The Flood & Geologic Giants

[kolipoki09]

...the creationism and ID movements have more in common with LDS doctrine than the sciences when it comes to both the creation and the flood. It is 100% church doctrine that the world was covered by a flood some 4-5 thousand years ago.

My inner Cinepro is crying....

C. F. R.

[SkepticTheist]

So, what do we do? Throw the bible in the garbadge?

Honestly, the creationism and ID movements have more in common with LDS doctrine than the sciences when it comes to both the creation and the flood. It is 100% church doctrine that the world was covered by a flood some 4-5 thousand years ago. So, I guess in your analogy it's actually the church as the sparrow in the face of the hurricane. The only difference is that God is coming with fire and brimstone and no fable of science will withstand it. The scriptures make it clear that there shall be scoffers in the last days who deny the flood. My dear brother, we live in that day.

If your source of information on what LDS doctrine is young earth creationists such as Bruce R. McConkie, Joseph Fielding Smith or Mark E. Petersen, who I revere as the Lords anointed, but who, at the time they were speaking, were not speaking for the Church, but just like Brigham Young when preaching Adam God, where preaching something that was not the doctrine of the Church.

Intelligent Design creationism is a political movement, not a science. Intelligent Design is a religious proposition, something that is not science. That doesn't make the fundamental proposition that the Universe was Intelligently Designed wrong. Science has nothing to say for or against the proposition of Intelligent Design, because it is not a testable proposition for science to go off in the direction of religion. To do science, a scientist doesn't say, "I think the Universe was intelligently created, so I'm going to use the watchmaker argument and say its too complex to have happened by chance in a scientific paper." That isn't science. That is intelligent design creationism, a religious doctrine, masquerading as science. I'm against that because I'm against a political protestant movement that tries to meddle with science, to inject their own nonsense into it to teach my children their brand of creationism. I am not a creationist, and I don't want my children taught creationism. I am LDS, and I believe in a God that is uncreated, and a universe that is uncreated, a human species that exists eternally, and procreates, and establishes colonies from planet to planet, worlds without end, each planet being a colony of a former world. This may be called a brand of creationism I suppose, but it is not creationist in the strict sense. Because it is apples and oranges from what they try to put forth as creationism. Rather than design in the strict sense, it is perpetuation of pre-existing patterns. It has more in common with panspermia than it does creationism, and panspermia is a serious scientific theory. So no, if you think that Mormonism has things in common with young earth creationism or intelligent design, you are sadly mistaken.

Ed Goble

[44Foxtrot]

Honestly, the creationism and ID movements have more in common with LDS doctrine than the sciences when it comes to both the creation and the flood. It is 100% church doctrine that the world was covered by a flood some 4-5 thousand years ago.

From what I can see, LDS apologists run the other way at a high rate of speed whenever they see this doctrine coming. Just as has been described in earlier posts, apologists are quick to point out that proclamations of young earth creationism by Church leaders, such as that of Elder Parry in the Ensign, are not Church doctrine, but merely the opinions of some leaders in the Church.

To use an analogy from an earlier post, apologists realize that creationism (and many other narratives in the Bible) are but sparrows in the hurricane wind of science. Results from a recent national poll indicated that a sizable majority of (self identified) Mormons interviewed believed in a literal Genesis creation. However, one would never know it by listening to what comes out of SLC. For the most part nowadays, Church leaders seem to remain silent on the issue, which is probably a good idea.

[David T]

What religion do you belong to? My religion (the LDS religion) believes in a worldwide flood. What does your religion believe?

My religion believes what Elder Oaks stated, as linked in my sig. There are "threefold sources of truth about man and the universe: science, the scriptures, and continuing revelation" - Dallin H Oaks,Fundamental Premises of our Faith

All three need to take the others into consideration, or we'll end up like those Parley Pratt described, "The Creeds of the Fathers," says Pratt, "seem to have been cast in the mould of other ages...not sufficiently elastic to expand with the expansion of mind, to grow with the growth, and advance with the progressive principles of the age." - Pratt also firmly believed that an understanding of Theology comes as "gathered from revelation, history, prophecy, reason and analogy" (A Key to the Science of Theology).

An unwillingness to re-evaluate understanding of ancient texts based on New Light and Knowledge that comes from advances in scientific discovery ( like the historic Church's embarassing history in clinging to earth-is-center-of-the-universe-because-the-bible-said-so and condemning scientists who said otherwise as heretics - sound familiar?), in my opinion, makes us no better than the static creeds Joseph and Parley were highly frustrated with.

