Implications Of Noah's Flood Not Being Global

[HiJolly]

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.

Thanks for mocking me, Sethbag. I was feeling a bit too prideful there for a minute, but now I'm better. It should go without saying, but my view is nowhere near so .... so.... whatever.

HiJolly

[ryanelwood]

For those that do believe in the spirit and that the spirit answers prayers of what is true, can I suggest that if a hypothetical spirit does exist and answers prayers that it answers questions about spiritual matters and not historical or scientific ones. It is an insult to the human intelligence to accept something on the basis of spiritual "feeling" as opposed to overwhelming evidence. It takes only two minutes of logical reasoning to conclude there never was a global flood. If such an event occured the evidence would be overwhelming and science would know it, unfortunately 99.9999% of scientists somehow miss this evidence. Just ask yourself why this is the case. This issue is not even debatable in the scientific world, it simply did not happen. Of course, maybe grego's hero Brown might start some revolution in science, since grego ranks him above all real scientists, but don't bet on it. Grego himself is unwilling to answer any of the tuff questions.

[Rob Osborn]

I have always had a testimony for the flood. It is not a testimony of absolute knowledge of its reality but more of the same kind of testimony pieced together from all the evidence coupled with what our church leaders have said. This is the same type of testimony that helps me believe that Christ exista and that there will be a resurrection. It does require faith.

About 5 years ago me and my family went to the Grand Canyon on vacation. On the way down, we came across many unique rock formation abundant in southern Utah. I was reminded of the various passages in the scriptures about the flood and how the waters had receded off the land. The red rock in abundance towers many thousands of feet all over southern Utah. It really got me to thinking how such great formations really happened. What had caused their great deposits, and then what had caused their great erosions to leave such a magnificant sight? There really isn't any natural processes in the world today forming these same types of massive formations. It really must have been a catastrophic event that could deposit and then erode such formations. The flood in the bible is such an event that could and would do these types of formations.

When I got to the Grand canyon, I was completely awe struck- truly magnifacant. The thing that struck me as odd though was that there was just no way the colorado river had cut this massive gap in the ground over many millions of years. One of the many interesting features about river geology is that at the same time it erodes, it also deposits- just downstream. Rivers just do not continue to cut through thousands of feet of strata unless it is a flood type of event. The colorado river drop is not sufficient enough to create the cutting action needed to cut through thousands of layers of rocks over a great period of time. What the Grand Canyon in fact shows is that the sedimentary layers were deposited rather quickly forming a plastic mud that had not hardened. Over the coarse of the several next hundreds of years there were volcanoes, earthquakes, and most noticeably- large amounts of flood waters receding off the earth draining itself through the grand canyon area cutting the rocks out rather quickly before they had hardened all the way leaving the gash in the ground we now call the Grand Canyon.

I picked up a book at the bookstore at the rim called "Grand Canyon a different view", it contains opinions and facts compiled from over 20 different biologists, scientists, geologists, etc. about how the evidence points not in a uniformatarian model but one of a catastrophism model where it could of only formed and eroded rather quickly.

Geologic models presented in textbooks today do not and cannot put up a credible model for how the Grand Canyon formed and eroded in the time frame they recognize- millions and millions of years. The greatest problems that arise from their models is finding a similar event happening somewhere on the earth today. Because this is not happening, some geologists and other scientists have gone to more of a catastrophism model to explain past formations that are not currently being formed presently on the earth today. Another of the great problems of the Grand Canyon sedimentary rocks is the massive amount of eroded material that deposited itself in the Grand Canyon for it to of formed in the first place. There are just too many under the sea and then out of the sea events cycled over and over again all the while a mountain of gigantic proportinos is depositing new material in nice parallel levels over the coarse of thousnads of square miles. There is just not anything even remotley similar happening anywhere on the earth today of the magnitude we see in the Grand Canyon and four corners area geographically speaking.

I see my faith in supporting the global flood as a reality way over gradualism and uniformatarian models because the evidence just doesn't fit for the general scientific views. Creationism, ID and other catastrophic models are gaining more and more support now with more and more real scientific backing. People are starting to sway towards reality it appears!

