Implications Of Noah's Flood Not Being Global

[grego]

I guess I should have been smarter and bailed earlier like Rob when he realized how useless it was to continue talking...

Yeah, that's a nice ending for me, Deborah. Thanks.

[Ron Beron]

grego concludes (?)

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).

Okay...how's this...

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.

Yep! Based on such.

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!

Nope! You just can't discern the original language. You cannot figure out the difference between eretz, land and eretz, earth. There is a difference. See icon above.

Grego, try following the word of the apostles and prophets of yours and my church...

James Talmadge

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

Harold B. Lee

True religion and true science are in harmony. I have always thought it to be a dangerous assumption that there was a clash or warfare between the fundamental teachings of the truths of science and the teachings of true religion. If there is a disagreement, it is because one or the other has not attained to the truth. Both may be in error but they can't both be right. Science and Religiona-Lee, Harold B.TP339There was a day when religionists held that the sun, moon, and lesser lights placed in position by the Supreme Being were daily removed after the work of that particular period was past. Their conclusions were not correct, yet opposition to this view was regarded as heresy. The science of astronomy as outlined by Copernicus explained that the earth was not a flat disc, around which other bodies revolve, but was one of a group of spheroidal planets moving about the sun. Some of the religionists of that time thought they saw an argument against the existence of a Supreme Being, and so that view was pronounced as unscriptural and heretical. They, too, have been proven to have been in error.

Science and Religiona-Lee, Harold B.TP339On the other hand, as set forth by an eminent geologist of a few years ago, "The laws of nature are the laws of God. If any given scientific doctrine is true, the handiwork of God is behind the operation. If it is true it argues for the existence of God." (53-05, p. 5)

Grego, it is far safer to accept true prophecy and true science instead of true prophecy anf false science. Try and find the difference.

[maupayman]

I guess the question this all raises for me is that if the flood was not global, and the continents did seperate long before Noah's time then that would mean the revelation regarding Adam and Eve being in North America would be a creation of Joseph's mind, as opposed to truth the Lord was manifesting through him. This creates big questions about the reliablity of Joseph's revelations and teachings.

[Ron Beron]

I guess the question this all raises for me is that if the flood was not global, and the continents did seperate long before Noah's time then that would mean the revelation regarding Adam and Eve being in North America would be a creation of Joseph's mind, as opposed to truth the Lord was manifesting through him. This creates big questions about the reliablity of Joseph's revelations and teachings.

David Bokovoy wrote an interesting post awhile back that addressed the need to change our paradigms in looking at aspects of the Mormon faith.

Is there ever a good reason to abandon Mormonism?

Not if one has obtained a spiritual witness from God concerning the truthfulness of the Church. Still, throughout our lives, many of us encounter pieces of doctrinal and/or historical information that appears to indicate that we have been deceived, that in fact Mormonism is not true.

In these moments, perhaps before doubting our spiritual convictions, we should approach our concerns from the perspective of a paradigm shift, meaning a change in the basic assumptions concerning Mormonism that we hold to be true.

In other words, perhaps the only thing that we have encountered that is untrue is our basic assumption concerning the doctrine and/or historical information rather than the Church itself.

Rather than abandoning the Church of Jesus Christ, I believe that every issue that ever troubles our members may simply require a paradigm shift. I could provide many examples that support my view, but the one that comes immediately to mind is an experience that I had with a student who came to the conclusion that the Church cannot be true because of something portrayed in the temple ceremony.

I will not discuss the details of temple worship, but suffice it to say that the student felt troubled over the fact that in D&C 129, the Lord reveals that â??when a messenger comes saying he has a message from God,â? we should offer him our hand and â??request him to shake handsâ? (v. 4). The revelation states that if the messenger is a spirit of a just man that the angel will not move to shake hands with us, â??for it is contrary to the order of heaven for a just man to deceive; but he will still deliver his messageâ? (v. 7).

Without going into details, the student felt that this revelation contradicts part of the ritual portrayal featured in the endowment. The individual felt troubled enough by this â??contradictionâ? that he/or she had come to the conclusion that the Church is not true.

In this instance, I tied to explain that perhaps what is not true is not the Church itself, but rather the paradigm that the student used to interpret the endowment. The student assumed that the ritual presentation provided in the endowment was a literal portrayal of the events that actually occurred in the Garden of Eden.

I explained that since I do not hold that assumption that I have never found the contradiction troubling. Rather than a literal portrayal of actual events, I view the endowmentâ??and the story of Eden for that matterâ??as a ritual drama intended to covey important doctrine and principles concerning our spiritual journey into the presence of God.

