Implications Of Noah's Flood Not Being Global

[Ron Beron]

'Deborah' writes,

One argument seems to be that the waters couldn't possibly cover the mountains. If indeed as the scriptures say the dry land was all one could we not also assume that the mountains were not necessarily the massive things they are now. If the earth were more level and one mass it is much easier to see how the whole could have been covered in water. Why not assume that the division of the land which occurred in the days of Peleg formed the massive mountains we have today.

The coulda, shoulda, hada, conditionality of your statement is not supported by the facts. Unfortunately, many are not proficient in the scriptures or its world and regional setting to fully understand its import. The building of the mountains you mentioned were upraised around 65 million years ago. The flood could still be universal if we discount the idea that mountains were not covered given the understanding of Earth at that time. Bro.Christensen had it right in stating that the idea of universal or global is not always necessarily so.

I just think that as human beings we are too limited in our minds to comprehend how some things could have happened and so it's easier to turn Biblical accounts into nice legends or stories. And yet prophets through the ages have continued to count Noah as one of the great prophets and to describe how all but 8 people were wiped from the face of the earth.

Again, there seems to be a complete negation of the extra-biblical nature of Noah in the ancient world. He is not only a Jewish prophet.

[Ron Beron]

Grego writes,

Read the links, read the links, read the... Sorry, just mumbling to myself again...

Says who any of those things are as you say, and are so problematic? You have made massive assumptions--there Everest was already there, that the air displaced by the water wouldn't rise and air pressure wouldn't be heavier, that there had to so much water to cover Everest in a flood, the pyramids were there, and how can I remember something I never knew, etc.?

May I suggest donning the ol' thinking cap before making what might be preposterous, illogical comments about preposterous and illogical things?

I read the links, grego. Did you respond to my rejoinder?

Did Noah know God? Yes, he did. Was he a high priest of Ea, or a high priest after the order of the Son of God?

Whose history are we reading? The Akkadian and Sumerian story superseded the Hebrew by almost 2000 years. Who do we accept? Was he a high priest of Ea? Yes! Did he know God? Yes, but what did he call his god? Was it YHWH? No. Was it Ea? Probably. BTW, the texts also show he was also a king of Shuruppak which equates with him being perfect in his age which means he was a successful businessman and leader.

[Ron Beron]

Many are unaware that some of the BoM geographical incidents of their time go against everything uniformatarianism has theorized to tell us. There are instances in the BoM that tell us that whole cities sank in the sea while others were buried by gigantic mountains. There it tells us that the smooth land became rugged and great mountains arose- overnight! There are a lot of evidences found, especially in South America, that show how ancient civilization structures were once lower by thousands of feet in just the past few thousand years and have since rosen to great heights.

Mountains do not, can not and will not rise overnight. There might have been other incidents involved, but not the rising of mountains. I am open minded, though, do you have evidences for the above assertion?

[Severian]

One particularly interesting dramatic change is that the Bosporus flooded a few thousand years ago, allowing the Mediterranean to flood into the Black Sea area.

From the Wikipedia:

Other post-Ice Age deluges

For more details on this topic, see Deluge (prehistoric).As the Ice Age retreated, other basins refilled as sea levels rose. Some refilled too slowly to be perceptible in a human life-span, such as the Aegean Basin which presents no defined sill to be breached. Others must have refilled rapidly, in cases where a sill was breached. A comparable refilling in the region of the Near East was the refilling of the flat basin of the lower Tigris-Euphrates across the Straits of Hormuz that is now occupied by the Persian Gulf and also across the Bab el Mandib barrier of the Red Sea.

[Son]

Hey all, great comments thus far. Just some things I have been thinking over in relation to LDS teachings.

How did the altar at Adam-ondi-Ahman survive the flood waters and remain standing?

The Bible states that the Tower of Babel was constructed 110 to 150 years after the flood. How could the 3 fertile female human survivors of the flood (Noah's daughters-in-law) produce such a large number of descendants within 6 generations? This has direct implications on the Book of Mormon narrative.

Just some thoughts to fuel the fire.

I believe there would be more generations than that, the girls were married off at 12 &13. yikes.

Interesting observation.

son

[SolarPowered]

The Bible states that the Tower of Babel was constructed 110 to 150 years after the flood. How could the 3 fertile female human survivors of the flood (Noah's daughters-in-law) produce such a large number of descendants within 6 generations? This has direct implications on the Book of Mormon narrative.

Edit: I originally posted some numbers that I subsequently realized assumed that the population was all female! Here is a revision: If you assume that Noah's sons and DILs starting having kids immediately, and there were six generations beyond that, and if each couple averaged eight surviving children, there would be about 48,000 people in the sixth generation.

If you could fit seven generations in there, you'd have almost 200,000 in that seventh generation. Adding in the surviving members of the previous generations, you'd have well over a quarter million people.

