The Flood & Geologic Giants

[semlogo]

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

By all means. We must all come to our own conclusions.

[SkepticTheist]

Don't try to confuse the idea of being in the process of coming to a conclusion with having come to a conclusion. I am in a mental process right now. I have come to no conclusion. Cognative dissonance means that one is unsure of which set of evidence which is equally compelling to the mind on both sides of the issue should win out. I want revelation to know which side of the matter I should believe. So don't go getting all bent out of shape over what I am saying. So far I have denied no evidence on either side. If you are trying to convince me, I already know your side of the argument. It isn't going to speed up the process of my coming to entirely agree with you, if that is where this mental process will end up. I am a friend of science without worshiping at the altars of science, and I have a measure of skepticism towards bad science. I am a skeptic of whatever I aim my skepticism at, including science sometimes, though most of the time I do side with science. I don't know whether the science you believe in that contradicts a global flood is bad or not. That has yet to be determined in my mind.

Ed Goble

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 mammals, there is no evidence for a genetic bottleneck 4000 years (or at any time close to it) ago 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 it 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.

[zelder]

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 doubt that there is any such thing as an unbiased person. It is even less likely that there are unbiased organizations. I believe in science, I believe in truth. I also believe enormous political and economic powers have tremdous influence over power centers of public opinion including science.....so I take it with a grain of salt.

How hard is it to make Joseph Smith look like a scoundrel? No very hard. But that does not mean that he really was a scoundrel. I don't think the other sciences are much different than history. History is written by the victor but so is biology, physics, medicine etc. There is a lot of leeway to paint various pictures with the same colors and the same canvas. I think the difference between me and most other people is that I don't think science is driven by a quest for truth, it is drivin by a quest for political, and economic power. Truth seeking scientists who stand in the way of political or economic powers get crushed. At best, its their reputation that is crushed, at worst, it's their lives.

[thesometimesaint]

SkepticTheist:

At the philosophical level a certain amount of mixing is totally natural and understandable. As a LDS scientist I'm always trying to see how God did it. One day I expect it will all make sense and there wouldn't be any division between true religion and true science. But I don't expect that to happen any time soon.

[SkepticTheist]

Now you are confusing human nature with science at its ideal. I was speaking in idealistic terms, the ideal of what science should be. You are speaking of a pragmatic reality. So I agree with you from the standpoint of what constitutes bad science. I just said I was a skeptic of bad science. But again, that is science at its worst, when it doesn't live up to its lofty goals.

Intelligent Design theorists who mingle their science with their religion deserve to be crushed and lose their jobs. Because they aren't scientists, and they aren't doing science. They are pollution, and make themselves out to be victims, when they never understood science to begin with, and deserve to be fired.

Ed Goble

I doubt that there is any such thing as an unbiased person. It is even less likely that there are unbiased organizations. I believe in science, I believe in truth. I also believe enormous political and economic powers have tremdous influence over power centers of public opinion including science.....so I take it with a grain of salt.

How hard is it to make Joseph Smith look like a scoundrel? No very hard. But that does not mean that he really was a scoundrel. I don't think the other sciences are much different than history. History is written by the victor but so is biology, physics, medicine etc. There is a lot of leeway to paint various pictures with the same colors and the same canvas. I think the difference between me and most other people is that I don't think science is driven by a quest for truth, it is drivin by a quest for political, and economic power. Truth seeking scientists who stand in the way of political or economic powers get crushed. At best, its their reputation that is crushed, at worst, it's their lives.

[SkepticTheist]

I don't know why there ever should be a merging of the two to tell you the truth. Science will always have limitations. So I don't know how science is not true as it is, when it is already living within the box that is carved out for it, within its own proper bounds (most of the time). Science is self corrective, so it already corrects its own conclusions over time given better evidence. Its methods are already well defined. If you are saying that science should come to the same conclusions as true religion, I think you are missing the point, because I say that the limitations on science make it so that it can never come to the same conclusion as religion, but can only be a dark reflection of religious truth if anything. I am not a specialist, but a science enthusiast. In my own books, I mingle the two, both religion and science, only because I make a disclaimer that I am not doing science, but that I am delving into theology and philosophy, while taking science into account. But I think I do have a handle on where the proper bounds of science should be. And for science and religion to merge, I don't believe that should ever happen actually. Because then science would become something that deals with theology and philosophy, which it should not. The moment science enters those areas, it ceases to be science, and becomes theology or philosophy.

