geological evidence disproving global flood (noah)

[Robert F. Smith]

note: we dont know who genetic eve was. mitochondrial eve is our *most recent* *common maternal ancestor*, not the first woman to ever have lived.

Of course, and again, nothing special. We have many other common ancestors which were human and countless that were not, and of course, this "eve's" mother was also our common ancestor and both were almost certainly fully human. None of this supports anything biblical at all.

That all depends on how credulously one reads the Bible, as well as on whether one believes in Special Creation (Intelligent Design) rather than Transmission from another planet. If the latter, then we are looking for a will-o'-the-wisp -- there was no first woman, and mtDNA goes on forever, worlds without end.

Who was Eve? Is she a role to be played in a pageant? A mystery play? What's in a name? There was no beginning and there will be no end.

[Tarski]

That all depends on how credulously one reads the Bible, as well as on whether one believes in Special Creation (Archebiosis) rather than Transmission from another planet. ..there was no first woman, and mtDNA goes on forever, worlds without end.

Since this isn't what happened (its complete fiction), I am not sure what your

point is.

[volgadon]

There was never a global flood. There is not even the tiniest bit of doubt on that - it never happened. Chinese culture existed right before before and right after the flood, as did many other cultures around the world. There never was a global flood. According to the flood story, there was a dome over the earth that had water over it, and that was the source of the water. Which means also that the earth was flat. Sorry, that just isn't true.

I know the dome is your particular hobby horse, but where in Genesis 7:10-11 does it specify a dome?

[Robert F. Smith]

Since this isn't what happened (its complete fiction), I am not sure what your

point is.

You might want to consider the LDS context, Tarski. After all, Special Creation may be dear to the hearts of many mainstream christians, just as it is to the hearts of the Evolutionists who love to mock it. However, LDS tradition suggests that Adam & Eve didn't come from planet Earth, but were brought from elsewhere, and that this is the proper order of things worlds without end.

Telling me that its fiction is like telling Richard Dawkins that his views on the nature of reality are fiction. We are talking competing belief systems, both of which have excellent evidence in their favor. Which epistemology do you prefer?

[volgadon]

BTW I'm not saying that the flood account is presented scientifically, even though a dome is not indicated, a hard surface for the sky is, and a well below. It just is a weak argument against the flood. One might as well say biblical Israel never had thunderstorms and rain because Psalm 29 presents a mythological description of them. Your example about China is better.

[FutureTwitBlog]

This doesn't make any sense. Let's see if I can figure this out-

Computers and that technology has no ties to ice cores being dated correctly- that technology does not depend upon the dating theories of ice cores.

Automobile technology came about long before ice core dating came along- again, ice core dating has nothing to do with automobile technology.

Walmart? Are you serious? Walmart will not stand or fail based upon ice core interpretations. This is just silly.

People in airplanes? Yeah, they landed upon the face of Greenland and their planes became part of the ice core- a depth of 268 feet! But even stil, whether it was 10 feet or several hundred, ice core dating has nothing to do with airplane technology.

You just listed 4 things of science that I too aknowledge. But we aren't talking about getting dinner at Walmart (BTW, their rotisery whole chikens are yummy!) or turning on the computer or going to work in an automobile, we are speaking of theoretical interpretations of water in the hard water sports category. Ever been ice fishing? It's quite interesting to see how ice actually forms and how fats individual layers can either diminsh or grow in just one season alone! One week it can be two feet thick and the next it can be thin enough that it swallows up Jeeps (darn lazy fisherman!).

If you really can't see the connection, then I think that you're just being deliberately obtuse. Science is not done in a vacuum; it is part of a continuum. The same method of experiment and observation are the same methods that lead to the development of airplanes, cars, computers, ice core dating, etc. It's not like scientists apply rigor to manufacturing silicon chips but suddenly switch that off when it comes to ice core dating. Really, I was trying to humorously point out the disconnect in people's minds over the whole issue.

[FutureTwitBlog]

You might want to consider the LDS context, Tarski. After all, Special Creation may be dear to the hearts of many mainstream christians, just as it is to the hearts of the Evolutionists who love to mock it. However, LDS tradition suggests that Adam & Eve didn't come from planet Earth, but were brought from elsewhere, and that this is the proper order of things worlds without end.

Telling me that its fiction is like telling Richard Dawkins that his views on the nature of reality are fiction. We are talking competing belief systems, both of which have excellent evidence in their favor. Which epistemology do you prefer?

It's an interesting premise (one that I've heard before), but how then would you explain the genetic and biological similarities between humans and the animal kingdom? If man was created on another earth and transferred to this planet, why would he share so much in common with the life forms on this earth, as opposed to having an unrelated DNA structure, etc.?

[thesometimesaint]

Robert F. Smith:

Genetic Eve 100,000 years.

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/05/080515154635.htm

Scriptural Eve 7000 years.

Joseph Smith: Temporal existence of earth.