[Rob Osborn]

Ron,

Here ya go-

10 And the earth was carried up upon the city of Moronihah, that in the place of the city there became a great mountain.

(Book of Mormon | 3 Nephi 8:10)

[SolarPowered]

Ron,

Here ya go-

10 And the earth was carried up upon the city of Moronihah, that in the place of the city there became a great mountain.

(Book of Mormon | 3 Nephi 8:10)

Umm, not to put words in Ron's mouth, but I think by "evidences" he was referring to the "a lot of evidences" that you assert exist that show that this has actually occured in South America.

[grego]

Again, there seems to be a complete negation of the extra-biblical nature of Noah in the ancient world. He is not only a Jewish prophet.

Um, Noah wasn't Jewish...

-=-=-=

Was he a high priest of Ea? Yes! Did he know God? Yes, but what did he call his god? Was it YHWH? No.

CFR.

-=-=-=

The coulda, shoulda, hada, conditionality of your statement is not supported by the facts. Unfortunately, many are not proficient in the scriptures or its world and regional setting to fully understand its import. The building of the mountains you mentioned were upraised around 65 million years ago. The flood could still be universal if we discount the idea that mountains were not covered given the understanding of Earth at that time.

Proof? Evidence?

-=-=-=

QUOTE(Rob Osborn @ Dec 5 2007, 12:20 PM)

Many are unaware that some of the BoM geographical incidents of their time go against everything uniformatarianism has theorized to tell us. There are instances in the BoM that tell us that whole cities sank in the sea while others were buried by gigantic mountains. There it tells us that the smooth land became rugged and great mountains arose- overnight! There are a lot of evidences found, especially in South America, that show how ancient civilization structures were once lower by thousands of feet in just the past few thousand years and have since rosen to great heights.

Mountains do not, can not and will not rise overnight. There might have been other incidents involved, but not the rising of mountains. I am open minded, though, do you have evidences for the above assertion?

Ron,

Here ya go-

10 And the earth was carried up upon the city of Moronihah, that in the place of the city there became a great mountain.

(Book of Mormon | 3 Nephi 8:10)

Umm, not to put words in Ron's mouth, but I think by "evidences" he was referring to the "a lot of evidences" that you assert exist that show that this has actually occured in South America.

"Overnight"? How about in three hours? Will BoM text not do as supporting evidence for LDS? Will any scriptures? Yet, when shown scientific evidence, that's not enough either. Ok, what other forms of evidence are there that you all might accept?

[ryanelwood]

Interesting. Would you also conclude that Adam and Eve's earth was actually a land, and that as the city of Enoch left this planet, Adam and Eve's land came to this planet at the Fall?

-=-=-=

Wow, talk about digging a pit for your neighbor and twisting words... Or, then, Sanpitch might actually have something...

-=-=-=

I hate when I have to choose religion or science; the view from the fence is much better.

Of course, one doesn't have to choose lots of things and still be a "good" member. And in fact, everyone disagrees on something/ sees things just a little differently, somewhere.

But then, I don't see anything demanding that I believe in a local flood yet (evidence-wise, that is--because there are plenty here who demand that it does now. Well; not really--they allow me to choose to be wrong by believing in a global flood.)

(I'm still curious, if it's so clear and simple, who is debating Brown?)

But *was* Noah the only eye-witness? It's clear Enoch was an eye-witness, too. Others saw "all things", "all the inhabitants", etc.--would that include the Flood/ flood and other floods?

What does one make of the promise that God would not destroy by flood, when there have been many floods that have destroyed? Is it that God didn't do it, but nature did? Or is it, a global flood, or what? Was this Flood only talking about the "chosen" lineage's descendants? What does one make of Noah repopulating the earth, and his lineage? Or is that only earth as in that land, not the entire earth? And what does one do with

Is this a case--note the definition the Lord gives here--that it is a second Adam-ondi-Ahman, and not the original one that is over in the Middle East?

And where, for comparison, is the Hebrew text of the BoM? of the PoGP? of the modern-day prophets? You'll note I haven't even quoted the Bible in this argument.

-=-=-=

Read the links, read the links, read the... Sorry, just mumbling to myself again...

Says who any of those things are as you say, and are so problematic? You have made massive assumptions--there Everest was already there, that the air displaced by the water wouldn't rise and air pressure wouldn't be heavier, that there had to so much water to cover Everest in a flood, the pyramids were there, and how can I remember something I never knew, etc.?

May I suggest donning the ol' thinking cap before making what might be preposterous, illogical comments about preposterous and illogical things?

-=-=-=

Did Noah know God? Yes, he did. Was he a high priest of Ea, or a high priest after the order of the Son of God?

Can you find a real scientist from a real University that thinks Mt. Everest was not there just 5,000 years ago? How ridiculous. Why would the air pressure rise? If you think my arguments are so preposterous then I suggest taking these arguments to any local Universities in your area and ask the people that would know in the science department if they are preposterous. You will surely find they will agree. Look the earth was flooded as much as Joshua commanded the Sun to stop moving, wake up to reality. You still didn't answer how could very few people feed millions of animals or fit them on the ark. Nor can you answer why such a deluge would not have left overwhelming amounts of evidence that such an event occured.

[grego]

Can you find a real scientist from blah blah blah...