Hence, according to my assumptions the contradiction that troubled the student was simply a symbolic portrayal that the student had misinterpreted.

Of course many other illustrations of paradigm shifts could be provided. I have had to employ a variety of such shifts when faced with new evidence that contradicted my assumptions. Rather than doubting the Church, however, I have always doubted the paradigms I have used to interpret Mormonism.

Speaking personally, I view paradigm shifts as a far superior course of action than abandoning oneâ??s spiritual convictions.

http://www.mormonapologetics.org/index.php...amp;hl=paradigm

While I personally have some problems with the historicity of several of Joseph's comments I still accept him completely as a prophet and the LDS church as the restored church of Jesus Christ.

[Sethbag]

I guess the question this all raises for me is that if the flood was not global, and the continents did seperate long before Noah's time then that would mean the revelation regarding Adam and Eve being in North America would be a creation of Joseph's mind, as opposed to truth the Lord was manifesting through him. This creates big questions about the reliablity of Joseph's revelations and teachings.

DING! DING! DING! DING! DING! We have a winner!

This is exactly the problem that served in my mind as a sort of wedge issue, troubling me and opening up my mind just enough to the possibility that there were problems with the church's credibility, and truthfulness, that eventually, after years and years of slow evolution, lead me to where learning the Book of Abraham controversy and some of the details of Joseph Smith's industrial-scale spiritual wifery could finally push me over the edge.

The bottom line of the Noah's Ark story is that the LDS prophets have no credibility. They teach these things, and yet they're simply completely, utterly, yea, even totally wrong.

[Ron Beron]

'Sethbag' writes,

DING! DING! DING! DING! DING! We have a winner!

Sorry, that is just the fight bell telling you to change your meds.

The bottom line of the Noah's Ark story is that the LDS prophets have no credibility. They teach these things, and yet they're simply completely, utterly, yea, even totally wrong.

Again, you cannot be correct because there are some indications of both localized, regional, and in some cases global flooding due to some catastrophic cataclysm. I depend on the LDS prophets to tell me to the way to get to heaven not to tell me about the historical earth.

[grego]

SolarPowered wrote:

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.

CFR.

Because I have searched, and the oldest I can find is 4,862: http://home.austarnet.com.au/davekimble/bristlecone.htm

Here's a nice twist on this type of thing:

http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v...living_tree.asp

Anything else has not been dated using rings, and are *not* demonstrably older.

[Sethbag]

'Sethbag' writes,

Again, you cannot be correct because there are some indications of both localized, regional, and in some cases global flooding due to some catastrophic cataclysm.

I don't care if a global flood occurred millions of years ago because a giant comet hit the Earth or whatever. That's not what Noah's flood is about, as you well know. Noah's Flood story in the Bible, again as you well know better than most on this board, is simply an Israelite adaptation of a pre-existing regional mythology. As told, it didn't happen. It's fiction.

I depend on the LDS prophets to tell me to the way to get to heaven not to tell me about the historical earth.

Yes, well, they have tended to try that anyway, and to teach these things and couch them in the language of revealed truth. You can discount their teachings all you want, but you cannot deny that they've taught them, and that's why they aren't credible. You say I cannot be correct in saying that their teachings are not credible, and then you basically admit that you don't believe these things yourself. You can't have it both ways. I'm either right in this, and they're not credible, or I'm wrong, and they are credible, and you should believe what they teach as revealed truth.

[Honorentheos]

...Anything else has not been dated using rings, and are *not* demonstrably older.

Perhaps you are refering to "King Clone", the 11,700 year old creosote bush?

But regarding tree rings, the record goes back 10,000 years and does not indicate that there was a global flood that killed everything around 5,000 years ago. Maybe not "living" rings, but if you understand how tree rings work you'll figure out why this is just as reliable.

[ryanelwood]

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.

[grego]

But regarding tree rings, the record goes back 10,000 years

CFR. As I said, *not* demonstrably older. Just theorized/ supposed by some.

If the hatchet job done on the tree in the link I posted were done on the others... (Wow, that was almost a pun...)

-=-=-=

Poor Ryan... but it *is* being discussed. Just like religion. And politics. And hundreds of other topics that I know all the answers to but you're not listening...

And because it's so simple...

I had suggested you debate Brown and get back to us when you had won.

I'm still waiting...

[Rob Osborn]

The flood happened, there was a division of the earth shortly after that,- those are the facts. When Christ comes again, the flood waters will disappear to the north countries from where they came, the islands will be no more like before the earth was divided, the mountains will lower and the valleys raised. And yes- there will be a resurrection and time will be no more.

