Implications Of Noah's Flood Not Being Global

[ryanelwood]

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.

These are excellent points SolarPowered. Grego needs to ask himself a question, if carbon dating is that unreliable then why does almost every single scientist world wide believe in it? Anyone can say anything on a given website. Grego, instead of referring me to these obscure links, why not refer me to a peer reviewed scientific journal. Maybe even National Geographic. Maybe even a college textbook. It just escapes me why all these wild facts on these websites you refer to are not accepted in the scientific world. Do you have an answer grego? I know I have the answer, science rejects it for the same reasons they reject the Flat Earth society and the same reasons historians reject Holocaust deniers. Because it is ridiculous. Whoever Brown is doesn't need to convince me, he needs to convince the entire scientific world.

p.s. How did all those millions of animals fit on that ark?

[Ron Beron]

p.s. How did all those millions of animals fit on that ark?

Maybe they used DNA samples like on Jurassic Park.

[SolarPowered]

historians reject Holocaust deniers.

Just a request--Let's not get the thread closed for "Godwin's Law violations."

[Sethbag]

You guys are overlooking the obvious answer of why scientists don't agree with the Creationists. It's all a vast left-wing conspiracy to oppose religion and indoctrinate our youth with the ideas of secular humanism.

When the kind of thing I just said is actually reasonable in one's mind, there's really not much point in trying to convince the person. Whatever you say will just be misdirection to protect the conspiracy.

[ryanelwood]

You guys are overlooking the obvious answer of why scientists don't agree with the Creationists. It's all a vast left-wing conspiracy to oppose religion and indoctrinate our youth with the ideas of secular humanism.

When the kind of thing I just said is actually reasonable in one's mind, there's really not much point in trying to convince the person. Whatever you say will just be misdirection to protect the conspiracy.

Good point. Maybe I am apart of this grand conspiracy and I only do what I do to destory faith.

[grego]

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."

No problem. Could be a big difference there, though. Of course, there is the possiblity of two rings in one year--but still, there is a definite cap on counted rings, even at one ring per year--less than 5,000 years.

-=-=-=

Um, that link--the important one I've posted a few times--is ONE PAGE. And IIRC, the article is about *half the page*. And IIRC, I *did* post a part or two of it. There's even a *video* for the reading impaired (enjoy)! Anyone even somewhat serious about debating would have looked. The fact that most of you haven't even *looked* at the page the link takes you to, much less read, helps me understand where everyone stands anyway. Ridiculous. Debate Brown, come back and let us know you won. Or even better, convince ALL those great scientists to debate Brown, then let us know when they win.

[SolarPowered]

Um, that link--the important one I've posted a few times--is ONE PAGE. And IIRC, the article is about *half the page*. And IIRC, I *did* post a part or two of it. There's even a *video* for the reading impaired (enjoy)! Anyone even somewhat serious about debating would have looked. The fact that most of you haven't even *looked* at the page the link takes you to, much less read, helps me understand where everyone stands anyway. Ridiculous. Debate Brown, come back and let us know you won. Or even better, convince ALL those great scientists to debate Brown, then let us know when they win.

OK, I was looking at a different post of yours, with a bunch of links in it. Would you please re-post the link you are referring to?

Thanks!

[ryanelwood]

No problem. Could be a big difference there, though. Of course, there is the possiblity of two rings in one year--but still, there is a definite cap on counted rings, even at one ring per year--less than 5,000 years.

-=-=-=

Um, that link--the important one I've posted a few times--is ONE PAGE. And IIRC, the article is about *half the page*. And IIRC, I *did* post a part or two of it. There's even a *video* for the reading impaired (enjoy)! Anyone even somewhat serious about debating would have looked. The fact that most of you haven't even *looked* at the page the link takes you to, much less read, helps me understand where everyone stands anyway. Ridiculous. Debate Brown, come back and let us know you won. Or even better, convince ALL those great scientists to debate Brown, then let us know when they win.

Those great scientists have already won the war. As I have said, people like Brown and creationists are as respected as the Flat Earth Society. I am sure the Flat Earth people have there own all knowing Brown's, but do you not think the Flat Earth Society has lost the battle? Since scientists classify the Flat Earth people with creationists together, maybe, just maybe to clear thinking brain, the creationists have also lost. Again, I want a link to a peer reviewed scientific journal or a college text book. Please, I beg you to tell me why creationists are respected as much as the Flat Earth Society and why they have been totally unable to make any in roads into the true world of science?