Response:

www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v18/i3/oxygen.asp

Even if the flood waters were 9 kilometres deep, would Noah and company have had trouble breathing?

Absolutely not. Air pressure is caused by the weight of air above the point where the pressure is being experienced. If the water was 9 kilometres deep, then the air that was in that 9 kilometres deep volume of what was atmosphere would have been pushed out and would then have sat above the water at 9 kilometers above the earthâ??s former surface.

However, if we assume the worst case scenario of the radius of the earth increasing by 9 kilometres due to the water, the surface area of the earth plus water would have been greater than the earth so that the weight of air would have been spread over a bigger area so that the pressure would have been less.

How much would the air pressure have been reduced? Less than 0.3%. This is equivalent to standing on top of a 30-meter (100-foot) high building at sea level! There would also have been a negligible effect on the pressure due to changes in the force of gravity (which affects the weight of the air).

It is certain, therefore, that those on the Ark would have had no trouble breathingâ??without oxygen tanks.

-=-=-=

Nor can you answer why such a deluge would not have left overwhelming amounts of evidence that such an event occured.

It did. (Read the links, read the links, read the...)

http://www.cbn.com/CBNnews/275993.aspx , etc.

-=-=-=

Look the earth was flooded as much as Joshua commanded the Sun to stop moving,

CFR.

-=-=-=

Mountains?

www.creationism.org/vonfange/vonFangeTimeUpDownChap02.htm

There are surprises elsewhere. Evidence was submitted by scientists from Harvard and Carnegie Institute that the mighty Himalayas, during violent upheavals, reached their present form and height in the age of man, in historic times. Evidence for the same phenomenon has been noted regarding the Andes, that in historic times the mountains rose many thousands of feet (Velikovsky, 1955, p.286). If at least some mountains are very, very young, what reason is there to believe that other mountains are untold millions of years old?

Are Harvard and Carnegie good enough for you?

-=-=-=

The theory of uniformity has been shown to have problems with many scientific areas, and even the CoS has changed its doctrine over time:

http://www.icr.org/article/705/

It is important to note that back in the 1940's, college students were taught, as fact, that the earth and the universe were two billion years oldâ??and this was verified by several independent methods that gave the same date. Now students are taught that the age of the earth is 4.6 billion years old! This shows, clearly, that the scientific method in relation to the past has problems! Scientists should approach this issue cautiously, recognizing their own limitations.

How many years did it take for all the landforms to form?

http://www.rae.org/ch02tud.html#surtsey :

Seventy kilometers south of Iceland a new island was born in 1963. This in itself is not an unusual occurrence. The following year, Sigurdur Thorarinsson (1964), Iceland's foremost geophysicist, wrote a little book about the island. Here is part of his description of the new island:

Only a few months have sufficed for a landscape to be created which is so varied and mature that it is almost beyond belief...Here we see wide sandy beaches and precipitous crags lashed by breakers of the sea. There are gravel banks and lagoons, impressive cliffs resembling the White Cliffs on the English Channel. There are hollows, glens, and soft undulating land. There are fractures and faulted cliffs, channels and rock debris. There are boulders worn by the surf, some of which are almost round, and further out there is a sandy beach where you can walk at low tide without getting wet.

Mountains?

www.creationism.org/vonfange/vonFangeTimeUpDownChap02.htm

There are surprises elsewhere. Evidence was submitted by scientists from Harvard and Carnegie Institute that the mighty Himalayas, during violent upheavals, reached their present form and height in the age of man, in historic times. Evidence for the same phenomenon has been noted regarding the Andes, that in historic times the mountains rose many thousands of feet (Velikovsky, 1955, p.286). If at least some mountains are very, very young, what reason is there to believe that other mountains are untold millions of years old?

For those who fear, I propose that the science backing the Creation and the Flood is just as good, if not better, than the science that backs old world, local flood, and evolution. For those who have lots of questions about the "science", I encourage you to read the link about Brown, and this:

http://www.icr.org/articles/all/1/

http://www.rae.org/contents_tud.html

One will note the dogmatic matter of literal interpretation some of these creationists hold; I disagree with them on some things, too. However, I can agree in principle on one thing: if God wanted to, He could.

There was a very interesting quote I want to leave you with:

At the marriage feast in Cana (John 2:1-11) Jesus commanded servants to take huge water pots and fill them with water. He then told the servants to draw from the pots and take it to the Ruler of the Feast, who deemed it excellent wine. However, the Ruler of the Feast had used the assumption that the present is the key to the past! He used his own reasoning based on what he knew happens in the present. He assumed, based on everyday experience, this wine had come from grapes grown on vines, grapes that had been harvested and crushed, fermented, and bottled. He thought it had taken a long period of time, but he was wrong. Jesus had, in fact, created this wine. This then is the characteristic of anything God does in creation. From our experience it has an apparent age, an appearance of a non-existent history. And why did Jesus do this? He did it to meet an immediate need.

When God commanded the fruit trees into existence He created them already bearing fruit. If we went back in time, we would have looked at those trees and would have said that they had taken years to grow and mature. But God created a mature, fully-developed creation, because it was meant to be in existence immediately so that when Adam and Eve walked the earth three days later, their food needs would be met.