[Rob Osborn]

ryan,

The majority of scientists do not find evidence for the flood because they are blind! They are like observers going out into the wilderness to find the forests, only they have already discounted trees as things not to look for- they cant see the darned forest because of the trees. Its completely ridiculous!

It doesn;t help that they are taught using outdated and nonobserved geologic models- train a monkey how to read and then get mad because it cant ride a bike- its no wonder!

Open yor eyes, the evidence for a global flood is so overwhelming and plain we just look past the mark. Every continent has this evidence in plain abundance. We use things everyday as a testimant of the flood in our everyday lives. Even the roads we drive on are materialsd created from the flood. Open your eyes- it is truly amazing when one puts down the unfocused binoculors and sees the earth for what it truly is!

[The Dude]

About 5 years ago me and my family went to the Grand Canyon on vacation. On the way down, we came across many unique rock formation abundant in southern Utah. I was reminded of the various passages in the scriptures about the flood and how the waters had receded off the land. The red rock in abundance towers many thousands of feet all over southern Utah. It really got me to thinking how such great formations really happened. What had caused their great deposits, and then what had caused their great erosions to leave such a magnificant sight? There really isn't any natural processes in the world today forming these same types of massive formations. It really must have been a catastrophic event that could deposit and then erode such formations. The flood in the bible is such an event that could and would do these types of formations.

Silly Rob. The formations are so fantastic they must have always existed. Nothing made them. It's just like your theory on DNA.

The majority of scientists do not find evidence for the flood because they are blind!

You are

[Sethbag]

Thanks for mocking me, Sethbag. I was feeling a bit too prideful there for a minute, but now I'm better. It should go without saying, but my view is nowhere near so .... so.... whatever.

HiJolly

Actually I wasn't thinking of you specifically at all. My position with respect tot he "testimony of the Holy Ghost" is longstanding and I've voiced it many times. It's a recipe for self-deception.

Not only is there a problem with billions of other people in the world being wrongly convinced that their religious beliefs are true, some of whom even claim that very same witness from the Holy Ghost, but we've got enormous differences even between different LDS, all of who claim the witness of the Holy Ghost, but can't agree on what it is, exactly, that's really true. And yet, in all of this, people are so sure that their witness is reliable, and they are so sure that if it weren't reliable, they'd know.

[Sethbag]

Rob, why doesn't the whole Earth look like the Grand Canyon? If a global, worldwide flood occurred, and the catastrophic processes involved created the Grand Canyon, then how come there's only one Grand Canyon? Why did the rest of the Earth not suffer such dramatic, catastrophic deposition and erosion? If the Flood really happened, and explains the Grand Canyon, it must be nothing short of a miracle that the rest of the world was spared such dramatic forces.

[ryanelwood]

I have always had a testimony for the flood. It is not a testimony of absolute knowledge of its reality but more of the same kind of testimony pieced together from all the evidence coupled with what our church leaders have said. This is the same type of testimony that helps me believe that Christ exista and that there will be a resurrection. It does require faith.

About 5 years ago me and my family went to the Grand Canyon on vacation. On the way down, we came across many unique rock formation abundant in southern Utah. I was reminded of the various passages in the scriptures about the flood and how the waters had receded off the land. The red rock in abundance towers many thousands of feet all over southern Utah. It really got me to thinking how such great formations really happened. What had caused their great deposits, and then what had caused their great erosions to leave such a magnificant sight? There really isn't any natural processes in the world today forming these same types of massive formations. It really must have been a catastrophic event that could deposit and then erode such formations. The flood in the bible is such an event that could and would do these types of formations.

When I got to the Grand canyon, I was completely awe struck- truly magnifacant. The thing that struck me as odd though was that there was just no way the colorado river had cut this massive gap in the ground over many millions of years. One of the many interesting features about river geology is that at the same time it erodes, it also deposits- just downstream. Rivers just do not continue to cut through thousands of feet of strata unless it is a flood type of event. The colorado river drop is not sufficient enough to create the cutting action needed to cut through thousands of layers of rocks over a great period of time. What the Grand Canyon in fact shows is that the sedimentary layers were deposited rather quickly forming a plastic mud that had not hardened. Over the coarse of the several next hundreds of years there were volcanoes, earthquakes, and most noticeably- large amounts of flood waters receding off the earth draining itself through the grand canyon area cutting the rocks out rather quickly before they had hardened all the way leaving the gash in the ground we now call the Grand Canyon.

