How literally do you take the creation story?

[semlogo]

It doesn't?

You obviously haven't even watched hughes film, rather you HIDE your head in the sand (excuse the pun) and commit the ad hominem fallacy of attacking the sources.

Hughes film includes a portion of REAL Scientific film that was presented at the 14th International congress of Sedementology - In that film REAL Scientific experiments performed by REAL Geologist on a large scale have proven that fast moving floods can AND do produce sedimentary rock formations. So strata has nothing to do with age.

That you prefer to hide your head in the sand is niether here nor there.

It doesn't matter the speed of the water - it would still be a single sedimentary layer caused by a global flood, with all animals together in the same layer, including dinosaurs. Such a layer doesn't exist, ergo it's irrelevant to your claims.

[semlogo]

All we have?

We understand a lot more than that. If you honestly think that Jesus and the orthodox jews didn't think that it wasn't to be taken literally, then please show your evidence!

I don't know what Jesus thought of it - neither do you. But I do know it never happened literally.

[zelder]

zelder:

I ain't never seen me a literal talking snake.

There is no argument on this issue. And I really don't have an argument with you. I can disagree with you about evolution and thats fine but we both agree that Adam and Eve were our first parents. Its ok to have differing opinions about how Adam was made but its not ok to say that Adam is a myth, a symbol. Everyon knows serpent/dragons are symbols for Lucifer. Adam and Eve are are symbols of us just like Moses was a symbol of of Christ. But Moses was a real person and Adam was a real person. If people think Genesis is a myth then they are also effectively saying that muich of what we are taught is a lie. If the Adam and Eve story is a lie then perhaps all of it is a lie. I see it as a very slipperly slope.

[Ceeboo]

Actually, yes they have.

You must be talking about the "snapht". The fossil they found that shows the bottom half to be a snail and the top half to be an elephant. (I here they are guessing this transitional creature had severe back pain)

Peace,

Ceeboo

[thesometimesaint]

http://www.collegehumor.com/picture:1747460

[zelder]

You must be talking about the "snapht". The fossil they found that shows the bottom half to be a snail and the top half to be an elephant. (I here they are guessing this transitional creature had severe back pain)

Peace,

Ceeboo

Love it !!!!

[Zakuska]

It doesn't matter the speed of the water - it would still be a single sedimentary layer caused by a global flood, with all animals together in the same layer, including dinosaurs. Such a layer doesn't exist, ergo it's irrelevant to your claims.

First, Who ever said Dinosaurs lived at the time of Noah? Certianly not the Bible.

Second, it wouldn't be a SINGLE layer. They have proved that fast moving water can lay a variety of Layers all deposited at the same time. (eg Mt. St. Helens) If you had watched Hughes film you would have known all this! So please go watch it before you make an even bigger fool of yourself. Then after you watch it, maybe then we can have an Inteligent conversation about it.

This has some far reaching implications. Lets read again what the Geologists are saying.

The longstanding understanding of how some mudstones form has been challenged by geologists at Indiana University (Bloomington) and the Massachusetts Institute of Technology. The research, which appears in the December 14th, 2007, edition of Science, counters the prevailing view of geologists that mud only settles when water is slow-moving or still, instead showing that "muds will accumulate even when currents move swiftly." The research shows that some mudstones may have formed in fast-moving waters: "Mudstones can be deposited under more energetic conditions than widely assumed, requiring a reappraisal of many geologic records."[7]

Macquaker and Bohacs, in reviewing the research of Schieber et al., state that "these results call for critical reappraisal of all mudstones previously interpreted as having been continuously deposited under still waters. Such rocks are widely used to infer past climates, ocean conditions, and orbital variations."[8]

We have to reasses the entire geological record! Our assumptions have been proven wrong and this will effect a variatey of different fields. It will play into how palentologist date plant and animal remains because age can no longer be assumed based on strata. This shakes the foundation of many fields of study!

[urroner]

If people think Genesis is a myth then they are also effectively saying that muich of what we are taught is a lie. If the Adam and Eve story is a lie then perhaps all of it is a lie. I see it as a very slipperly slope.

A myth is not a lie.