What do many people say today? They say the world "looks old," therefore the Bible is wrong or God has deceived us. No, God has not deceived us, because He told us what happened in His eyewitness account in Genesis 1. God saw what He made and said it was very good. He was present. He was fully capable of recording and preserving for us His eyewitness account so we would know what happened at creation with absolute certainty. The Gospel accounts give Jesus' stamp of approval on Genesis 1 as the historical record of the earth's beginning. God's timetable for the creation was that He spoke the earth into existence. Yes, the earth has an appearance of age. But if we use the wrong assumptions to interpret the evidence, we come to the wrong conclusion that the earth is very old, when God clearly says it isn't.

If we assume uniformity, that geologic processes have always operated the way they do today, then of course, we would conclude it took a long time to form the rock layers. But Peter reminds us in II Peter 3:15 that the latter day scoffers will be "willingly ignorant" that the present is not the key to the past. They will be willingly ignorant that God created the earth, during a period of six days when all the processes we are familiar with today were suspended. And Peter says there was another period during which the rates of all of today's processes were suspended. The scoffers also will deliberately ignore the evidence for the Flood. We often think of Jesus being only present and active during creation, but He was also present and active during the Flood. Who closed the door of the Ark? God did. Noah didn't start the Flood. God was in charge of what happened during the Flood. We can have our geologic explanations, but ultimately God was present in judgment overturning this world, then restoring it with a new surface and a new biology afterwards.

http://www.icr.org/article/3338/

The attitude and belief in a miraculous God is refreshing to me. I feel some Christians, and LDS in particular, sometimes think ourselves too intelligent, too smart to be that stupid, too erudite, too knowledgeable; when in fact, intelligence, smartness, wisdom, and knowledge can be good--after one remembers first that God is a God of miracles.

[maupayman]

Response:

www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v18/i3/oxygen.asp

-=-=-=

It did. (Read the links, read the links, read the...)

http://www.cbn.com/CBNnews/275993.aspx , etc.

-=-=-=

CFR.

-=-=-=

Mountains?

www.creationism.org/vonfange/vonFangeTimeUpDownChap02.htm

Are Harvard and Carnegie good enough for you?

-=-=-=

The theory of uniformity has been shown to have problems with many scientific areas, and even the CoS has changed its doctrine over time:

http://www.icr.org/article/705/

How many years did it take for all the landforms to form?

http://www.rae.org/ch02tud.html#surtsey :

For those who fear, I propose that the science backing the Creation and the Flood is just as good, if not better, than the science that backs old world, local flood, and evolution. For those who have lots of questions about the "science", I encourage you to read the link about Brown, and this:

http://www.icr.org/articles/all/1/

http://www.rae.org/contents_tud.html

One will note the dogmatic matter of literal interpretation some of these creationists hold; I disagree with them on some things, too. However, I can agree in principle on one thing: if God wanted to, He could.

There was a very interesting quote I want to leave you with:

http://www.icr.org/article/3338/

The attitude and belief in a miraculous God is refreshing to me. I feel some Christians, and LDS in particular, sometimes think ourselves too intelligent, too smart to be that stupid, too erudite, too knowledgeable; when in fact, intelligence, smartness, wisdom, and knowledge can be good--after one remembers first that God is a God of miracles.

Well Grego, it seems that few LDS posters on this thread even agree with you, let alone find you many christian science links compelling. Anyone know how far back the pyramids date?

[Ron Beron]

Ron,

Here ya go-

10 And the earth was carried up upon the city of Moronihah, that in the place of the city there became a great mountain.

(Book of Mormon | 3 Nephi 8:10)

I realize that it states it in the BofM as a issue of faith. I was referring to actual scientific info. I hate to be so seemingly agnostic about this, but frankly, the anti's don't really care that the BofM states anything in our defense. Of course, this brings up a issue that is of greater concern; the seeming disparity between science and faith within Mormon belief. While I hold a testimony of the BofM as inspired doctrine I am not sure that all the incidents within the BofM are scientifically or historically valid. Likewise, I have difficulty dealing with the same in the OT and NT. Brant Gardner has commented on this very issue in his excellent commentary:

Even though we are unable to date these eruptions precisely, we are given the distinct impression that there is a flurry of serious volcanic activity in the region at the time the Book of Mormon describes these events. While we cannot place the specific volcano at present, the timing and described phenomena are completely consistent with the area.

http://frontpage2000.nmia.com/~nahualli/LD...phi/3Nephi8.htm

Therefore, part of the event mentioned may very well indicate a volcanic eruption. The latter part I simply do not know.

[Ron Beron]

grego writes,

QUOTEAgain, there seems to be a complete negation of the extra-biblical nature of Noah in the ancient world. He is not only a Jewish prophet.

Um, Noah wasn't Jewish...

I'm sorry. Are you agreeing or disagreeing?

QUOTEWas he a high priest of Ea? Yes! Did he know God? Yes, but what did he call his god? Was it YHWH? No.