I picked up a book at the bookstore at the rim called "Grand Canyon a different view", it contains opinions and facts compiled from over 20 different biologists, scientists, geologists, etc. about how the evidence points not in a uniformatarian model but one of a catastrophism model where it could of only formed and eroded rather quickly.

Geologic models presented in textbooks today do not and cannot put up a credible model for how the Grand Canyon formed and eroded in the time frame they recognize- millions and millions of years. The greatest problems that arise from their models is finding a similar event happening somewhere on the earth today. Because this is not happening, some geologists and other scientists have gone to more of a catastrophism model to explain past formations that are not currently being formed presently on the earth today. Another of the great problems of the Grand Canyon sedimentary rocks is the massive amount of eroded material that deposited itself in the Grand Canyon for it to of formed in the first place. There are just too many under the sea and then out of the sea events cycled over and over again all the while a mountain of gigantic proportinos is depositing new material in nice parallel levels over the coarse of thousnads of square miles. There is just

I see my faith in supporting the global flood as a reality way over gradualism and uniformatarian models because the evidence just doesn't fit for the general scientific views. Creationism, ID and other catastrophic models are gaining more and more support now with more and more real scientific backing. People are starting to sway towards reality it appears!

Yes, in the past ten years scientists have come to believe that perhaps the Grand Canyon formed faster by more water than they once thought. It has a lot to do with the type of soil also. It seems that the majority still believe it took billions of years for the Colorado to cut through the weak soil and form it. Other factors such as continental drift and volcano's played a part. But all scientists still think it formed a lot longer ago than 5,000 years. None, I repeat none, there is no respected geologist out there that thinks it happened because of the global flood. Just look at the books contained at the Grand Canyon's visitor centers written by Geologists.

College textbooks undergo an enormous amount of scrutiny by other scientists to ensure they tell an accurate story. If their models are not credible, don't you think the scientists in the field would discover that before non-scientists sitting out in left field with few in number whom we call creationists?

I don't know who has told you that Creationism or Intelligent Design is gaining support and real scientific backing, but that is far from the truth. If you doubt me, go to any University's science department in your area and ask them. Creationists and ID are still categorized as being similar to the Flat Earth Society. All I can say is ask the real scientists. If the Creationists and ID are gaining support, someone should alert the scientists in the field of thaf fact, they seem totally unaware of it. Please 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?

6. How did they breath being that they were above Mt. Everest?

7. How did all the animals become dispersed around the world? Did Kangaroos swim to Australia? Remember the continents separated 200,000,000 years ago.

[ryanelwood]

ryan,

The majority of scientists do not find evidence for the flood because they are blind! They are like observers going out into the wilderness to find the forests, only they have already discounted trees as things not to look for- they cant see the darned forest because of the trees. Its completely ridiculous!

It doesn;t help that they are taught using outdated and nonobserved geologic models- train a monkey how to read and then get mad because it cant ride a bike- its no wonder!

Open yor eyes, the evidence for a global flood is so overwhelming and plain we just look past the mark. Every continent has this evidence in plain abundance. We use things everyday as a testimant of the flood in our everyday lives. Even the roads we drive on are materialsd created from the flood. Open your eyes- it is truly amazing when one puts down the unfocused binoculors and sees the earth for what it truly is!

So the thousands of WORLDWIDE scientists out there are all blind? If they are using outdated models, maybe you should let them know, it is amazing that all these thousands of scientists have not discovered that themselves. You could start a revolution being the one that discovered it, wow, you could even get rich discovering how all these scientists, with all these degrees, at many Universities across the globe are wrong using out of date models!

Please I beg, open your eyes to reality and think about what you are saying, it is absurd!

