World Wide Flood Of Noah

[thesometimesaint]

jo1952:

I'm LDS, I joined the Church in 1971. I was made an Elder in 1972. My beautiful wife and I were Sealed together that same year in the Oakland California Temple. We had 3 wonder boys, men now, all active in church. I have 5 fantastic Granddchildren. Because of physical limitations I'm not able now to attend the Redlands California Temple as much as I would like.

My purpose is not to dismiss or deminish the Bible or its wonderful stories. But I have never taken its claims about the physical world as scientifically literal. That just isn't in me to do. Yes I do believe that there was a Noah, and that God told him to build a boat. That Noah tried to convince his neihbors to repent and get on the boat. Not successfull, but for 8 soules, he collected as many different types of animals as he could. The flood was huge. It was bigger than anything than Noah had ever seen. As far as he could see water. To him his entire world was drowned. That to me is the true story of Noah. A faithful prophet of God, recording things just as he saw them. However I do not believe the flood of Noah times was a literal world wide flood.

[Franktalk]

I would not hold out hope for Setterfield here. Reality has a way of being what it is regardless of purity of intentions/sincerity/honesty of the investigator and this horse has been beaten to death now for decades..

I am happy to wait what ever time it takes to obtain the truth of a matter. What I like about the theory is that it gives us a picture of a changing universe. Since I believe the past was not the same as today it fits into my belief system.

[shalamabobbi]

I am happy to wait what ever time it takes to obtain the truth of a matter. What I like about the theory is that it gives us a picture of a changing universe. Since I believe the past was not the same as today it fits into my belief system.

I'd recommend the following book for you to read, probably available at your local library.

"The Constants of Nature" by John D Barrow

http://www.guardian.co.uk/books/2002/nov/09/featuresreviews.guardianreview4

William Cowper, the 18th-century Evangelical poet, once famously said: "Variety's the spice of life." After reading Barrow's book, it seems nothing could be further from the truth. Small changes in the way the fundamental physics of the universe is set up would have disastrous consequences for the possibility of life.

...

The numerical value of the weight of an electron will vary according to the units used. If instead you ask how much heavier is a proton when compared to the weight of an electron, you get a number that is independent of units. This number, approximately 1836, is an example of one of the "constants of nature". It is devoid of any cultural bias and can be compared across the universe. Scientists have called them constants because for many years we believed them to be just that - unchanging numbers. The question at the heart of Barrow's book is whether these pure numbers of nature are as unchanging as we once thought.

It is when Barrow starts to explore what would happen if you varied these numbers that things become quite frightening. Barrow does for physics what Robert Harris's novel Fatherland did for history. The effects of changing physics turn out to be far more dramatic than changing the outcome of the second world war. A small change in the relative weights of the electron and proton would result in atoms flying apart. There would be no possibility of gluing these fundamental particles together to make atoms and ultimately life.

By analyzing stars in the distant reaches of the universe, Barrow's team can look back in time and test if the constants were different 10bn years ago. They have gathered the best evidence yet for what the answer is.

Stars form the elements from the building blocks of the very lightest elements. There is a critical balance struck in these natural constants that determine the behavior of the physics of our universe. This balance allows for the simultaneous formation of carbon and oxygen within stars. If the constants were to change, even a tiny amount in one direction there would be the creation of carbon but not of oxygen. And if the constants were to vary even a tiny bit in the opposite direction then there would be the creation of oxygen but not of any carbon.

So I think you'll find plenty of support for a faith in God in the real universe without having to lean on an ad-hoc universe. But I'll let you make that decision. Thanks for the exchange, it was enjoyable if a bit different.

[Franktalk]

I'd recommend the following book for you to read, probably available at your local library.

"The Constants of Nature" by John D Barrow

http://www.guardian.co.uk/books/2002/nov/09/featuresreviews.guardianreview4

I have read many articles from both sides. Thanks for the recommend. I just purchased Wandering Continents and spreading sea floors by Lester King. I have his other book The morphology of the earth. I have yet to read it through.

[Rivers]

jo1952:

I'm LDS, I joined the Church in 1971. I was made an Elder in 1972. My beautiful wife and I were Sealed together that same year in the Oakland California Temple. We had 3 wonder boys, men now, all active in church. I have 5 fantastic Granddchildren. Because of physical limitations I'm not able now to attend the Redlands California Temple as much as I would like.