Ed

SkepticTheist:

At the philosophical level a certain amount of mixing is totally natural and understandable. As a LDS scientist I'm always trying to see how God did it. One day I expect it will all make sense and there wouldn't be any division between true religion and true science. But I don't expect that to happen any time soon.

[Rob Osborn]

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

And I can assure you that I have studied the topics. It seems you are not up to date on just where ID and Creationism is coming from. Please get informed and come back and we shall debate.

[SkepticTheist]

Your arguments on science are pretty inane. What part of irreducible complexity do you think that I don't understand?

And I can assure you that I have studied the topics. It seems you are not up to date on just where ID and Creationism is coming from. Please get informed and come back and we shall debate.

[thesometimesaint]

Rob Osborn:

Yes I am very familiar with the ideas that Creationists/ID are trying to foist onto a gullible public. The REAL question is why do you hate science?

[thesometimesaint]

SkepticTheist:

I don't see any really big limitations on what science can do when dealing with the natural universe. Maybe if it is a REALLY BIG box? But as I said I don't expect the two(true science and true religion) to be reconciled any time soon.

[SkepticTheist]

Well, we can certainly disagree on that small point..

Ed Goble

SkepticTheist:

I don't see any really big limitations on what science can do when dealing with the natural universe. Maybe if it is a REALLY BIG box? But as I said I don't expect the two(true science and true religion) to be reconciled any time soon.

[semlogo]

I went and visited the Sequoia forest in California. It just goes to show that the Ents are real.

[Rob Osborn]

Rob Osborn:

Yes I am very familiar with the ideas that Creationists/ID are trying to foist onto a gullible public. The REAL question is why do you hate science?

I love science when it is in line with the truth. Talk about gullible, the general masses have come to accept the global flood was a farce. Talk about being easily duped!

[Rob Osborn]

Your arguments on science are pretty inane. What part of irreducible complexity do you think that I don't understand?

Let's not get sidetracked too soon. We were talking about "uniformatarianism". Explain how gigantic rocks are formed in a uniformatarian view. The global flood (creationism) explains why we have such a large amount of sedimentary rocks only created under water.

[SkepticTheist]

I think this isn't going anywhere. Seems we have gone entirely in a circle now.

Let's not get sidetracked too soon. We were talking about "uniformatarianism". Explain how gigantic rocks are formed in a uniformatarian view. The global flood (creationism) explains why we have such a large amount of sedimentary rocks only created under water.

[cinepro]

My inner Cinepro is crying....

C. F. R.

Here is a link to 16 references currently published by the Church, including statements by latter day prophets and GA's (and others), that describe a global scope for the flood, and a few that explicitly reject a local flood interpretation.

http://blog.mediumcouncil.org/?p=185

These are in addition to the scriptures themselves.

There are no Church-published statements acknowledging the possibility of a local or allegorical flood.

[zelder]

Here is a link to 16 references currently published by the Church, including statements by latter day prophets and GA's (and others), that describe a global scope for the flood, and a few that explicitly reject a local flood interpretation.

http://blog.mediumcouncil.org/?p=185

These are in addition to the scriptures themselves.

There are no Church-published statements acknowledging the possibility of a local or allegorical flood.

thanks cinepro. The church is flying in the hurricane, not just "ignorant" individual members. The church does not openly fight and debate natural history, but church doctrine definitely contradicts it. I think the cognitive dissonance will keep growing. Its going to be harder and harder to reconcile church views and mainstream views. Not just in regards to history but in regards to social issues like gay marriage. It might be a fun ride for while, hang on tight.

[kolipoki09]

Here is a link to 16 references currently published by the Church, including statements by latter day prophets and GA's (and others), that describe a global scope for the flood, and a few that explicitly reject a local flood interpretation.

http://blog.mediumcouncil.org/?p=185

These are in addition to the scriptures themselves.

There are no Church-published statements acknowledging the possibility of a local or allegorical flood.