[HiJolly]

Not only is there a problem with billions of other people in the world being wrongly convinced that their religious beliefs are true, some of whom even claim that very same witness from the Holy Ghost, but we've got enormous differences even between different LDS, all of who claim the witness of the Holy Ghost, but can't agree on what it is, exactly, that's really true. And yet, in all of this, people are so sure that their witness is reliable, and they are so sure that if it weren't reliable, they'd know.

I don't think its a problem at all. You're seeing the 'inspiration' and 'revelation' glass as half-empty (or completely empty, but that'd ruin my metaphor); I'm seeing the glass half-full.

The open-minded see the truth in different things: the narrow-minded

see only the differences.

-- Author Unknown

HiJolly

[Sethbag]

HiJolly, I cannot discount as impossible that a God who actually exists would choose an utterly unreliable method for communicating, and verifying truth with human beings on earth. It's possible in the sense that as God, he could do it if he wanted to. It just doesn't make much sense to me why he'd do so. Absent any good reason to believe that God would choose completely unreliable means for such communication, I assume that he did not do so.

There is essentially no way, in my my opinion, that anyone on Earth can stand up and claim that they have been told something through the Holy Ghost, and have rational justification to be absolutely sure that their interpretation of whatever they experienced is in fact true. There are just way too many counter-examples.

Imagine you were a networking equipment manufacturer. You design hardware that enables communication between computers. There's only one hitch. 90% of the bits that travel across the wires from your equipment are verifiably wrong. And 99% of the remaining 10% are wrong, but aren't verifiably wrong. That is, there's no way in software to identify the false bits from the intended true message.

Is anyone going to use your equipment? I'd dare say not. And why not? Because it's not trustworthy. It cannot be counted on to transmit accurate information. One might try to use it and actually receive what they think is a valid message, and yet have no basis to believe that it really is a valid message other than, maybe, faith.

This is how I see prayer, the Holy Ghost, and so forth. As means of communication between a hypothetical God and humankind, they are pathetic. They are so subject to misunderstanding, misinterpretation, and misplaced confidence as to be, essentially, useless.

You cannot articulate to me why Rob Osborn and Grego have a testimony of the Flood and you don't. Or why Brigham Young, or Mark E. Peterson, or Spencer W. Kimball, or Joseph Fielding Smith, all supposedly set up by God specifically as oracles on Earth, and all supposedly righteous and worthy of the companionship of the Holy Ghost, could be so fundementally wrong on so many things. Were they just not doing it right? Can you honestly say to yourself, with confidence, that you can know that your spiritual witness is 100% reliable when Spencer W. Kimball's was not? What do you know that Joseph Fielding Smith didn't know, about how to reliably tell when your spiritual knowledge and witness was really coming from the Holy Ghost, and when you were just making it up?

[HiJolly]

You cannot articulate to me why Rob Osborn and Grego have a testimony of the Flood and you don't. Or why Brigham Young, or Mark E. Peterson, or Spencer W. Kimball, or Joseph Fielding Smith, all supposedly set up by God specifically as oracles on Earth, and all supposedly righteous and worthy of the companionship of the Holy Ghost, could be so fundementally wrong on so many things. Were they just not doing it right? Can you honestly say to yourself, with confidence, that you can know that your spiritual witness is 100% reliable when Spencer W. Kimball's was not? What do you know that Joseph Fielding Smith didn't know, about how to reliably tell when your spiritual knowledge and witness was really coming from the Holy Ghost, and when you were just making it up?

You characterize revelation as unreliable. I agree that it does seem to be so, and that you do make a good case in your arguements.

Unlike you, I cannot speak for other people, nor explain their experiences. I can, though, speak for my own experience. Which doesn't do you a bit of good, I know. Nevertheless, there is another side to all this. God's revelations to me have never disappointed. And so, I believe. And I try not to say I know something that God has not revealed, which I think is 99% of the problem as you perceive it.

Then again, I will say something is 'true' when my life's experience (evidence, if you will) speaks to that. Like, for example, "the Church is true". I've never had a direct revelation that the Church is 'true'. Yup, in the church since the 1960's, and never had God tell me Himself the church is true. Never had God tell me the Book of Mormon is true, either. Not once. Oh, I've had lots of 'warm fuzzies' and peaceful feelings, but no direct, unequivocal "It's all true!" from the Man.