My purpose is not to dismiss or deminish the Bible or its wonderful stories. But I have never taken its claims about the physical world as scientifically literal. That just isn't in me to do. Yes I do believe that there was a Noah, and that God told him to build a boat. That Noah tried to convince his neihbors to repent and get on the boat. Not successfull, but for 8 soules, he collected as many different types of animals as he could. The flood was huge. It was bigger than anything than Noah had ever seen. As far as he could see water. To him his entire world was drowned. That to me is the true story of Noah. A faithful prophet of God, recording things just as he saw them. However I do not believe the flood of Noah times was a literal world wide flood.

I'm the same way. I'm an active member but there are some things in the Bible that I simply have a hard time believing as completely literal.

[blackstrap]

Lets look at the flood from a different angle. Consider populations/demographics. Leaving 600 year old Noah out of the calculations for now,lets consider what numbers are generated from the three sons and their wives. Assuming high levels of births as is noticed after major disasters( New York blackout comes to mind) ,lets assume that each son had 20 children and that from those 60 people there came 30 married couples that each also produced 20 children. We have 600 children who form 300 couples and produce 20 children each for 6000 children. They now form 3000 couples and produce 20

offspring each for 60,000 kids.

Now we have 6 + 60 + 600+ 6000+ 60000 = 66666 people. In 5 generations how much time has passed? 100 years? 200 years?

Lest anyone think that I am allowing for too many offspring,I note that the world record of children from one woman is 69 children from 27 pregnancies (Russian I think)

Bible chronologies give about 200 years from the flood to the Tower of Babel and another 100-150 years to Abraham. If we went another 3 generations there could be over 60 million people around at Abraham's time . We must,however , recognize that the figures do not take into account population reductions by disease,accident,wars,famine,etc. They also do not take into account the apparent migrations north,south,east and west which could have easily slowed birthrates.Nor does it factor in the most feared of all ,barrenness.

If we are a bit pessimistic,there might have been only 10,000,000 people on the whole earth at the time of Abraham.

from figures I have seen,there is assumed to have been a relatively stable population of a billion people on the earth up until about 1600 AD. How that number was arrived at I don't know.

Have there been any studies estimating populations from say 1900 BC ? When do we say"Houston,we have a problem"?

Edited August 27, 2011 by blackstrap

[sunstoned]

I have heard the global flood used to explain how Noah got from this continent (somewhere around Jackson County) to the old world (Mt. Ararat). I know a belief in a global flood is problematic, but it at least provided explanation for the migration.

Edited August 27, 2011 by sunstoned

[Franktalk]

A good rule of thumb is to use the Bible as your source of data. But not all things are provided. But in population we do have a clue as to ancient population growth. We know that the Jews were in Egypt for 400 years. We also know that approx 1.5 million came out in the exodus. We just need to know how many went in.

Gen 46:26 All the souls that came with Jacob into Egypt, which came out of his loins, besides Jacob's sons' wives, all the souls were threescore and six;

Gen 46:27 And the sons of Joseph, which were born him in Egypt, were two souls: all the souls of the house of Jacob, which came into Egypt, were threescore and ten.

So for my calculations I use 70 came in and 1.5 million came out in 400 years. Then starting with 1.5 million we divide by two until we get to approx 70.

1.5 million, 750k, 375k, 187500, 93750, 46875, 23437, 11718, 5859, 2929, 1464, 732, 366, 183, 91, 45

So 400 years divided by 14.5 is 27.68 years between the doubling of the population.

So 2011 plus 3554 to the flood is 5565 years. Divide this by 27.68 and we get 201. So using the population growth in Egypt what does this show us for Noah and the flood?

8, 16, 32, 64, 128, 256, 512, 1024, 2048, 4096, 8192, 16384, 32768, 65536, 131072, 262144, 524288, 1048576, 2097152, 4194304, 8388608, 16777216, 33554432, 67108864, 134217728, 268435456, 536870912, 1073741824, 2147483684, 4294967296, 8589934592

So in 30 steps where the population doubles we have our worlds population. But we see from the Bible that in a protected state (for the most part) the population can rise quickly. This means that our world is more harsh than the Jews living in Egypt.

[katherine the great]

Have there been any studies estimating populations from say 1900 BC ? When do we say"Houston,we have a problem"?