[zelder]

There are plenty of reputable geologists who believe in the global flood. But, I know for a fact that won't convince you so why do you say it?

What religion do you belong to? My religion (the LDS religion) believes in a worldwide flood. What does your religion believe?

Rob, I just want to chime in a give you some moral support. I also believe in the global flood. It is the nature of humans to follow popular opinion, which is often a good thing.

The global warming fiasco is a good example of why I don't have much confidence in science. Science is used to push political and social agendas. We're still in the dark ages and we live in a great era of propaganda and dogma. You can run a car on water by splitting the water into hydrogen gas with nothing more than the power from your alternator but "science" argues that this is breaking the laws of physics. Its not breaking the laws of physics, its breaking the entire economic and political power structure.

You cannot get around the fact that it is doctrine that Adam and Eve partook of the fruit 6,000 years ago and that they were immortal and that the earth was in a paradisical state. This flies in the face of the "hurricane" of science but I dont give and damn. Once we realize how full if crap they are we will be running our cars and water and curing every disease known to man. The truth will break the church of the devil/secret combinations into pieces. We just have to realize first that they are lying.

[SkepticTheist]

From what I can see, LDS apologists run the other way at a high rate of speed whenever they see this doctrine coming. Just as has been described in earlier posts, apologists are quick to point out that proclamations of young earth creationism by Church leaders, such as that of Elder Parry in the Ensign, are not Church doctrine, but merely the opinions of some leaders in the Church.

To use an analogy from an earlier post, apologists realize that creationism (and many other narratives in the Bible) are but sparrows in the hurricane wind of science. Results from a recent national poll indicated that a sizable majority of (self identified) Mormons interviewed believed in a literal Genesis creation. However, one would never know it by listening to what comes out of SLC. For the most part nowadays, Church leaders seem to remain silent on the issue, which is probably a good idea.

That sounds like the typical "Chapel Mormon versus Apologist/Internet Mormon" thing. No, apologists don't run away. They just call a spade a spade. Yes, it is good for authorities to keep quiet on unrevealed things, and let people conclude independently what they will, when nothing is binding on them. Naive, unstudied positions are precisely that, but BYU has moved in the right direction, towards Old-earth science friendly positions. And isolated pronouncements from general authorities that contradict the first presidency statements on evolution and so forth, where the church took no position, those people who contradict are following the Joseph Fielding Smith tradition, when a separate tradition among general authorities existed side by side with it in the 20th century. With the death of those that believed that, Joseph Fielding Smith thought that it was safe to try to make pronouncements that nobody else was around to counter. But the lively debate between himself and the other apostles that were trained scientists, and Henry Eyring, are well documented. Brigham Young's statement on the old earth is well documented. While neither of these positions is "doctrine," only one of them is science friendly and holds up to scrutiny.

Ed Goble

[thesometimesaint]

Scientists actually have plenty to say about Creationism/ID.

http://www.nap.edu/openbook.php?record_id=6024

[SkepticTheist]

Rob, I just want to chime in a give you some moral support. I also believe in the global flood. It is the nature of humans to follow popular opinion, which is often a good thing.

The global warming fiasco is a good example of why I don't have much confidence in science. Science is used to push political and social agendas. We're still in the dark ages and we live in a great era of propaganda and dogma. You can run a car on water by splitting the water into hydrogen gas with nothing more than the power from your alternator but "science" argues that this is breaking the laws of physics. Its not breaking the laws of physics, its breaking the entire economic and political power structure.

You cannot get around the fact that it is doctrine that Adam and Eve partook of the fruit 6,000 years ago and that they were immortal and that the earth was in a paradisical state. This flies in the face of the "hurricane" of science but I dont give and damn. Once we realize how full if crap they are we will be running our cars and water and curing every disease known to man. The truth will break the church of the devil/secret combinations into pieces. We just have to realize first that they are lying.