[Rob Osborn]

That tree ring dating thing is pretty convincing to me that there was a flood not too long ago. You would think that there really would be trees of considerably greater ages than what we see. It just seems that when one really does the homework, the evidence points directly at a global flood, hum, thats pretty strange eh?

[grego]

ryanelwood,

.

p.s. If I don't respond to you anymore, perhaps it is because you are on my "ignore" list.

[Rob Osborn]

ryan,

Equating creationism with the flat earth society is just plain wrong. The bible even states that the earth is round. Oh ya, that same bible even states that the "whole earth" was flooded. People who are Christian really ought to just believe the word of God on the matter of the flood. The Presidency of the church has never refuted the flood. If anything, they have always upheld it as being true- and our priesthood brethren are no dummies!

The New Testament warns about latter day scoffers who deny the creation and the flood as ever happening. It even warns about uniformatarianism theory and equates these types of believers the same as those who lost their lives in the great flood- denying in Noahs day that the flood was coming. I say this- let no man deny the flood as an actual event, just as, let no man also deny that Christ will not come again to cleanse the earth with fire- may God have mercy on that soul!

[ryanelwood]

ryanelwood,

.

p.s. If I don't respond to you anymore, perhaps it is because you are on my "ignore" list.

Well I would not be surprised if I am put on an ignore list. You have been unable to answer one question I have posed. The only thing you have been able to do is refer to obscure non-academic, non-science websites and to refer me to your hero Brown. You have one last chance to answer the following questions:

1. If there was a global flood then a mountain of evidence would have been left behind, therefore, why do 99.99999999% of scientists across the world somehow miss all this evidence?

2. Why have creationists been classified in the same category as the Flat Earth Society among scientists?

3. Why have creationists totally failed to make any in roads into the true world of science?

4. Why isn't the global flood talked about and affirmed in any scientific journals or college text books?

5. How did 8 people fit and take care of millions of animals on the ark?

Generally there is a reason obscure groups are in the minority such as Haulocaust deniers, Flat Earth People, 9/11 conspiracy theories, Bigfoot believers, Lockness monster believers, Alien obducting believers, creationists, etc, etc. Just think for the two minutes it should take and tell me why all these groups are in the minority. You want me to consutl the great Brown, well, I want you to consult any scientist at any accredited University. Brown will not start any revolution in science, in 100 years creationists will continue to be less and less along with Flat Earth people.

I know you are intelligent, so I know you know that I am right, you just need to admit it.

[ryanelwood]

ryan,

Equating creationism with the flat earth society is just plain wrong. The bible even states that the earth is round. Oh ya, that same bible even states that the "whole earth" was flooded. People who are Christian really ought to just believe the word of God on the matter of the flood. The Presidency of the church has never refuted the flood. If anything, they have always upheld it as being true- and our priesthood brethren are no dummies!

The New Testament warns about latter day scoffers who deny the creation and the flood as ever happening. It even warns about uniformatarianism theory and equates these types of believers the same as those who lost their lives in the great flood- denying in Noahs day that the flood was coming. I say this- let no man deny the flood as an actual event, just as, let no man also deny that Christ will not come again to cleanse the earth with fire- may God have mercy on that soul!

Actually if you read the book of Genesis on its own, the earth is flat covered by a firmament (or dome in other translations) over the earth separating the waters. Then when God opens the windows of heaven, it rains from the water on the other side of the dome. There was an excellent article about this in Sunstone last year by Duane Jeffrey of BYU. You can link to it at the Sunstone website.

Yes, the Flat Earth people are compared with creationism frequently by true scientists. Take a Geology class at BYU, you will not be taught there was a global flood. Why do your prophets allow heresy to be taught at their own university? I know it can be an adjustment by certian religious people, but sometimes the reality of the evidence needs to be accepted. Please try to answer the questions I presented to grego just above this post. I know grego can't, he has made it clear he has no interest in really dealing with the problems. So you give it a try. Why is there no evidence for this flood? Why are creationists have no respect in the world of real scientists? Just think about it.

[grego]

Cool! The board feature *does* work. ;P

[SolarPowered]

Cool! The board feature *does* work. ;P

So, does "Ignore" also make his questions invalid?

[Ron Beron]

ryan,

Equating creationism with the flat earth society is just plain wrong. The bible even states that the earth is round.

The New Testament warns about latter day scoffers who deny the creation and the flood as ever happening.

Where? Where? Where?

[ryanelwood]

Where? Where? Where?

Great question, hopefully Rob will be more willing to engage the tough questions than grego who seems to be in denial.

[Ron Beron]

Great question, hopefully Rob will be more willing to engage the tough questions than grego who seems to be in denial.

