. Perhaps even less... Of course, I'm just guessing, though I might post to a science board just to ask for opinions. We could, of course, ask Tarski how many top scientists believe in resurrection, flying angels, etc. and take his word for it.

Maybe I just need a little more time to see these scientists.

I never said they were perfect in their findings, but they are valid scientists who have presented a concept. Gerald Schroeder may be an orthodox Jew (I am not sure why that matters)but he accepts the concept of resurrection. It would be interesting to find out what Einstein said on the matter.

[ryanelwood]

Yes Sethbag, abandon the enormous worldwide consensus of scientists and consult the man, the myth, the legendary BROWN! Brown has all the answers, he is going to start a worldwide revolution in science and prove the Global Flood! Amazing all these scientists have missed the mark! But Brown knows the TRUTH!

[Ron Beron]

Oh, please dont take my comments as directed toward you. Just taht it wasnt right what was going on.

No harm done. My thoughts were directed toward grego not you. I can be challenged intellectually, but I draw a line when my testimony is placed in doubt.

[Sethbag]

What can Brown do for you?

[ryanelwood]

What can Brown do for you?

I am not sure what Brown can do, but Grego thinks he is the all knowing one that could defeat any scientist in a debate. Oddly enough, Brown does not seem to have had much of an effect. Ask Grego.

[grego]

I never said they were perfect in their findings, but they are valid scientists who have presented a concept. Gerald Schroeder may be an orthodox Jew (I am not sure why that matters)but he accepts the concept of resurrection. It would be interesting to find out what Einstein said on the matter.

"Perfect in their findings"?? Are you kidding? I wouldn't expect that, but I would not expect valid scientists to have invalid arguments. Yeah, they are scientists, but they don't really pass the test. Nevertheless, they believe. Well, one believes. The other's definition of resurrection is hardly the LDS one, so it doesn't count.

-=-=-=

I can be challenged intellectually, but I draw a line when my testimony is placed in doubt.

??

[Ron Beron]

'grego' writes,

"Perfect in their findings"?? Are you kidding? I wouldn't expect that, but I would not expect valid scientists to have invalid arguments. Yeah, they are scientists, but they don't really pass the test. Nevertheless, they believe. Well, one believes. The other's definition of resurrection is hardly the LDS one, so it doesn't count.

You didn't ask for them to be LDS. You simply asked, "CFR. (No, one or two books, especially by a whacko creation scientist with a bought degree, *won't* do. I want it minimally from a old earth/ big bang/ no global flood/ "faithless" one.)"

I gave you thus. One a PhD from MIT where he also taught and the other a professor of math at Tulane U. Further you can find reputable philosopher's such as John Leslie. The list, while not endless, is long.

??

The insult came from several comments you made...

Ah, so she's only dumb! I guess faith and stupidity go hand in hand!

Well, at least for the CoS.

I'll bet you tried your best to convince her until she said something that made you stop, huh?

While I can only hope you were being coy this doesn't always work on postings.

And when I answered that I give my testimony "Everyday and in everyway."

Your response was, "Obviously not. (And no, I'm not talking about global flood, either.)"

[Heidi]

I'm going to jump into this discussion a little late. I've read/skimmed through the replies, but I may have missed something. If I'm repeating what someone else has said, please forgive me. Well, here goes.

First of all, this seems to have boiled down to a "science vs religion" debate, and of course, I would like to point out the folly in being dogmatic toward either one. Science is always changing; what we knew yesterday, we no longer know, or we know something better. We also belong to a religion that believes in continuing revelation. My feeling is that when we die and become perfect beings, everyone will be flabbergasted by the things we didn't know.

So, my take is to not be so dogmatic about this. Especially the Bible. Now there's a book that's been through more than we could ever imagine. There's no way I would be able to accept everything it said as literal and still consider myself sane. I would say most people agree with that, we just all seem to draw the line at a different place. For instance, when the Bible refers to unicorns, most people are quick to point out that it's a mistranslation and they really meant ox. Really? Says who? If a unicorn is an ox then why can't "the world" be "the land"? I'd say there's evidence for a mistranslation in both cases, but for some reason, folks are much more accepting of one than the other.

From a scientific perspective, there is evidence that there was a massive flood during the course of human history, at the end of the ice age. This, of course, was a coastal flood, not a worldwide flood, but much of the world's population was coastal at the time. This seems like a logical explaination to me, so I lean toward this being Noah's Flood, although I'm not certain.

I'd also like to add my $0.02 on this Garden of Eden business... Joseph Smith says the Garden of Eden was in Missouri? Adam and Eve left the Garden. They could have been sent anywhere when they were kicked out.

About continental seperation - I'd like a few people to tell me their opinions on this. If you try to match up the timelines of continental seperation with mankind, you're going to have to accept that the world is older than 6,000 years. What does everyone feel about that?

[Ron Beron]

Has anyone read anything written by Paul H. Seely? He has written an interesting article called, "The GISP2 Ice Core: Ultimate Proof that Noah's Flood Was Not Global"

www.asa3.org/aSA/PSCF/2003/PSCF12-03Seely.pdf

[ryanelwood]

I'm going to jump into this discussion a little late. I've read/skimmed through the replies, but I may have missed something. If I'm repeating what someone else has said, please forgive me. Well, here goes.

First of all, this seems to have boiled down to a "science vs religion" debate, and of course, I would like to point out the folly in being dogmatic toward either one. Science is always changing; what we knew yesterday, we no longer know, or we know something better. We also belong to a religion that believes in continuing revelation. My feeling is that when we die and become perfect beings, everyone will be flabbergasted by the things we didn't know.

So, my take is to not be so dogmatic about this. Especially the Bible. Now there's a book that's been through more than we could ever imagine. There's no way I would be able to accept everything it said as literal and still consider myself sane. I would say most people agree with that, we just all seem to draw the line at a different place. For instance, when the Bible refers to unicorns, most people are quick to point out that it's a mistranslation and they really meant ox. Really? Says who? If a unicorn is an ox then why can't "the world" be "the land"? I'd say there's evidence for a mistranslation in both cases, but for some reason, folks are much more accepting of one than the other.

From a scientific perspective, there is evidence that there was a massive flood during the course of human history, at the end of the ice age. This, of course, was a coastal flood, not a worldwide flood, but much of the world's population was coastal at the time. This seems like a logical explaination to me, so I lean toward this being Noah's Flood, although I'm not certain.

I'd also like to add my $0.02 on this Garden of Eden business... Joseph Smith says the Garden of Eden was in Missouri? Adam and Eve left the Garden. They could have been sent anywhere when they were kicked out.

About continental seperation - I'd like a few people to tell me their opinions on this. If you try to match up the timelines of continental seperation with mankind, you're going to have to accept that the world is older than 6,000 years. What does everyone feel about that?

You bring up some good points, especially about continental drift. As far as I know the last Ice Age ended 10,000 years ago which is 5,000 years before the supposed flood. As for Unicorn and the flood, I do not believe it is a mistranslation, I think they mean what they say. But remember the Bible was written by ancient people, many of the authors are unknown. Ancient people believed in a lot of things we would call strange in our enlightened era. Unicorns and global floods are couple of them.

Perhaps you should consult Grego who has posted several times on this discussion, he has a friend and hero named Brown that he believes can prove the global flood in the face of the consensus of modern science. Perhaps Brown thinks he can prove that Unicorns existed also. You should ask Grego.