CFR.

Read the story of Gilgamesh. Better yet here is the pertinent part.

On the 11th tablet of the story of Gilgamesh there is a story told of Utnapishtim also known as Ziusudra. The council of the gods decided to flood the whole earth to destroy mankind. But Ea, the god who made man, warned Utnapishtim king of Shuruppak to build a boat.

'O man of Shuruppak, son of Ubartutu:

Tear down the house and build a boat!

Abandon wealth and seek living beings!

Spurn possessions and keep alive living beings!

Make all living beings go up into the boat.

The boat which you are to build,

its dimensions must measure equal to each other:

its length must correspond to its width.'

5

'One (whole) acre was her floor space, (660' X 660')

Ten dozen cubits the height of each of her walls,

Ten dozen cubits each edge of the square deck.

I laid out the shape of her sides and joined her together.

I provided her with six decks,

Dividing her (thus) into seven parts.' â?¦

6

'The gods were frightened by the flood,

and retreated, ascending to the heaven of Anu.

The gods were cowering like dogs, crouching by the outer wall.

Ishtar shrieked like a woman in childbirth,

the sweet-voiced Mistress of the Gods wailed:

"The olden days have alas turned to clay,

because I said evil things in the Assembly of the Gods!

How could I say evil things in the Assembly of the Gods,

ordering a catastrophe to destroy my people!!

No sooner have I given birth to my dear people

than they fill the sea like so many fish!"

The godsâ??those of the Anunnakiâ??were weeping with her,

the gods humbly sat weeping, sobbing with grief(?),

their lips burning, parched with thirst.'5

'Six days and seven nights

came the wind and flood, the storm flattening the land.

When the seventh day arrived, the storm was pounding,

the flood was a warâ??struggling with itself like a woman

writhing (in labor).'5

After a long while the ark came to rest on Mt. Nisir where he offered up a sacrifice to the gods.

'The gods smelled the savor,

the gods smelled the sweet savor

and collected like flies over a (sheep) sacrifice.'

QUOTEThe coulda, shoulda, hada, conditionality of your statement is not supported by the facts. Unfortunately, many are not proficient in the scriptures or its world and regional setting to fully understand its import. The building of the mountains you mentioned were upraised around 65 million years ago. The flood could still be universal if we discount the idea that mountains were not covered given the understanding of Earth at that time.

Proof? Evidence?

:::SIGH:::

From the Encyclopedia Britannica

Some 180 million years ago, during the Tertiary Period (i.e., about 50 million years ago), India finally collided with Eurasia. India was sheared downward, or subducted, beneath the Tethys trench at an ever-increasing pitch.

During the next 30 million years, shallow parts of the Tethys Ocean gradually drained as its sea bottom was pushed up by the plunging Indian-Australian Plate; this formed the Plateau of Tibet. On the plateau's southern edge, marginal mountainsâ??the Trans-Himalayan ranges of todayâ??became the region's first major watershed and rose high enough to become a climatic barrier. As heavier rains fell on the steepening southern slopes, the major southern rivers eroded northward toward the headwaters with increasing force along old transverse faults and captured the streams flowing onto the plateau, thus laying the foundation for today's drainage patterns. To the south, old estuaries of the Arabian Sea and the Bay of Bengal rapidly filled with debris carried down by the ancestral Indus, Ganges, and Brahmaputra rivers. The extensive erosion and deposition continue even now as these rivers carry immense quantities of material every day.

Finally, some 30 million years ago, during the Miocene Epoch, the tempo of the crunching union between the two plates increased sharply, and Himalayan mountain building began in earnest. As the Indian subcontinental plate continued to plunge beneath the Tethys trench, the topmost layers of old Gondwana metamorphic rocks peeled back over themselves for a long horizontal distance to the south, forming nappes. Wave after wave of nappes was thrust southward over the Indian landmass for as far as 60 miles. Each new nappe consisted of Gondwana rocks older than the last. In time these nappes became folded, contracting the former trench by some 250 horizontal miles (some authorities suggest 500 miles). All the while, downcutting rivers matched the rate of uplift, carrying vast amounts of eroded material from the rising Himalayas to the plains where it was dumped by the Indus, Ganges, and Brahmaputra rivers. The weight of this sediment created depressions, which in turn could hold more sediment. In some places the alluvium beneath the Gangetic Plain now exceeds 25,000 feet.

Only within the past 600,000 years, during the <a href="http://www.britannica.com/eb/article-9117455/Pleistocene-Epoch" title="Pleistocene-Epoch" class="artcopybold">Pleistocene Epoch (1.6 million to 10,000 years ago), did the Himalayas become the highest mountains on Earth. If strong horizontal thrusting characterized the Miocene and Pliocene epochs (23.7 to 1.6 million years ago), intense uplift epitomized the Pleistocene. Along the core zone of the northernmost nappesâ??and just beyondâ??crystalline rocks containing new gneiss and granite intrusions emerged to produce the staggering crests seen today. On a few peaks, like Mount Everest, old fossil-bearing Tethys sediments from the north were carried piggyback to the summits by the crystalline rocks.