Sometimes the desire to believe something that is scientifically unsustainable is greater than facing the possibility of facing our fears of a less than inspired scripture base. Sometimes we simply have to change the way we look at things or as David Bokovoy has suggested we need to change our paradigms. It is what kept me from going totally inactive at one point.

[Honorentheos]

That tree ring dating thing is pretty convincing to me that there was a flood not too long ago. You would think that there really would be trees of considerably greater ages than what we see. It just seems that when one really does the homework, the evidence points directly at a global flood, hum, thats pretty strange eh?

Rob,

I don't see it that way. Prior to the 1950's, it was generally believed that the oldest living tree was around 2000 years (the redwood). The age of the bristlecone pines referenced through-out this discussion was discovered in the late 1950's. And these extremely old trees are in location where the conditions are the worst, with very poor soil, little water, etc. And they are not the picture of health.

King Clone, the 10,000+ year old creosote bush in California, was discovered in the 1970's. And it is also in a unique situation, with a very unique plant. (Harsh desert conditions, for which the creosote is uniquely adapted). King Clone probably begain growing there immediately after the receeding of the last ice encroachment in that area. It would be pretty hard to have something older in that location.

Now, a warning. I am going to speculate based on the evidence.

It seems that old trees are most successful under conditions where there isn't much competition for resources. So it doesn't seem odd that we have only a handful of trees that are in the 4,000-5,000 range, all in the fringe of the habitate zone for their species.

Also, when one looks at the tree ring record as a whole the evidence does not indicate that there was a flood, based on the rings from dead trees being compared to the oldest living ones and working backwards. The tree ring record would end completely at the point of such a global catastrophe.

Likewise, the ice core record goes back hundreds of thousands of years. For the global flood to have occured, it would have required all of the ice to have melted, and then some. That seems to be a flaw in the story as well.

Lastly, as food or thought, of all of the old trees died in the flood, where did the new ones come from? A second creation event? Then why bother with the animals?

This is all focusing in on tree rings. There are tons of scientific issues with the ark story (wooden ships the size described can't be built to be sea-worthy. It defies physics.; fresh water/salt water fish co-existing? or another creation event took care of that?; the time it would have taken Noah to gather the food required to feed that animals is outrageous, even given his age listed in the bible. And how would the food not spoil over that time? etc., etc., etc.)

Basically, it comes down to an adult wanting to believe a fairy-tale like Santa Clause. Why not accept that Santa does not live in the north pole, but that the spirit of the story can be real despite that?

[Severian]

Honor, I suspect your information may also be on an ignore list. However, there really is no getting around the evidence contradicting this global flood. Best to accept it and worry about other religious issues.

[Sethbag]

What Honor does not seem to be taking into account is that these folks arguing for the Flood have had it confirmed to them through the Holy Spirit that it happened. This is the same Holy Spirit that confirms that the church is true to people. It is a foundation of their testimony. What little tidbit provided by the arm of flesh can possibly contradict that which the Lord has confirmed to them through his Spirit?

Of course, those who believe the Spirit has confirmed the truth of the LDS church to them, but don't believe in the Flood, have to explain to themselves why Grego and Rob didn't really get a testimony from the Spirit about the Flood. Somehow they did it wrong, or the misinterpreted their feelings, or whatever. But their own testimony from the Holy Spirit is 100% reliable. Yes Siree, 100% reliable. Because they're pretty sure they'd know if it weren't.

[grego]

Sometimes the desire to believe something that is scientifically unsustainable is greater than facing the possibility of facing our fears of a less than inspired scripture base. Sometimes we simply have to change the way we look at things or as David Bokovoy has suggested we need to change our paradigms. It is what kept me from going totally inactive at one point.

Ron, I understand that you see it a certain way, and you feel you have your reasons why you need to, and you have your reasons why you feel you do. Please understand that what you seem to be saying is, "It was necessary for me to believe a certain way, so it is necessary for you/ everyone else--because if not, you will lose faith and go inactive, as I would have had I held to that belief." I don't believe that is the case. Do you?

Do you believe that God is limited in doing his miracles because of what man limits him to, intelligence-wise? Even though mankind might know a lot, I think it's still somewhat meaningless in human talk to say that God must use natural laws to perform miracles.