Look, Its not that you throw out a global flood, which doesn't have to be global, by the way. And its not that you get around Adam and Eve, being here 6000 years ago in Missouri. I just challenge you to take into account evidence that doesn't contradict this, that goes along with it, such as the fact that it has been proven that we all have Neanderthal DNA recently. That simply indicates hybridization of pre-existing humans with Adam's race that came out of Missouri. The problem with your point of view is that you seek to put the one thing against the other. It is not an "either/or" scenario. It is an "and/also" scenario, where there is no contradiction between religious fact and scientific fact. It is one of those things where the issue is more complex. Like the Book of Mormon DNA issue and Native Americans having Asian ancestry. It doesn't mean the book of Mormon is false. It means that their "principle ancestors" as the Intro to the Book of Mormon used to say, had to be changed. Because now, we know that Lehi and his party are among many groups of people that mixed together on this continent. If you get a patriarchal blessing that says you are from Ephraim, would anyone be naive enough in the Church to assume that that must mean that all of their bloodlines are from Ephraim? Or does it mean that they have a large percentage of other tribes and Gentile blood, but Ephraim dominates as far as what tribe of Israel is in their veins. I assure you that it means the latter. Similarly, the fact that Adam's race that came out of Missouri met up with other pre-existing races on the earth is not a contradiction, but is just another one of those things like that. Similarly, the harmonization of how the flood fits into the picture, as a historical reality, fits into the picture somehow, and people have various ways of working it into the picture. I don't know that i personally am comfortable with all the ways people have tried to harmonize it in the face of lack of geologic evidence, but for me, the scriptures are it for me on the flood right now till I figure this whole thing out. It is never a contradictory thing when the picture becomes complex. It just means that a heretofore unknown complexity actually exists.

Ed Goble

[Rob Osborn]

If your source of information on what LDS doctrine is young earth creationists such as Bruce R. McConkie, Joseph Fielding Smith or Mark E. Petersen, who I revere as the Lords anointed, but who, at the time they were speaking, were not speaking for the Church, but just like Brigham Young when preaching Adam God, where preaching something that was not the doctrine of the Church.

Intelligent Design creationism is a political movement, not a science. Intelligent Design is a religious proposition, something that is not science. That doesn't make the fundamental proposition that the Universe was Intelligently Designed wrong. Science has nothing to say for or against the proposition of Intelligent Design, because it is not a testable proposition for science to go off in the direction of religion. To do science, a scientist doesn't say, "I think the Universe was intelligently created, so I'm going to use the watchmaker argument and say its too complex to have happened by chance in a scientific paper." That isn't science. That is intelligent design creationism, a religious doctrine, masquerading as science. I'm against that because I'm against a political protestant movement that tries to meddle with science, to inject their own nonsense into it to teach my children their brand of creationism. I am not a creationist, and I don't want my children taught creationism. I am LDS, and I believe in a God that is uncreated, and a universe that is uncreated, a human species that exists eternally, and procreates, and establishes colonies from planet to planet, worlds without end, each planet being a colony of a former world. This may be called a brand of creationism I suppose, but it is not creationist in the strict sense. Because it is apples and oranges from what they try to put forth as creationism. Rather than design in the strict sense, it is perpetuation of pre-existing patterns. It has more in common with panspermia than it does creationism, and panspermia is a serious scientific theory. So no, if you think that Mormonism has things in common with young earth creationism or intelligent design, you are sadly mistaken.

Ed Goble

Thanks to Creationism and ID we still have some foothold on the dogmatic atheism that is threatening to ruin every youn kids mind. Why will science not recognize that there must be a God in our existance? Because they have already asserted that no such God can or should exist. People need to get up to date on the evil propaganda machines plaguing our sciences into establishing the church of atheism.

[SkepticTheist]

Thanks to Creationism and ID we still have some foothold on the dogmatic atheism that is threatening to ruin every youn kids mind. Why will science not recognize that there must be a God in our existance? Because they have already asserted that no such God can or should exist. People need to get up to date on the evil propaganda machines plaguing our sciences into establishing the church of atheism.

There is no Church of Atheism. There is only the Church of the Spaghetti Monster that Atheists use to ridicule religion. I assure you that serious scientists, even if they are atheists, do not bleed their philosophical positions into science. Science has nothing to say for or against God. It is people like you that think that God should be brought into science that is actually the biggest problem for science, when God needs to be kept out of science, so science can operate in the proper box that it is supposed to operate in, independent of outside concerns. I assure you that Atheism, while being a problem for Theists, is definitely not bleeding into science. It is religion that is bleeding into science that is our biggest enemy that seeks to pollute the pure science, because not only is it not science, but it is not usually our brand of religion either. Religion is for Sunday School and Gospel Doctrine class, not for science class. The two operate in two different boxes. If you wish to believe in religion, then do so. If you seek to define your reality with religion, then do so. But leave science alone, and fight atheism philosophically. Atheism has nothing to do with science, I assure you. It is an anti-religious philosophical issue.