D&C 77

Doctrine and Covenants 77:6

[Rob Osborn]

If you really can't see the connection, then I think that you're just being deliberately obtuse. Science is not done in a vacuum; it is part of a continuum. The same method of experiment and observation are the same methods that lead to the development of airplanes, cars, computers, ice core dating, etc. It's not like scientists apply rigor to manufacturing silicon chips but suddenly switch that off when it comes to ice core dating. Really, I was trying to humorously point out the disconnect in people's minds over the whole issue.

I have seen this argument over and over again. It's weak to say the least. We are not debating if "science" as a whole is on the chopping block because of ice core dating methods. Science is a great tool but there are many ways to interpret or view the results.

I get tired of these arguments because it leads one in the false assumption as follows-

Person disbelieves ice core dating methods

Ice core dating methods are "scientific"

Person must disbelieve all things "scientific" then

Do you see the error of this false assumption?

You cannot assume that just because I question how a specific method is used that I must thus discount all of science in the same manner. This is a shallow approach to debate. It falsely attacks and seeks to belittle others intelligence. We all use scientific technology everyday and believe in it's myriad of uses. But just because a person questions one tiny aspect within a specific field of science does not make him out to discount "all" of science.

Does this make sense? Can we thus move on?

[dougtheavenger]

dougtheavenger:

As the genetic Eve predates the biblical Eve by at least 14 times the number of years. "Houston we have a problem".

and you think science has no problems or conflicting evidence? I dont care about the dates (for now) mainstream scientists admit to the existence of a Noah-like male; ie a neo-Adam.

[dougtheavenger]

mtdna (mitochondrial dna) eve is our maternal mrca (most recent common ancestor. NOT the first woman to ever live; a common misconception). your line of thinking would make noah's wife mitochondrial eve, not the african woman determined by the scientific community. thus, it DOESNT support the story of noah.

wrong

Noah had only sons. The three wives of Noah's three sons would bypass Noah and lead back to Mitochondrial Eve.

[thesometimesaint]

dougtheavenger:

I'm perfectly fine with A&E being a type of Priesthood model. The first humans to worship God and hold the Priesthood. I am also perfectly comfortable with not knowing exactly what JS meant by "Temporal Age"(He did not explain himself). In other non canonized quotes JS has the age of the earth as 2&1/2 billions of years old(though his methodology is seriously questionable).

[Robert F. Smith]

It's an interesting premise (one that I've heard before), but how then would you explain the genetic and biological similarities between humans and the animal kingdom? If man was created on another earth and transferred to this planet, why would he share so much in common with the life forms on this earth, as opposed to having an unrelated DNA structure, etc.?

Like Orson Pratt (in his The Seer), I believe that all biological entities on planet Earth share a common origin and future. This suggests to me that we all have the same DNA blueprint because that is the nature of the bodies which the Intelligent Designer(s) gave us. All participate in a common experience, though at different levels.

Sounds almost Vedantic, doesn't it?! Bapu would be pleased.

Such a notion allows for a multitude of forms of life here over a very long period, and with specific, isolated conditions of test from time to time -- including those which are later described figuratively or metaphorically.

Sounds almost bucolic, but that would be far from the truth. As for the seeming quiet, passive universe, that would be very far from the truth.

[Robert F. Smith]

Robert F. Smith:

Genetic Eve 100,000 years.

http://www.scienceda...80515154635.htm

Scriptural Eve 7000 years.

Joseph Smith: Temporal existence of earth.

Doctrine and Covenants 77:6

[ERayR]

Given the fact that there are numerous cities, around the world, buried in the oceans it seems obvious that something caused their inundation and melting ice caps is only one of the causes available. There is still enough uncertainty to have that reason spoken of as "scientists therorize" so as of yet other theories are still in order.

[thesometimesaint]

ERayR:

Earthquakes, and subsidence easily account for cities under the sea. In fact ancient Alexandria; Egypt is partly in the Mediterranean Sea due to a massive earthquake on July 21st, 365 AD.

[mbh26]

The way I see it, having an LDS testimony does not mean that from the moment of my baptism at 8 years old in 1962, let alone from that Spring Day in 1820, that all truth, all knowledge of things as they are, as they were, and as they are to come was already bound on a shelf in a Big Book of What to Think.

Which would be fine if statements like this were always welcome in the Mormon Church. There's still a lot of mind control and manipulation going on, sometimes well meaning, sometimes worse. The fact that these things existed in the not too distant past and to the extent that they did amongst the leadership is what troubles me. If you don't believe it still exists, serve a mission as a 19 year old noody, and take in a healthy dose of the MTC!

"I want the liberty of believing as I please," said Joseph Smith. "It feels good not to be trammeled."

Sure it does, and as long as you're an investigator looking to get baptized you won't get trammeled. But revisit the question once they have you under their thumb a little tighter. In that case, you'll find there are many volumes of books on what to think, and they're enforced too! Were the Church to say, "We were wrong and we are sorry, we did our best, and promise to try to never overstep our bounds or be less than open and honest about what we know for sure," I could accept that. But until they can do that, people will continue to point out that they said they were absolutely sure they were right once and it turned out they were wrong.