[Ron Beron]

grego writes,

Response:

www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v18/i3/oxygen.asp

I checked your source...This is what it states...

Many creationist scientists think that mountains such as the Himalayas were probably built by catastrophic movement of the earthâ??s continental plates during and after the Flood

Note the key word here is creation scientists meaning...what? A degree bought and paid for like Walter Martin's? Pleeeeeze.

[Ron Beron]

grego writes,

QUOTEThere are surprises elsewhere. Evidence was submitted by scientists from Harvard and Carnegie Institute that the mighty Himalayas, during violent upheavals, reached their present form and height in the age of man, in historic times. Evidence for the same phenomenon has been noted regarding the Andes, that in historic times the mountains rose many thousands of feet (Velikovsky, 1955, p.286). If at least some mountains are very, very young, what reason is there to believe that other mountains are untold millions of years old?

Are Harvard and Carnegie good enough for you?

All you have quoted is the comments from a retired creationist who leaves no footnotes to his assertions. This is not good scholarship, but codswallop. Creationism is NOT science.

The attitude and belief in a miraculous God is refreshing to me. I feel some Christians, and LDS in particular, sometimes think ourselves too intelligent, too smart to be that stupid, too erudite, too knowledgeable; when in fact, intelligence, smartness, wisdom, and knowledge can be good--after one remembers first that God is a God of miracles.

This is really quite condescending. There is nothing contrite about using the brains God blessed us with. The miracles of God are there and quite remarkable, but they are miracles that work within the realm of scientific reality. They are not magic. President Hinckley alludes to this in his talk of April 1996,

But what a wonderful season to be alive. . . . [We have] the miracles of medicine, the miracles of science, the miracles of communication, transportation, educationâ??what a wonderful time in which to live.

And James Talmadge in Jesus the Christ...

Miracles cannot be in contravention of natural law, but are wrought through the operation of laws not universally or commonly recognized. Gravitation is everywhere operative, but the local and special application of other agencies may appear to nullify itâ??as by muscular effort or mechanical impulse a stone is lifted from the ground, poised aloft, or sent hurtling through space. At every stage of the process, however, gravity is in full play, though its effect is modified by that of other and locally superior energy. The human sense of the miraculous wanes as comprehension of the operative process increases. Achievements made possible by modern invention of telegraph and telephone with or without wires, the transmutation of mechanical power into electricity with its manifold present applications and yet future possibilities, the development of the gasoline motor, the present accomplishments in aerial navigationâ??these are no longer miracles in man's estimation, because they are all in some degree understood, are controlled by human agency, and, moreover, are continuous in their operation and not phenomenal. We arbitrarily classify as miracles only such phenomena as are unusual, special, transitory, and wrought by an agency beyond the power of man's control

.

Grego, I am sure you are a fine saint, but you need to stay away from the Creationist witch-doctors and Von Daniken wannabes.

[grego]

Encyclopedia Britannica

Scientific text, eh?

-=-=-=

Read the story of Gilgamesh.

Scriptures... Gilgamesh... Scriptures... Gilgamesh... Which one will I choose? (You did something similar while arguing "no such person as Satan", too, IIRC.)

I will stick with the scriptures God has provided over the Babylonians.

-=-=-=

I realize that it states it in the BofM as a issue of faith. I was referring to actual scientific info. I hate to be so seemingly agnostic about this, but frankly, the anti's don't really care that the BofM states anything in our defense. Of course, this brings up a issue that is of greater concern; the seeming disparity between science and faith within Mormon belief. While I hold a testimony of the BofM as inspired doctrine I am not sure that all the incidents within the BofM are scientifically or historically valid.

Well, there it is. It seems you have already decided what you think science has said about the possibilities of religion, and little or nothing I can do will change it, and anything, anything to trump a global flood, seems to be ok. Anything I said, I imagine, would sound "condescending" in this case. It's pretty personal for you, and you (and some other old worlder's) seem to be taking it quite hard.

Perhaps I have misunderstood.

My searches take me to many places, including young world and global flood scientists, as well as old world and local flood scientists.

It works with unclear non-saving things; but what happens with clearn saving things? Can the resurrection happen? What does science say about that possibility? Wine to water in an instant? Commanding nature? It could very well have to do with interpretation. On the other hand, is it possible, maybe, that science doesn't really know? Or that "it" does, but man, the ones who intepret it, don't know, or do, but don't let it out?

What do you think about this?

tatement made at a symposium of Nobel Prize winners in Uppsala, Sweden, in 1969:

"If a C14 date supports our theories, we put it in the main text. If it does not entirely contradict them, we put it in a footnote. And if it is completely 'out of date,' we just drop it" (Pensee , Winter 1973, p.44

).

I've provided ample evidence, I think, that you could ignore the mocking fingers, Ron.

God gave you a brain to support your spirit, not rule it.

I hope things work out for you.

[All-Seeing Eye]

60 million?//

That is non sense...

You state that you think that it is nonsense to say that Mt. Everest was formed 60 million years ago.