If a scientist says that God is not necessary to describe the processes by which the Universe operates and so forth, it is because he is right, because science is a box in which the processes themselves are studied. But that is a methodological issue, where the methodology takes no position for or against the philosophical proposition that there may or may not be a God.

I assure you that you are not studied on these issues, and you don't know what you are talking about.

Ed Goble

[David T]

Why will science not recognize that there must be a God in our existance? Because they have already asserted that no such God can or should exist.

I don't think you know what science is. Because you're making weird assertions about it that don't mesh with the reality of the practice, and definition.

Some scientists have asserted that no God can or should exist. Other scientists assert strongly otherwise. Science itself doesn't make any such assertions either way - it is a study of the practically observable.

[thesometimesaint]

The funny(not ha ha funny) is that if people like Rob were some how put into the 17th Century, and they tried to explain the TV. They'd be burned at the stake for being a witch.

[semlogo]

Very few Biblical claims can be definitively disproved, but the flood is one of those things. It has been definitely disproved as a global event. It never happened.

[semlogo]

Try explaining that in the face of several million rocks staring you in the face. A typical geology book may say one thing but the evidence in nature doesn't lie- it's there, we cannot escape the reality that it exists.

You aren't informed enough to understand what it is that you saw. To a hammer everything is a nail. You see the flood because you want to see it.

[SkepticTheist]

Very few Biblical claims can be definitively disproved, but the flood is one of those things. It has been definitely disproved as a global event. It never happened.

Science has no evidence to suggest that it did happen. That is all it can say about it. Whether one believes in it or not is a religious thing, now, not a scientific thing. I still have a problem with trying to explain away the scriptures that indicate a global flood. I'm not ready to give up yet on it, even in the face of a lack of scientific support for it. I don't know how long I can maintain this congnative dissonance, but that is the state my mind is in particularly on the flood issue.

Ed Goble

[semlogo]

There are plenty of reputable geologists who believe in the global flood. But, I know for a fact that won't convince you so why do you say it?

What religion do you belong to? My religion (the LDS religion) believes in a worldwide flood. What does your religion believe?

Geologists? Maybe. Reputable. No.

[SilverKnight]

Fundamentalist holdouts like Rob must be endlessly entertaining for critics for the way they plunge us Internet Mormons into apoplectic fits.

I've no doubt that Rob Osborn is Cinepro's favorite poster.

[zelder]

Thanks to Creationism and ID we still have some foothold on the dogmatic atheism that is threatening to ruin every youn kids mind. Why will science not recognize that there must be a God in our existance? Because they have already asserted that no such God can or should exist. People need to get up to date on the evil propaganda machines plaguing our sciences into establishing the church of atheism.

I would agree that the secular world is definitely atheist. I believe that God wants us to recognize his works and wonders in the creations around us. God wants us to recognize his hand in the creation and give thanks. The world wants us to forget about God and try to think of ways to explain how things happened without God. The culture of our scientific community points us in the direction of disbelief. One can only walk their path for so long before you forget about the creator.

[semlogo]

Science has no evidence to suggest that it did happen. That is all it can say about it. Whether one believes in it or not is a religious thing, now, not a scientific thing. I still have a problem with trying to explain away the scriptures that indicate a global flood. I'm not ready to give up yet on it, even in the face of a lack of scientific support for it. I don't know how long I can maintain this congnative dissonance, but that is the state my mind is in particularly on the flood issue.

Ed Goble

Not only is there no evidence that it did happen, there is conclusive evidence that it didn't. There are many, many lines of evidence, each that independently disproves the flood. Geology is obviously one of them, but the most striking, I think, is the continued, uninterrupted existence and growth of many civilizations immediately before and after the flood.

Not to mention that the flood story relies on this cosmology:

Which is fictional. There is no such thing as a firmament, as the ancient Hebrews understood it.

[SkepticTheist]

No. The culture of atheism points us in the direction of disbelief. You MUST segregate this in your mind from science. You MUST get the point that the two are not the same. Methodological naturalism is what science practices. This is not the same as atheism. This is leaving all outside concerns out of something in order to come to a non-polluted conclusion. That is what all scientists do. You are naive about the difference between this and atheism.

Atheists sometimes try to conflate the two, that is true. but you are conflating them just as much. So long as you do that, you do science, the church, and yourself a disservice.