But get the evidence: ONE: I felt the baptism of fire after being told "receive the Holy Ghost", in church, with Melchizedek priesthood men's hands on my head. I know it. I lived it. There's no mistaking it. It was a life-changing moment. TWO: I felt the love of God saturate me with its deepness, its completeness, its perfect power. Nothing like it, ever. I was sitting on the stand in Church. Before this, I NEVER KNEW what love was. Now, I do. THREE: A thrill of piercing, heart-pounding, ineffible joy. Sharper and swifter than a two-edged sword. More that I cannot speak here. I was sitting in the temple, contemplating the glory of God's love.

I have had other things, like pure intelligence telling me that my brother-in-laws sister was pregnant. I think I knew it before she did. I *knew* it, in a flash. I can't explain it, I had no reason to know it, etc. etc. etc. I wasn't in Church for that one, but in my brother-in-law's house. "Revelation" comes many different ways. It is not a single dimensional exprience, as you seem to describe it. If we are humble, I don't think we will be troubled and/or harmed by it. But that's only *my* experience.

but notice the setting for the three experiences I've described. If the Church isn't true, then its quite a coincidence that such things happen to me when I'm doing 'churchy' things.

I hope that even if you can't believe my experiences, at least you see I am convinced of them. I'm not trying to boast or lord it over anyone. I can't prove any of it. But you bet your sweet bippy it is first-person experience, and evidence doesn't get any better than that. So, I'm in. Flood or no flood, evolution or not, I know what I've experienced. Make sense of it? I think I'm close. But that's my business.

So doubt as you will. You have the right, and I can't change you, nor do I want you to. Until you can find it within yourself, anyway, to change. We'll have to meet up after we both die, and discuss things. Ok with you? You lose nothing by the agreement, no? Peace to you!

HiJolly

[maupayman]

You characterize revelation as unreliable. I agree that it does seem to be so, and that you do make a good case in your arguements.

Unlike you, I cannot speak for other people, nor explain their experiences. I can, though, speak for my own experience. Which doesn't do you a bit of good, I know. Nevertheless, there is another side to all this. God's revelations to me have never disappointed. And so, I believe. And I try not to say I know something that God has not revealed, which I think is 99% of the problem as you perceive it.

Then again, I will say something is 'true' when my life's experience (evidence, if you will) speaks to that. Like, for example, "the Church is true". I've never had a direct revelation that the Church is 'true'. Yup, in the church since the 1960's, and never had God tell me Himself the church is true. Never had God tell me the Book of Mormon is true, either. Not once. Oh, I've had lots of 'warm fuzzies' and peaceful feelings, but no direct, unequivocal "It's all true!" from the Man.

But get the evidence: ONE: I felt the baptism of fire after being told "receive the Holy Ghost", in church, with Melchizedek priesthood men's hands on my head. I know it. I lived it. There's no mistaking it. It was a life-changing moment. TWO: I felt the love of God saturate me with its deepness, its completeness, its perfect power. Nothing like it, ever. I was sitting on the stand in Church. Before this, I NEVER KNEW what love was. Now, I do. THREE: A thrill of piercing, heart-pounding, ineffible joy. Sharper and swifter than a two-edged sword. More that I cannot speak here. I was sitting in the temple, contemplating the glory of God's love.

I have had other things, like pure intelligence telling me that my brother-in-laws sister was pregnant. I think I knew it before she did. I *knew* it, in a flash. I can't explain it, I had no reason to know it, etc. etc. etc. I wasn't in Church for that one, but in my brother-in-law's house. "Revelation" comes many different ways. It is not a single dimensional exprience, as you seem to describe it. If we are humble, I don't think we will be troubled and/or harmed by it. But that's only *my* experience.

but notice the setting for the three experiences I've described. If the Church isn't true, then its quite a coincidence that such things happen to me when I'm doing 'churchy' things.