[Hughes]

If you really can't see the connection, then I think that you're just being deliberately obtuse. Science is not done in a vacuum; it is part of a continuum. The same method of experiment and observation are the same methods that lead to the development of airplanes, cars, computers, ice core dating, etc. It's not like scientists apply rigor to manufacturing silicon chips but suddenly switch that off when it comes to ice core dating. Really, I was trying to humorously point out the disconnect in people's minds over the whole issue.

Rob, sorry if I'm just prolonging a topic you want to be done with but I wanted to comment.

The problem that people often miss is the fact that the scientific method can't be used on the distant past.

So, the comparison between modern scientific discoveries and supposed tests that reveal large amounts of time have passed are not verifiable like any discovery that advances technology is. We can't put time under a repeatable test, like the scientific method demands. Instead what happens are a set of faith based assumptions are used (Like uniformitarianism), and as long as everyone agrees on the assumptions, then the results are also agreed on.

[thesometimesaint]

Hughes:

How often do you have to reinvent the wheel?

[Hughes]

Hughes:

How often do you have to reinvent the wheel?

Your point?

[mbh26]

Rob, sorry if I'm just prolonging a topic you want to be done with but I wanted to comment.

The problem that people often miss is the fact that the scientific method can't be used on the distant past.

So, the comparison between modern scientific discoveries and supposed tests that reveal large amounts of time have passed are not verifiable like any discovery that advances technology is. We can't put time under a repeatable test, like the scientific method demands. Instead what happens are a set of faith based assumptions are used (Like uniformitarianism), and as long as everyone agrees on the assumptions, then the results are also agreed on.

Right assuming atoms and molecules interact in the same way and the laws of physics were as they are now. The chances of that not being true in the last 100 million years are pretty slim in not only my opinion but the opinion of most born and raised LDS scientist.

[Eldwynn]

These 8 pages are some of the saddest 8 pages I have read in a while. What exactly are they teaching you guys in school? A global flood just could not have happened. If you think scientists are wrong, then you should smash your computers, your cell phones, your entire modern life. The scientific method has been consistently right. Religion has been consistently wrong, and is simply modified when it is shown to be wrong in order to be stomached by believers.

The fact that we have trouble convincing people that a global flood did not happen really makes me worry about the future of mankind.

In fact, I almost refuse to believe people like Hughes and the "sure the earth is flat if the bible says it" guy are for real. They must be trolling.

[Hughes]

Right assuming atoms and molecules interact in the same way and the laws of physics were as they are now. The chances of that not being true in the last 100 million years are pretty slim in not only my opinion but the opinion of most born and raised LDS scientist.

Not saying that there's a difference in interactions. I'm saying there's no way to objectively test any claim of 100 million years. Simply no way. Sort of like saying, "hey I translated these golden plates... but now you can't go look at them because the angel took them back."

Ok. No verification means blind faith. Certainly LDS acknowledge that. Why is it that scientists don't?

[Hughes]

These 8 pages are some of the saddest 8 pages I have read in a while. What exactly are they teaching you guys in school? A global flood just could not have happened. If you think scientists are wrong, then you should smash your computers, your cell phones, your entire modern life. The scientific method has been consistently right. Religion has been consistently wrong, and is simply modified when it is shown to be wrong in order to be stomached by believers.

The fact that we have trouble convincing people that a global flood did not happen really makes me worry about the future of mankind.

In fact, I almost refuse to believe people like Hughes and the "sure the earth is flat if the bible says it" guy are for real. They must be trolling.

I assure you I'm real. I used to be an atheist. I used to be a believer in all things science. No matter what they said I believed it. However, I've come to discover it is simply a different faith.

And your contention that the scientific method can be applied consistently to test time is patently false.

[Eldwynn]

I assure you I'm real. I used to be an atheist. I used to be a believer in all things science. No matter what they said I believed it. However, I've come to discover it is simply a different faith.

And your contention that the scientific method can be applied consistently to test time is patently false.

Oh jeez, you used to be an atheist? Well who am I to even put forth any sort of arguments for you. For the record, I used to be mormon, but I am not saying that because that actually means anything. It doesn't. Reasons for belief (or the lack there of) are the only thing that matters and should be considered.

Science is not faith. I used to try and explain why this isn't the case. However, when religious people put this forward, I can't help but laugh for a moment, as I am doing now.

I mean, it's a lot like saying, "Well, I know that religion is absolutely crazy, but science isn't any better, neener neener neener". It's like saying, yeah, well I may be a pedophile, but so are you. If I were religious, I would be offended.

For what its worth, you weren't a scientist. You missed the point if you ever thought you needed to believe anything. As someone that does "real" science, it's never about belief.

Now, before you go putting words in my mouth, I never claimed what you just said with those fancy words of yours. So my "contention of whatever it is you said" is wrong- I never said anything of the sort, whether I believe it or not. If you mean that science can't be used to speculate on what happened in the past, well then you are wrong. How on earth can a theory make future predictions, without us being able to reflect in the future if they were real or not.

You must be trolling. Is trolling allowed on these boards? I mean, Hughes is putting words in my mouth that I in no way even began to say. I didn't even suggest them.