The first definition of myth:

a traditional or legendary story, usually concerning some being or hero or event, with or without a determinable basis of fact or a natural explanation, esp. one that is concerned with deities or demigods and explains some practice, rite, or phenomenon of nature.

A myth can be totally based upon a real happening. Did you realize the story of the birth of the Savior is a myth and it's true in my book.

[LeSellers]

Next time someone you love needs open heart surgery. Have the nearest teenager who's had a Jr. High School course in biology operate on them.

I would much rather have the option to have a surgeon trained by other than modern universities.

Do you know the history of the AMA?

Lehi

[Ceeboo]

Who ever said Dinosaurs lived at the time of Noah? Certianly not the Bible.

Hey Zak,

Although I am agnostic concering the age of the earth (I truly believe that both camps provide very interesting considertaions), I would not state, as fact, that the Bible does not speak about dinosaurs. I am NOT saying this is my opinion (but I do find it, at least, interesting) but the bible makes several references of the word "dragon" (See Job especially) and the word "dinosaur" was not invented until much much later.

Not arguing, just thought I would share.

BTW: for waht it worth, I agree with your thoughts concerning the need to reasses the geologic record as to how much weight should be placed in it.

Peace,

Ceeboo

[Zakuska]

Hey Zak,

Although I am agnostic concering the age of the earth (I truly believe that both camps provide very interesting considertaions), I would not state, as fact, that the Bible does not speak about dinosaurs. I am NOT saying this is my opinion (but I do find it, at least, interesting) but the bible makes several references of the word "dragon" (See Job especially) and the word "dinosaur" was not invented until much much later.

Not arguing, just thought I would share.

BTW: for waht it worth, I agree with your thoughts concerning the need to reasses the geologic record as to how much weight should be placed in it.

Peace,

Ceeboo

yes Im aware of that. Theres also the Laviathan and the Saytr as well.

[Ceeboo]

yes Im aware of that. Theres also the Laviathan and the Saytr as well.

Indeed!

Peace,

Ceeboo

[Hughes]

Which one? There are two creation stories in Genesis, and they can't both be true.

Sorry not true.

[Macabus]

zelder, Rob, etc:

Have you gotten around to reading the articles I linked to back on page 9 of this thread?

They do a wonderful job of placing, documented and in context, they key elements we're discussing. For one actually interested in understanding the different point of view, this is a great place to start:

The first discusses evolution in terms of LDS theology:

Crawling Out of the Primordial Soup: A Step toward the Emergence of an LDS Theology Compatible with Organic Evolution

The second discusses the distinct approaches of "Creationism" and "Intelligent Design" mainly in terms of how they are approached by scientists, and how the two concepts are actually quite distinct and incompatible:

Creationism and Intelligent Design: Scientific and Theological Difficulties

Please let me know if you intend to read them, and then let us know when you do.

It's true-the book is excellent and the paper is required reading in order to properly discuss the topic.

[Hughes]

It doesn't matter the speed of the water - it would still be a single sedimentary layer caused by a global flood, with all animals together in the same layer, including dinosaurs. Such a layer doesn't exist, ergo it's irrelevant to your claims.

Based on what evidence? What's your credible source?

If you watched the film you could see how layers appear to be laid down one after another by the same flow of water.

[thesometimesaint]

Hughes:

Sorry it is true.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genesis_creation_narrative

[thesometimesaint]

Hughes:

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-noahs-ark.html

Ps.

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/hovind/howgood-gc.html

PPs.

http://www.noanswersingenesis.org.au/snelling_flood_geology.htm

[zelder]

I would much rather have the option to have a surgeon trained by other than modern universities.

Do you know the history of the AMA?

Lehi

I don't know much but I've read a little about Morris Fishbein. What a dirty crook! I'm guessing that we could have totally eradicated disease long ago if it wasn't for the lust for profits and the crooked desire to control population growth.

[David T]

There is no argument on this issue. And I really don't have an argument with you. I can disagree with you about evolution and thats fine but we both agree that Adam and Eve were our first parents. Its ok to have differing opinions about how Adam was made but its not ok to say that Adam is a myth, a symbol. Everyon knows serpent/dragons are symbols for Lucifer. Adam and Eve are are symbols of us just like Moses was a symbol of of Christ. But Moses was a real person and Adam was a real person.