I hope that even if you can't believe my experiences, at least you see I am convinced of them. I'm not trying to boast or lord it over anyone. I can't prove any of it. But you bet your sweet bippy it is first-person experience, and evidence doesn't get any better than that. So, I'm in. Flood or no flood, evolution or not, I know what I've experienced. Make sense of it? I think I'm close. But that's my business.

So doubt as you will. You have the right, and I can't change you, nor do I want you to. Until you can find it within yourself, anyway, to change. We'll have to meet up after we both die, and discuss things. Ok with you? You lose nothing by the agreement, no? Peace to you!

HiJolly

Hey Jolly, I have really enjoyed your contributions to this thread. They are so refreshing for someone who was raised in the church, but does not buy into grego's view of the world. I have spent a lot of time contemplating the things you discussed in this post and I want to share some of my thought. I hope you will not take offense at my statements, as I am only trying to gain additional insight from someone I see as viewing the world in a similar fashion as myself.

I have discussed historical church problems with almost every church leader I can find; my old mission president, my area authority seventy, and many others. It always seems to come down to experiences like those you have related in your post. Here is my problem with using these types of experiences as proof of the church being true:

For me it is a question of causation. Because an experience occured to me while I was doing something "churchy", or I was healed by a mormon priesthood holder etc. the church must be true; this seems to be the line of reasoning (hopefully I am not misunderstanding your post). Ok, I will start with the healings. If someone is miraculously healed by a witchdoctor does that mean that the witchdoctor has access to God's power? Moreso, does this mean the witchdoctor's religion is the one true religion on earth? I will assume most will answer no to both these questions. How about other charismatic christian religions who also have healing practices. The Community of Christ also has people who heal through their priesthood, I am sure I could go on and on. In an art therapy course i took we talked about people being stuck in the wilderness and having to cut off a leg or arm etc. There are numerous cases where people have had such experiences and survived for days even though doctors said they should have died in the wilderness from bloodloss. When asked, these people said they told themselves they were superman or that they were indestructable etc. This is how their mind was able to stop the loss of blood in a miraculous manner. It seems to me that healings and similar experiences are very common throughout the world. They seem to me to be dependant on something internal about the person, as opposed to a special power possesed by a healer. Even in the LDS church many people that are given blessings die or have no effect. It seems to me that for some the idea of God's healing power causes a similar internal respone as that of the guy who convinced himself he was superman. Mind over matter. Any thoughts?

The other example is temple experiences. Many people of other faiths have remarkable spiritual experiences when they enter and worship in a place they deem holy. Monks in their temples, Muslims at Mecca etc. Again, if a mormon has a spiritual experience in the temple is it not more likely because they are pondering life, meditating about god and life or a problem in their life. These types of experiences are not unique to mormonism, so I don't understand how they verify that the church is true anymore than other religions.

It seems to me that proof of the church being true should be based on Joseph Smith and the Book of Mormon. If these are true the church is, if they are fraudulent then the church is a fraud. I hope I have not offended you but I am interested in others perspectives and you happened to bring it up.

[grego]

My position with respect tot he "testimony of the Holy Ghost" is longstanding and I've voiced it many times. It's a recipe for self-deception.

What isn't, in the wrong frame/ with misunderstanding?

It's not whether the Spirit works, but whether we understand and see it right.

"The car doesn't work. It's a piece of junk. I can't believe I paid $20,000 for it!!"

"Where's the key?"

What's a key?

You have to put the key in, and turn it.

Ohhhhh...

Piece of junk.

Did you turn it on?

Yeah, and it just sat there.

Did you put it in drive?

Huh?

You have to move the stick.

Ohhhh...

I moved the stick, but it just sat there.

Did you move it on the "D"?

Ohhhh...

Wait, you have to know when to brake.

Brake?

Yeah, you push on the pedal to stop the car. And I suggest you put on a seatbelt.

How do you know when to brake?

Ohhh...

Well, it's like this... ... ... But you really need practice to get the hang of it.

But if this were really a good car, it wouldn't take practice, it would do it all by itself.

If you learn to drive well, it most always works out quite well.