Those are the facts, LDS faith believes they are true. People should start to learn how to accept their doctrine.

[Tchild2]

The flood happened, there was a division of the earth shortly after that,- those are the facts[beliefs of my religion]. When Christ comes again, the flood waters will disappear to the north countries from where they came, the islands will be no more like before the earth was divided, the mountains will lower and the valleys raised. And yes- there will be a resurrection and time will be no more.

Those are the facts [beliefs], LDS faith believes they are true. People should start to learn how to accept their doctrine.

Hey Rob, I edited (for clarity) your last statement. Hope you didn't mind. I just thought it a bit much to classify the global flood myth with the word; fact. It seemed so out of place.

[ryanelwood]

CFR. As I said, *not* demonstrably older. Just theorized/ supposed by some.

If the hatchet job done on the tree in the link I posted were done on the others... (Wow, that was almost a pun...)

-=-=-=

Poor Ryan... but it *is* being discussed. Just like religion. And politics. And hundreds of other topics that I know all the answers to but you're not listening...

And because it's so simple...

I had suggested you debate Brown and get back to us when you had won.

I'm still waiting...

Don't know who Brown is. But anyhow this issue is NOT being discussed among real scientists across the globe. Like I said, among scientists this is as much an issue as whether or not the earth is flat. The flat earth society of course does still exist out in left field with the creationists with equal respect among scientists. Ever wondered why both are as equally respected as the other? Just use a little common sense and I know you will figure it out. Could you please find me a Geology textbook that an accredited University uses that mentions the flood? I havn't found any yet. Hmmm, I wonder why no accredited University Geology book wouldn't mention such a global event?

[Rob Osborn]

T child2,

Hey, no problem! Someday you will see the FACTS that I am talking about, no love lost.

[ryanelwood]

The flood happened, there was a division of the earth shortly after that,- those are the facts. When Christ comes again, the flood waters will disappear to the north countries from where they came, the islands will be no more like before the earth was divided, the mountains will lower and the valleys raised. And yes- there will be a resurrection and time will be no more.

Those are the facts, LDS faith believes they are true. People should start to learn how to accept their doctrine.

I assume your kidding, no one could think those are "facts." If you turn to what the "facts" of the situation truly are, you would know that the earth divided about 200,000,000 years ago and not just 5,000. If you could find a scientist from an accredited University that agrees with you and not me I would sure be interested in who that is.

[Sethbag]

Could you please find me a Geology textbook that an accredited University uses that mentions the flood? I havn't found any yet. Hmmm, I wonder why no accredited University Geology book wouldn't mention such a global event?

Isn't it obvious? It's the vast, left-wing secular humanist conspiracy to turn the world away from God! Duh.

I assume your kidding, no one could think those are "facts." If you turn to what the "facts" of the situation truly are, you would know that the earth divided about 200,000,000 years ago and not just 5,000. If you could find a scientist from an accredited University that agrees with you and not me I would sure be interested in who that is. [emphasis added]

Does Kleon Skousen count?

[SolarPowered]

Does Kleon Skousen count?

Cleon Skousen does not count as a "scientist." I'll go for "theologian" or for "Constitutional scholar", but not for "scientist."

I felt his "alarm clock" slide really detracted from everything else he had to say.

[grego]

Hey Rob, I edited (for clarity) your last statement. Hope you didn't mind.

Ha! Someone I know freaked out when someone else I know did that...

-=-=-=

Don't know who Brown is.

That's as far as I got in your response, because it shows why talking or listening to you is absolutely meaningless.

Let's repeat the ever-ignored mantra JUST ONE MORE TIME:

Read the links, read the links, read the...

THE FOLLOWING ERROR(S) WERE FOUND

You have posted a message with more emoticons that this board allows. Please reduce the number of emoticons you've added to the message

(Hey, how many times did you want me to hit the dang thing?!!!)

[SolarPowered]

Let's repeat the ever-ignored mantra JUST ONE MORE TIME:

Read the links, read the links, read the...

)

grego, if you actually want people to pay attention, you've got to be more specific than just linking to whole web sites of highly-questionable value. You could be specific by making your specific argument here. Or, you could point to specific parts of a paper on one of those web sites.

Your repeated insistence people read great volumes of stuff, much of which isn't directly connected to this discussion, is not reasonable.

For the record, I did in fact peruse one of the sites you linked. I got to the place where the guy was dismissing radiocarbon dating because he sent a piece of coal to a lab in LA, and got back a date of around 30,000 BP (IIRC--it's been a few days since I was over there). He then summarily dismissed radiocarbon dating as invalid, end of story.