So, the snake is a symbol, and not literal. - "Everyone knows that."

Eve from Adam's rib is a symbol, and not literal - President Kimball taught that.

Adam was not literally formed from the dust like an adobe - Brigham Young taught that, and called the verse in Genesis saying so a 'baby story'.

How many more elements would you allow to be symbolic and not literal? The fruit of the trees, perhaps?

If people think Genesis is a myth then they are also effectively saying that muich of what we are taught is a lie. If the Adam and Eve story is a lie then perhaps all of it is a lie. I see it as a very slipperly slope.

Jesus Christ, when presenting a parable, did not always say, "This is a parable, this didn't really happen." If the stories, such as the Good Samaritan, turned out not to be based on historical events or people, would that make Jesus a liar for telling the story to teach true and eternal principles?

[shalamabobbi]

Here is a post for those who still believe that the continents separated over a short period of time.

post #227

When God flooded the earth it was one continent. The earth was completely destroyed. All of the high places were destroyed- everything was leveled and under water. This all took place before the great mountain chains were upthrust that we see today. The flood waters were abated from the earth because God caused there to be both canyons form (underwater canyons) and mountains to uplift- land to rise while other parts fell. As a result of that the continents were born- the land became divided.

Take a look at the following reference..

http://www.classzone.com/books/earth_science/terc/content/investigations/es0810/es0810page01.cfm

especially pages 2 and 5.

You'll note that the plates did not move over the hot spot that created these island chains suddenly.

The radiometric dates for the islands correspond with greater physical erosion of the older islands as well.

This is something that even the natives of the islands realized and captured in their folklore and legends.

[zelder]

Has anyone seen "The Discovery of Noah's Ark" written and narrated by G Edward Griffin? Its fascinating! I think you can find it on youtube if your interested.

[semlogo]

You must be talking about the "snapht". The fossil they found that shows the bottom half to be a snail and the top half to be an elephant. (I here they are guessing this transitional creature had severe back pain)

Peace,

Ceeboo

Actually, all animals are transitional forms. But I'd love to see that snapht.

[thesometimesaint]

Lehi:

Then go ahead and get that teenager and have him operate on YOU. I'm sure you'll be thrilled with the results.

[semlogo]

First, Who ever said Dinosaurs lived at the time of Noah? Certianly not the Bible.

Second, it wouldn't be a SINGLE layer. They have proved that fast moving water can lay a variety of Layers all deposited at the same time. (eg Mt. St. Helens) If you had watched Hughes film you would have known all this! So please go watch it before you make an even bigger fool of yourself. Then after you watch it, maybe then we can have an Inteligent conversation about it.

This has some far reaching implications. Lets read again what the Geologists are saying.

We have to reasses the entire geological record! Our assumptions have been proven wrong and this will effect a variatey of different fields. It will play into how palentologist date plant and animal remains because age can no longer be assumed based on strata. This shakes the foundation of many fields of study!

It would take longer than 40 days for the sediment to harden - in the mean time, you'd have all sorts of mammals and dinosaurs trapped in the same layers. No such layer exists.

Who says dinosaurs where there? Creationists, that's who!

The lack of the correct sediment layer is only one of MANY problems for flood advocates. The fact that all world civilizations the day before the flood and the day after the flood continued right on existing and developing is another.

[zelder]

So, the snake is a symbol, and not literal. - "Everyone knows that."

Eve from Adam's rib is a symbol, and not literal - President Kimball taught that.

Adam was not literally formed from the dust like an adobe - Brigham Young taught that, and called the verse in Genesis saying so a 'baby story'.

How many more elements would you allow to be symbolic and not literal? The fruit of the trees, perhaps?

Jesus Christ, when presenting a parable, did not always say, "This is a parable, this didn't really happen." If the stories, such as the Good Samaritan, turned out not to be based on historical events or people, would that make Jesus a liar for telling the story to teach true and eternal principles?

There is no ambiguity in the church over the reality of Adam and Eve as real people and our first parents. That is the issue.

edit----

So if people don't believe that adam and eve existed and were our fist parents then the church is teaching bunk.