Why do you think that this is nonsense? I happen to believe it.

[Ron Beron]

'grego' incredously states,

Scientific text, eh?

Huh...yea?!

Scriptures... Gilgamesh... Scriptures... Gilgamesh... Which one will I choose? (You did something similar while arguing "no such person as Satan", too, IIRC.)

I will stick with the scriptures God has provided over the Babylonians.

And exactly where do you think the Jews got their OT? Since the stories are exactly the same and the Gilgamesh epic is centuries older than the other one which do you think came first and served as a basis for the other?

Well, there it is. It seems you have already decided what you think science has said about the possibilities of religion, and little or nothing I can do will change it, and anything, anything to trump a global flood, seems to be ok. Anything I said, I imagine, would sound "condescending" in this case. It's pretty personal for you, and you (and some other old worlder's) seem to be taking it quite hard.

Perhaps I have misunderstood.

Given the fact that I have posted comments by apostles and prophets I find it somewhat silly that you would ignore them as well as general science. FYI, I am not a scientist. Actually, I am incline to the supernatural, but one has to rule over the other. I prefer to think that God is the ultimate scientist since he created all of this.

Can the resurrection happen? What does science say about that possibility? Wine to water in an instant? Commanding nature? It could very well have to do with interpretation. On the other hand, is it possible, maybe, that science doesn't really know? Or that "it" does, but man, the ones who intepret it, don't know, or do, but don't let it out?

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.

I've provided ample evidence, I think, that you could ignore the mocking fingers, Ron.

Perhaps, and if I have been mocking I apologize. The fact is is that you are extremely exasperating. As to evidence I find it very lacking in content. On a peer basis it is poorly received and little accepted by the scientific world in general. Oh, BTW, the comment you quoted, ostensibly by me, was by another.

God gave you a brain to support your spirit, not rule it.

Are we talking of the same brain God gave Galileo or the Catholic Church in the 16th century? The church at that time believed they spoke for God as well.

[SolarPowered]

I've provided ample evidence, I think...

Frankly, when the second paragraph in you first piece of "evidence" reads, "Skeptics find it hard to believe that the Earth's geological features and fossils were formed only about 5,000 years ago - not millions or billions", yah, I find it hard to take your evidence seriously.

We have living trees here in California that are older than 5000 years. There's not much wiggle room on that--you can drill out a core sample from the tree, and count the rings.

[HiJolly]

I think it is clear, that in certain religious cultures there are erroneous traditions that must be laid aside if we are to progress. It is hard, so very hard. But we must be as teachable as children, if we are to obtain all the truth God has for us. We must have faith that God does not lie, nor is He wrong --- but men, even men we trust, may be wrong. Innocently wrong. There is no evil in that, but there may be evil in rejecting truth as it comes to us.

For me, it was worth many years of study and learning. IMO, truth has won out, and I believe in the Church, the Gospel, and evolution. But not in a false evolution, a 'straw man' of the creationist's making.

HiJolly

[California]

I have been reading through some papers and discussions regarding Noah's flood. I, as it seems are many LDS scholars, am of the belief that it was not a global flood. The fact that plant and animal life exist in remote areas like Australia where Noah would not have been able to transport animals etc. There are other historical and scientific problems with the story being interpreted literally, but my question is for LDS believers who have decided it must have been a localized event etc. It seems to me that a non-literal interpretation is problematic for LDS teachings.

For instance, Joseph Smith taught, and recieved revelation regarding the garden of Eden being located in Missouri. If this is so then Noah would have likely lived in North America. How would he have landed his ship in the mountains of Ararat (Gen 8:4) ?

â??The Garden of Eden was in Missouri. Noah was taken to the Old World by the Flood. This teaching was given by Joseph Smith and is still accepted as true doctrine. Given this teaching, Mormons have to accept the flood as a global phenomenon.â? (Mormon Doctrine, Bruce McConkie, "Adam-Ondi-Ahman" p. 19-20)

We are also taught that the world was baptised during this flood. Is this teaching incorrect?

Elder John A. Widtsoe of the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles explained: â??Latter-day Saints look upon the earth as a living organism, one which is gloriously filling â??the measure of its creation.â?? They look upon the flood as a baptism of the earth, symbolizing a cleansing of the impurities of the past, and the beginning of a new life."

It seems to interesting that men of God are nitpicked by others who are nowhere near as close to God. Instead of saying, "How can I learn from their example and come closer to God?" They nit-pick and ignore the most important things.

I think that second-hand information is not nearly as important as personal witness. I know this might not seem to have much to do with the topic, but it has everything to do with the topic. Anyone that says that they don't ever mess up or have never been mistaken while interpreting or receiving revelations is basically claiming to be better than Joseph Smith. However, just because a person feels inadequate, inexperienced, or unsure regarding personal revelation doesn't mean that they can't ever have first-hand knowledge regarding which path to follow. I don't think we need to base our lives on things we read, which is really second-hand information. I also think the path people follow has more to do with their values and desire to grow closer to God than it has to do with physical evidence. The only physical evidence I care about is happiness. When I see people confused beyond anything I ever thought possible, that is evidence of darkness. I know most people on here are logical thinkers, but I think that you are all, especially maupayman, making this more complicated than it needs to be.