That's not valid scientific method. OK, here you have a result that disagrees with established theory. It is in fact possible that the reason is that the established theory is invalid. It is also possible that the experimental result is flawed for any of a substantial number of reasons. You can't just say, "This result is bad, so all of 'Science' is wrong." You have to dig further into the result, and find out why it disagrees with the result expected by theory. He failed to do that, and simply dismissed that entire body of work based on one unexplained result.

This type of behavior is why "Creationists" are dismissed as cranks by virtually everyone.

If you have a specific paper of reasonable length refer us to, or better yet arguments what can be summarized in this thread, I would be quite intested in it.

[Honorentheos]

CFR. As I said, *not* demonstrably older. Just theorized/ supposed by some.

If the hatchet job done on the tree in the link I posted were done on the others... (Wow, that was almost a pun...)

In order to verify that we are speaking the same language, what do you think is meant by the tree ring record and how was it obtained? You seem to be very skeptical of the process, so I am curious what your understanding of it is.

Take your time.

[SolarPowered]

SolarPowered wrote:

CFR.

Because I have searched, and the oldest I can find is 4,862: http://home.austarnet.com.au/davekimble/bristlecone.htm

OK, thank you for actually checking on that. My memory was that it was "over 5,000 years." It appears that I misremembered, and it's merely "nearly 5,000 years."

As others have already pointed out, the tree-ring record of the Bristlecone Pines does in fact go back quite a bit further than that, to at least 8,500 years. (See C. W. Ferguson and D. A. Graybill, "Dendrochronology of Bristlecone Pine: A Progress Report", Radiocarbon, 25'(1983): 287-288)

[Ron Beron]

SolarPowered wrote:

CFR.

Because I have searched, and the oldest I can find is 4,862: http://home.austarnet.com.au/davekimble/bristlecone.htm

Here's a nice twist on this type of thing:

http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v...living_tree.asp

Anything else has not been dated using rings, and are *not* demonstrably older.

Yea, but did you count leap years?

[Ron Beron]

The flood happened, there was a division of the earth shortly after that,- those are the facts. When Christ comes again, the flood waters will disappear to the north countries from where they came, the islands will be no more like before the earth was divided, the mountains will lower and the valleys raised. And yes- there will be a resurrection and time will be no more.

Those are the facts, LDS faith believes they are true. People should start to learn how to accept their doctrine.

No, they are not facts, but faith and not all Mormons accept the precept that there was a universal flood for several reasons.

1. It is not biblical (the bible speaks of the "land" eretz being covered by water not earth)
   
2. It is not scientific.
   
3. And some of the apostles and presidents have either not discussed the concept of a universal flood or obfuscated their opinions.
   

[Ron Beron]

grego, if you actually want people to pay attention, you've got to be more specific than just linking to whole web sites of highly-questionable value. You could be specific by making your specific argument here. Or, you could point to specific parts of a paper on one of those web sites.

Your repeated insistence people read great volumes of stuff, much of which isn't directly connected to this discussion, is not reasonable.

For the record, I did in fact peruse one of the sites you linked. I got to the place where the guy was dismissing radiocarbon dating because he sent a piece of coal to a lab in LA, and got back a date of around 30,000 BP (IIRC--it's been a few days since I was over there). He then summarily dismissed radiocarbon dating as invalid, end of story.

That's not valid scientific method. OK, here you have a result that disagrees with established theory. It is in fact possible that the reason is that the established theory is invalid. It is also possible that the experimental result is flawed for any of a substantial number of reasons. You can't just say, "This result is bad, so all of 'Science' is wrong." You have to dig further into the result, and find out why it disagrees with the result expected by theory. He failed to do that, and simply dismissed that entire body of work based on one unexplained result.

This type of behavior is why "Creationists" are dismissed as cranks by virtually everyone.

If you have a specific paper of reasonable length refer us to, or better yet arguments what can be summarized in this thread, I would be quite intested in it.

Good luck, Solar, he didn't listen to me either.

OK, thank you for actually checking on that. My memory was that it was "over 5,000 years." It appears that I misremembered, and it's merely "nearly 5,000 years."

As others have already pointed out, the tree-ring record of the Bristlecone Pines does in fact go back quite a bit further than that, to at least 8,500 years. (See C. W. Ferguson and D. A. Graybill, "Dendrochronology of Bristlecone Pine: A Progress Report", Radiocarbon, 25'(1983): 287-288)

You might also try reading Dendrochronology of Bristlecone Pine (Pinus aristata Engelm.) in Colorado

Paula V. Krebs

Arctic and Alpine Research, Vol. 5, No. 2 (Spring, 1973), pp. 149-150