Do you see that you have somewhat of a quandary here? You claim that the CoS says A, so it has to be A, and all must accept it as A; while on the other hand, the CoS says something else has to be B, but you don't accept that B, and you fight all claims to the contrary. Do you perhaps have a testimony you would like to share? You claimed that scientists believe in the resurrection. On what grounds? Scientific ones? If I send any researcher anywhere in the world an email, go to any science forum and post a questionnaire ask any sane scientist to give any form of scientific theory, evidence, etc., asking if the resurrection is possible, do you think I will get anything positive back? Do you think any of them have anything "scientific" regarding flying angels, U&T, revelation, or any of the thousands of miracles LDS believe in or have even experienced firsthand? In other words, you want to be the one to decide, based on what the CoS says, which miracles God can do, and which ones he can't do.

You say I wrote something condescending. I felt it was the opposite--your position, and your feeling it was condescending, were very pompous. As one of those sites said, notice that JC's first miracle was making wine out of water. What was the first miracle he did as God, before? The Creation? Could there be any meaning between the two? The bridegroom thought it was normal "scientifically-produced" wine, but JC knew otherwise--it was created wine. Why, everyone knows the process of making wine! Yet, God did in another way, and there wasn't much difference between the two, so to say.

Finally, let's say a man's fence is falling down. Everyone can see it. A woman stops and tells him he needs a new fence. He smiles and says thanks. A month later, the woman passes by and sees the fence is still there, falling down! She gets read in the face telling the man he must get a new fence... (Now, the story could stop there, and for some it does.)

, or all hell will break loose. "What do you mean?" She says, "When my fence fell, all my cows and sheep got out!" (The story stops here for some, too.)

The man smiles and says, "But ma'am, I don't have any sheep or cows." (The story stops there for some, too.)

And the story keeps going for others...

If you are so sure of it and must decree it, as seen here, please prove it with Brown, then get back and tell us. A simple request. Better yet, please get some anti-global flood scientists to debate him. I'm open to ascertaining the debate, best debate win. In fact, I'm sure many people would be open to it. Bring them here, or if they would prefer a non-religious setting, send them to www.convinceme.net , and get started!

P.S. Were you thinking about this thread?: http://www.mormonapologetics.org/index.php...ters+of+reality ) No, you weren't, but grego said that 2.5 months before David Bokovoy said his, on the same boards! (And yet, I doubt either of us meant to be complete in our descriptions.)

-=-=-=

What Honor does not seem to be taking into account is that these folks arguing for the Flood have had it confirmed to them through the Holy Spirit that it happened.

Ah, Sethbag. Answer a few for me first, eh? Here ya go: When you were a member and believed in a global flood, did you have an undeniable testimony of it?

This is the same Holy Spirit that confirms that the church is true to people. It is a foundation of their testimony. What little tidbit provided by the arm of flesh can possibly contradict that which the Lord has confirmed to them through his Spirit?

Of course, those who believe the Spirit has confirmed the truth of the LDS church to them, but don't believe in the Flood, have to explain to themselves why Grego and Rob didn't really get a testimony from the Spirit about the Flood. Somehow they did it wrong, or the misinterpreted their feelings, or whatever. But their own testimony from the Holy Spirit is 100% reliable. Yes Siree, 100% reliable. Because they're pretty sure they'd know if it weren't.

Did you have a testimony of *anything*? What happened?

[Sethbag]

Actually, when I was about 12 or 13 I certainly did have a strong testimony of the Flood. I had it because I had a strong testimony of the credibility of the people in the Church who taught that the Flood had been real. Later on (as in before I was out of high school), as I learned more about science and the evidence that exists in the Earth, I learned that these people were wrong. And yes, that did impact my testimony. It wasn't so iron-clad anymore. It was strong, and I was still a hard core believer when I went on my mission and after I got back, but I'd learned a valuable lesson that I didn't grow up with: that men could claim revelation from God, I could have faith in what they say, and then turn out to be wrong anyway.

Fast forward another 20something years and that chink in the armor of faith was just barely wide enough over time for me to be able to accept other things about the church and its leaders - ultimately, that they aren't credible, and that the church isn't really true.

[Doctor Steuss]

Sometimes the desire to believe something that is scientifically unsustainable is greater than facing the possibility of facing our fears of a less than inspired scripture base. Sometimes we simply have to change the way we look at things or as David Bokovoy has suggested we need to change our paradigms. It is what kept me from going totally inactive at one point.

Balderdash!

I have recently decided that the theory of gravity has holes (it is after all a theory). Because of this (and my resent reading of Hebrews 1:3), I have now devised Intelligent Pulling On Stuff as an alternative to be taught in schools.

Dr. Stu

PhD in Misanthropic Misology

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

Actually, when I was about 12 or 13 I certainly did have a strong testimony of the Flood. I had it because I had a strong testimony of the credibility of the people in the Church who taught that the Flood had been real.

To what extent was the flood real? That is the question. IT is something I am looking into.