Thank you Cinepro. Hartman Rector Jr. is a declared fundamentalist, though the others are interesting in their own light. So much for 8 credit hours of Earth science and geology at a Church-owned university!

[SkepticTheist]

So before there was argument from authority fallacy on the issue of BOM geography from church authority statements. And now here we go again with argument from authority fallacy with Church authority statements on the flood. Very nice.

I think that people need to think very hard about the fact that if they want to get to the truth of an issue, they need to think bigger and broader than what the authorities have said, when they have no scientific training. Is it because they have no scientific training that they have not asked the right questions to get further revelation on this subject perhaps?

Here is a link to 16 references currently published by the Church, including statements by latter day prophets and GA's (and others), that describe a global scope for the flood, and a few that explicitly reject a local flood interpretation.

http://blog.mediumcouncil.org/?p=185

These are in addition to the scriptures themselves.

There are no Church-published statements acknowledging the possibility of a local or allegorical flood.

[SkepticTheist]

Thank you Cinepro. Hartman Rector Jr. is a declared fundamentalist, though the others are interesting in their own light. So much for 8 credit hours of Earth science and geology at a Church-owned university!

Isn't it Hartman Rector Jr. that believes in Rod Meldrum's stuff? I guess it is no coincidence that Meldrumite Heartlanders argue for Intelligent Design Young earth creationism.

[Ron Beron]

I love science when it is in line with the truth. Talk about gullible, the general masses have come to accept the global flood was a farce. Talk about being easily duped!

The Bible does not teach a global flood, but talks only of a regional flood. The term used in the OT is "ha eretz". Eretz meaning the earth, but only the known earth. Since Earth was soon as a flatland and not a sphere that which was over the horizon was unknown and therefore not part of the known earth. Further, the waters only covered 15 cubits or around 20 feet above the known mountains. This does preclude that other parts of the world at some time had been covered by water as it was early in its history some 2.5 billion years ago. Noah missed that one.

[Ron Beron]

Let's not get sidetracked too soon. We were talking about "uniformatarianism". Explain how gigantic rocks are formed in a uniformatarian view. The global flood (creationism) explains why we have such a large amount of sedimentary rocks only created under water.

No one is arguing that the area you visited wasn't inundated by water only that it wasn't part of a flood, but an inland sea, 200 to 65 million years ago.:

Late Cretaceous. Pressure from continental collisions with the Pacific Plate to the west produced high mountains in western Utah. The eastern portion of the state was covered by an inland sea that stretched from the Gulf of Mexico to the Arctic. The costal plain between these two areas advanced and retreated as sediment filled the sea and the basin sank. Coal swamps formed behind barrier islands while dinosaurs continued to rule.

[kolipoki09]

Isn't it Hartman Rector Jr. that is the emeritus general authority that is in league with Rod Meldrum? I guess it is no coincidence that Meldrumite Heartlanders argue for Intelligent Design Young earth creationism.

Precisely why I have referred to him as a "declared fundamentalist."

I was reading this article just today and thought it sounded like it came from that political/theological camp, only to realize that it actually had.

[SkepticTheist]

That for me is a pretty significant insight. Thank you. I've been looking for insights like this that can help me sort this out.

The problem for me still is that the Book of Mormon mentions the water receding off the face of the land of the Americas after the flood, and the notion that Noah started out in America, and ended up in Turkey or Iran, at the top of a mountain. The tradition from an early quote from early in this dispensation is that Noah launched from where South Carolina is today. I wish I could find that quote.

The Bible does not teach a global flood, but talks only of a regional flood. The term used in the OT is "ha eretz". Eretz meaning the earth, but only the known earth. Since Earth was soon as a flatland and not a sphere that which was over the horizon was unknown and therefore not part of the known earth. Further, the waters only covered 15 cubits or around 20 feet above the known mountains. This does preclude that other parts of the world at some time had been covered by water as it was early in its history some 2.5 billion years ago. Noah missed that one.

[Senator]

The problem for me still is that the Book of Mormon mentions the water receding off the face of the land of the Americas after the flood, and the notion that Noah started out in America, and ended up in Turkey or Iran, at the top of a mountain.

Yes, it's the same myth.