Johnny learns a little. Now, it's raining. He doesn't put his seatbelt on, as he feels he is a good driver, and ends up smashing his face on the window when he misapplies pressure to the brakes on a turn.

Piece of crap unreliable good-for-nothing rip-off car!!!!!

Is the owner manual still sitting in the glove compartment? Is it read often to "keep up"? Does Johnny practice under different circumstances? Etc.

Nope, not meant to be mocking. Just meant to say, why should we expect spiritual things to be so much easier? If so, under what circumstances? And what parts do faith, desire, obedience, etc. play?

[Ron Beron]

'grego' writes,

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?

No, not at all. My wife believes similarly to you, and I get along with her very well despite what I see is a lack in certain cognitive features. Aside from that I admire her ability to have faith in something I feel is very unsound as doctrine.

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.

No. I would place the limits on what is natural. We may differ on what is natura or not, but generally I would place the bar of what is natural, supernature or supernatural a bit higher.

Do you see that you have somewhat of a quandary here?

I know very well that my belief and faith is somewhat divided and it has given me hours of frustration and even grief at times.

Do you perhaps have a testimony you would like to share?

Everyday and in everyway.

You claimed that scientists believe in the resurrection. On what grounds? Scientific ones?

There are several scientists who do accept the resurrection on scientific grounds as do I.

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?

Perhaps. Why not try it here?

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.

I don't think that was me that said that. Have a link?

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!

Are you sure this is directed to me?

P.S. Were you thinking about this thread?: http://www.mormonapologetics.org/index.php...ters+of+reality )

Yep, that is the one.

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

This wasn't directed towards me, but sure! I have one. Let's start with the important stuff.

Jesus as saviour...absolutely

the LDS faith...yes

the four basic scriptures...yes..within reason.

Do I have a temple recommend...yes.

Do I believe in a universal flood...no...a local or regional one...yes..

Noah? Yes, but by a different name and perhaps a different vocation.

How's yours?

[Ron Beron]

ryan,

The majority of scientists do not find evidence for the flood because they are blind! They are like observers going out into the wilderness to find the forests, only they have already discounted trees as things not to look for- they cant see the darned forest because of the trees. Its completely ridiculous!

Oh...stop! This is completely ridiculous. When excavating Ur, Leonard Wooley's wife commented upon seeing a silt layer that it was evidence of the "flood". The papers picked it up and the word went out that the flood was proved. Nonsense. All it proved was that there was a localized flood since the silt layer did not extend beyond the confines of the city. Scientists from the beginning to Robert Ballard have sought out evidence of the flood. Nothing, zilch, nada!

[grego]

No, not at all. My wife believes similarly to you, and I get along with her very well despite what I see is a lack in certain cognitive features. Aside from that I admire her ability to have faith in something I feel is very unsound as doctrine.

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

Well, at least for the CoS.

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

(You might want to call it "belief", not "faith".)

-=-=-=

No. I would place the limits on what is natural. We may differ on what is natura or not, but generally I would place the bar of what is natural, supernature or supernatural a bit higher.

-=-=-=

Everyday and in everyway.

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

-=-=-=

There are several scientists who do accept the resurrection on scientific grounds as do I.

CFR. (No, one or two books, especially by a whacko creation scientist with a bought degree, *won't* do. I want it minimally from a old earth/ big bang/ no global flood/ "faithless" one.)

-=-=-=

Perhaps. Why not try it here?

I await your glad tidings.

-=-=-=

I don't think that was me that said that. Have a link?

Same thread, actually. My suggestion: search "condescend", not "whole word" on pages 3 and 4.

-=-=-=

Are you sure this is directed to me?

Absolutely.

Are you sure you're up to it?

-=-=-=

Yep, that is the one.

Wrong.

Here's the one you were thinking about:

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

[Rob Osborn]

There is evidence everywhere the flood happened. Every major mountain chain is evidence. There is so much evidence perhaps there is too much evidence!

Yep it definatly happened, sure enough! Everywhere I travel I see sedimentary deposits hundreds and thousands of feet thick- laid down in a flood- a gigantic flood- one just like the bible says. This vaidifys to me that the bible is correct, WOW!