Ed Goble

I would agree that the secular world is definitely atheist. I believe that God wants us to recognize his works and wonders in the creations around us. God wants us to recognize his hand in the creation and give thanks. The world wants us to forget about God and try to think of ways to explain how things happened without God. The culture of our scientific community points us in the direction of disbelief. One can only walk their path for so long before you forget about the creator.

[SkepticTheist]

I will give consideration to your argument. You must realize that this is something that I am working out in my mind carefully, seeking revelation on it. I am not ready to just willy nilly give up on it without carefully reasoning it out and seeking inspiration on this. Its too difficult of an issue with too much complexity to do anything other than that. To some degree, you are oversimplifying to what degree you think it is disproven, linking it to the flat earth. I don't see it that way at all. I understand the issue of continuity of everything. That is one of the factors i am considering in this mental battle. As soon as something gives way to something else, I will have peace on the issue. Until then, I must struggle mentally on it.

Ed Goble

Not only is there no evidence that it did happen, there is conclusive evidence that it didn't. There are many, many lines of evidence, each that independently disproves the flood. Geology is obviously one of them, but the most striking, I think, is the continued, uninterrupted existence and growth of many civilizations immediately before and after the flood.

Not to mention that the flood story relies on this cosmology:

Which is fictional. There is no such thing as a firmament, as the ancient Hebrews understood it.

[SkepticTheist]

Oh, the other problem with your argument on the waters above the firmament is that the waters above are actually the Milky sea, or milky way, as I show in my new book Nail of Heaven. This was never literal water above the firmament. It is the Milky Way, the cosmic sea. While the ancients may have thought it was literal, it is not. So I agree with you that it is not literal. But i disagree on what the identification of this cosmic sea is in the cosmology. Furthermore, the book of Abraham has Sokar with his wings expanded as the hieroglyph that answers to the word raqia (rau kee yang), or expanse of heaven. It doesn't necessarily translate as firmament, though some ancients may have thought of it that way. It is doubtful that the Egyptians did.

Ed Goble

Not only is there no evidence that it did happen, there is conclusive evidence that it didn't. There are many, many lines of evidence, each that independently disproves the flood. Geology is obviously one of them, but the most striking, I think, is the continued, uninterrupted existence and growth of many civilizations immediately before and after the flood.

Not to mention that the flood story relies on this cosmology:

Which is fictional. There is no such thing as a firmament, as the ancient Hebrews understood it.

[thesometimesaint]

SkepticTheist:

There is no evidence for the invisible flying spaghetti monster living in my garage. But that doesn't make him not real.

I believe in God, but not a god of illogic.

[44Foxtrot]

Science has no evidence to suggest that it did happen. That is all it can say about it. Whether one believes in it or not is a religious thing, now, not a scientific thing. I still have a problem with trying to explain away the scriptures that indicate a global flood. I'm not ready to give up yet on it, even in the face of a lack of scientific support for it. I don't know how long I can maintain this congnative dissonance, but that is the state my mind is in particularly on the flood issue.

Science has a great deal of evidence to suggest that a global liquid water flood did not happen 4000 years ago, or at any time in the history of the earth for that matter. Many here have mentioned the utter lack of any geological evidence for a global flood. I claim that this lack of evidence for a flood is good evidence against a flood.

The greater problem with the flood theory comes not from geological evidence but from biological evidence. The identification of genetic bottlenecks in the genomes of both plants and animals has become a relatively easy determination to make. We can see genetic bottlenecks further back than than 100,000 years.

Among the many millions of species in the world, and especially among land mammals, there is no evidence for a genetic bottleneck 4000 years ago (or at any time close to it) in any species, let alone in every land animal on the earth today. A global flood event ,as related in the story of Noah in the OT, would have been recorded in the genome of every animal on the ark, and if such a record were there, it could be readily detected today.

You are claiming that it is not possible to say for sure that the flood did not happen, while admitting that you understand that there is no evidence for the flood. When it comes to biological evidence, this is exactly analogous to claiming you cannot tell whether or not the rumors of your best friend's demise are true while talking in person with your best friend.

[SkepticTheist]

I agree with you on that point on the surface. But if you are saying that Intelligent Design creationism and mixing God and science constitutes a rational and logical way of understanding the true nature of that logical God and the nature of his creation, you are mistaken.

Ed Goble

SkepticTheist:

There is no evidence for the invisible flying spaghetti monster living in my garage. But that doesn't make him not real.

I believe in God, but not a god of illogic.