[maupayman]

It seems to interesting that men of God are nitpicked by others who are nowhere near as close to God. Instead of saying, "How can I learn from their example and come closer to God?" They nit-pick and ignore the most important things.

I think that second-hand information is not nearly as important as personal witness. I know this might not seem to have much to do with the topic, but it has everything to do with the topic. Anyone that says that they don't ever mess up or have never been mistaken while interpreting or receiving revelations is basically claiming to be better than Joseph Smith. However, just because a person feels inadequate, inexperienced, or unsure regarding personal revelation doesn't mean that they can't ever have first-hand knowledge regarding which path to follow. I don't think we need to base our lives on things we read, which is really second-hand information. I also think the path people follow has more to do with their values and desire to grow closer to God than it has to do with physical evidence. The only physical evidence I care about is happiness. When I see people confused beyond anything I ever thought possible, that is evidence of darkness. I know most people on here are logical thinkers, but I think that you are all, especially maupayman, making this more complicated than it needs to be.

Well please break it down for us then California. That is why i started the thread to gain insight from others.

[grego]

I guess reasoning and rationality aren't cutting it anymore... So...

I think it is clear, that in certain religious cultures there are erroneous traditions that must be laid aside if we are to progress. It is hard, so very hard. But we must be as teachable as children, if we are to obtain all the truth God has for us. We must have faith that God does not lie, nor is He wrong --- but men, even men we trust, may be wrong. Innocently wrong. There is no evil in that, but there may be evil in rejecting truth as it comes to us.

For me, it was worth many years of study and learning. IMO, truth has won out, and I believe in the Church, the Gospel, and evolution. But not in a false evolution, a 'straw man' of the creationist's making.

This reminds me of one of my philosophy teacher's stories:

"Nothing like sitting in high priest quorum. After all the debating and arguing over a doctrine or topic, there's always that one older man who finally jumps in and says, "Brethren, brethren, we shouldn't be arguing like this! What would Jesus think? <short pause> 'Here, let me tell you the true answer...'"

Yes, men may be wrong. So, is science godly, or of man? Is it interpreted through man? Is it controlled and released by man? What gets press, and in the books, etc.? What God-conducive articles have you ever seen in Science, Discover, Scientific American, etc.? Is there a reason for that, do you imagine? What of all the discoveries of things that aren't "as they should be"? What happens to all the science that completely messes up the CoS's teachings? Where does that go?

What has happened is that the CoS has convinced people that what the CoS says is true, is true--and there are no other options, UNLESS you want to be a ... let me see, how did one say it... a "witch-doctor", a _ (fill in with whatever emotional attack you can fit in).

In other words, the mocking fingers cannot be ignored anymore, but must be heeded. See, when it comes to actual religious things, like the resurrection, then maybe, maybe a miracle could happen; but when it comes to everything else, then it has to be just like the CoS says it is, because to believe otherwise would be _ (fill in with whatever pejorative you desire), and I can't have others think that of me.

The OT? It's all just Babylonian myths--hey, don't imagine that they ever had any first-hand knowledge of anything, you know like knowing God from Adam on down, or having the Spirit, having visions and angels and revelations, etc. (Is this like judging others using your own standards, eh?)

The Creation? Impossible, it's all an allegory--don't even think that any of the prophets had a clue as to what they were talking about.

A global Flood? Impossible, it was just local, because the ancients were stupid to know the planet was bigger than just where they lived, even if there is plenty of evidence to the contrary, and notwithstanding the scriptures clearly show the opposite. We don't need the Spirit, we have a brain! And where did your brain come from? Oh, from evolution, of course!

All kinds of evidence contrary to the theory of uniformity, and old world, and the ages of everything, and evolution, etc. as set forth by the CoS? Well, if a top scientist in the CoS didn't say it, I'm not even going to look at it! (Hey, my minister, who has a PhD in Theology and Ancient Greek and Hebrew, said JS was a false prophet and the BoM wasn't true, so I can't listen to you misisonaries. (Dude, do you think your minister is going to cheer you on in joining the Mormons?!?)

The twisting going on reminds me of "A Marvelous Work and a Wonder"--when the Bible fits your doctrine, then see how stupid people are to believe otherwise; when the Bible doesn't fit your doctrine, then see how stupid people are to not see the need for revelation. The desire to avoid anything that might interfere with the CoS stand on an issue is amazing. It's like apologetics all over for some people, but just a different church... Information control and overload has worked.

[Deborah]

In the end science and religion will not be in conflict and we will understand the science of the religion, which I think will be far more profound than the science of man. We can argue all day about how much of the Bible is literal but since the Lord hasn't revealed the Hows it will all be speculation, except the one side will say they have all the evidence in the science and the other side will continue to say the evidence is not all in.

However, hopefully we can all agree that Noah was a great prophet with an important calling to save his family and that when a prophet speaks with a warning voice we should listen.