Ever drive up through death valley and up to Vegas? That is some knarly twisted sedimentary and volcanic rocks there. It is like you can see how the flood caused that almost as if it were yesterday. WOW!

The evidence is pretty cool if you open your eyes.

[grego]

IIRC, Rob asked a question no one has answered yet:

If the layers were laid down over millions and millions of years, how come they didn't crack when they moved/ overlaid?

Also, how does a single tree make it through millions of years of layers?

[ryanelwood]

There is evidence everywhere the flood happened. Every major mountain chain is evidence. There is so much evidence perhaps there is too much evidence!

Yep it definatly happened, sure enough! Everywhere I travel I see sedimentary deposits hundreds and thousands of feet thick- laid down in a flood- a gigantic flood- one just like the bible says. This vaidifys to me that the bible is correct, WOW!

Ever drive up through death valley and up to Vegas? That is some knarly twisted sedimentary and volcanic rocks there. It is like you can see how the flood caused that almost as if it were yesterday. WOW!

The evidence is pretty cool if you open your eyes.

I am still awaiting you to answer my questions posed above. I understand you can't, but I would like to see you try anyway. There are deposits all over the world yes, about 200,000,000 years ago an enormous portion of North America was covered by water. As Plate Tectonics did its thing, it pressed the mountain ranges upward that receded the water. Behind was left Lake Bonneville that covered a huge portion of Utah in which the Great Salt Lake is a remnant. This is long before 5,000 years ago. Oh, one other question since you believe your modern prophets believe in the flood. Why doesn't BYU, of all places, teach a universal flood in Geology class. Geologists there find the global flood as laughable as much as every other geologist at every University across the world. Its amazing you see all this evidence that the thousands of scientists across the world don't see. Maybe you, grego, and the legendary Brown can get together and start a revolution in science, just think about how famous you three will be by proving all this evidence you think exists to all these scientists!

[Tchild2]

IIRC, Rob asked a question no one has answered yet:

If the layers were laid down over millions and millions of years, how come they didn't crack when they moved/ overlaid?

Also, how does a single tree make it through millions of years of layers?

Have you ever even cracked a geology book? You two are just embarrassing yourselves now - actually it has been going on for a while, now it is just getting worse.

[grego]

No, I never crack books, why would you ask?

So what do they say, o great book-cracker?

[ryanelwood]

Have you ever even cracked a geology book? You two are just embarrassing yourselves now - actually it has been going on for a while, now it is just getting worse.

The funny and absolutely incredible part is that neither Rob or grego know they are embarrassing themselves. It is amazing, two obscure people think they can take on the entire scientific world. Oh wait,it isn't just two people, there is also grego's hero Brown. This is battle that has been lost, but you can't convince them of that anymore than a Flat Earth Society member can be convinced or a Holocaust denier. The wacko's in left field just don't get it.

[Tchild2]

No, I never crack books, why would you ask?

So what do they say, o great book-cracker?

I didn't mean it the sense of ripping them. That would require some muscle. I have never doubted that you posessed any real muscle to be able to rip much of anything, I just didn't know that it extended into the mental arena too.

OK - -I am just having some fun with you Grego.

If you are so adamant about this Grego, maybe you can talk FARMS into doing a research paper on the global flood since it really did happen, the evidence exists and it is part of LDS religious belief? Looks like someone has a worthy homework project.

[cksalmon]

The funny and absolutely incredible part is that neither Rob or grego know they are embarrassing themselves. It is amazing, two obscure people think they can take on the entire scientific world. Oh wait,it isn't just two people, there is also grego's hero Brown. This is battle that has been lost, but you can't convince them of that anymore than a Flat Earth Society member can be convinced or a Holocaust denier. The wacko's in left field just don't get it.

I think they might be quite well aware that they're "embarrassing themselves" in front of consensus-driven, canon-denying individuals.

Flat-earth society members? Holocaust deniers? Wackos?

Maybe, in attempting to be faithful to their scriptures, they're simply less-than-impressed with your caricatured associations.

Even as a believer in a local flood, I know I am.