I don't think the numbers are actually a problem. People can reproduce quite rapidly. I could actually accept a global flood if it was only a question of whether we could physically get a modern world population of humans in the billions from four reproducing couples (all men having exactly the same Y chromosome) living in Anatolia five or six thousand years ago. DNA (in my mind) absolutely disproves that scenario as well as migration patterns, archaeology, linguistics, anthropology, and more. Then there is the question of the animals--most especially the ones unique to Australia, and the absence of any geological evidence of a worldwide flood... I guess I'm an "lex parsimoniae" kinda gal. It takes waaaaaaaayyyyyyyy too much mind bending for me to accept it and I really don't feel obligated to.

[Hughes]

I don't think the numbers are actually a problem. People can reproduce quite rapidly. I could actually accept a global flood if it was only a question of whether we could physically get a modern world population of humans in the billions from four reproducing couples (all men having exactly the same Y chromosome) living in Anatolia five or six thousand years ago. DNA (in my mind) absolutely disproves that scenario as well as migration patterns, archaeology, linguistics, anthropology, and more. Then there is the question of the animals--most especially the ones unique to Australia, and the absence of any geological evidence of a worldwide flood... I guess I'm an "lex parsimoniae" kinda gal. It takes waaaaaaaayyyyyyyy too much mind bending for me to accept it and I really don't feel obligated to.

No geological evidence for a world wide flood?

I guess it depends how you look at things. I see evidence for it everywhere.

Edited August 27, 2011 by Hughes

[blackstrap]

A person who sees the Grand canyon and says that the colorado did all the cutting over millions of years should hear the joke about Little Lulu.

Little Lulu was walking though a meadow one day a saw a cow pie with a tiny flower growing up in the middle. Little Lulu laughed and laughed because she knew that lttle flower couldn't do all that.

[Franktalk]

No geological evidence for a world wide flood?

I guess it depends how you look at things. I see evidence for it everywhere.

I see it all over. Many features are made from water that was trapped during the flood and later broke out. The water that made the Columbia Gorge I think came from the flood as well as later water from melting ice. The Grand Canyon probably came from the lake that was left over from the flood. That lake was in the four corners area. It is estimated that the water was a mile deep as it ran to the sea. I see a small version of it each monsoon season here in Tucson. As we get a burst of rain there are some fields to the south that flood quickly and then run off as a sheet. When it hits the edge of the flat area it falls to a lower flat area. It only drops about ten feet. But the soils are in layers and each layer has its own resistance to erosion. Much like the Grand Canyon. And like the Grand Canyon it is cut by the water in the same way. So it looks the same just smaller. One day I will take a video of it while it is happening. I will not submit it to anyone. It will be for myself.

Then when I drive I see sediment layers where it is obvious that the round rocks were worn by rolling in water. But these rocks are huge and the mixed sediments go on for miles in all direction. Some what similar to the planation surfaces in Africa which cover 80% of the continent. So we can see all of this around us and connect the dots or explain it away by saying it is just some river bottom. Yes a river in Arizona 20 miles wide and 200 miles long at least and hundreds of feet deep with fast moving water. But with all of my driving around I have come across hundreds of these "rivers".

[shalamabobbi]

I see it all over. Many features are made from water that was trapped during the flood and later broke out. The water that made the Columbia Gorge I think came from the flood as well as later water from melting ice. The Grand Canyon probably came from the lake that was left over from the flood. That lake was in the four corners area. It is estimated that the water was a mile deep as it ran to the sea. I see a small version of it each monsoon season here in Tucson. As we get a burst of rain there are some fields to the south that flood quickly and then run off as a sheet. When it hits the edge of the flat area it falls to a lower flat area. It only drops about ten feet. But the soils are in layers and each layer has its own resistance to erosion. Much like the Grand Canyon. And like the Grand Canyon it is cut by the water in the same way. So it looks the same just smaller. One day I will take a video of it while it is happening. I will not submit it to anyone. It will be for myself.

Then when I drive I see sediment layers where it is obvious that the round rocks were worn by rolling in water. But these rocks are huge and the mixed sediments go on for miles in all direction. Some what similar to the planation surfaces in Africa which cover 80% of the continent. So we can see all of this around us and connect the dots or explain it away by saying it is just some river bottom. Yes a river in Arizona 20 miles wide and 200 miles long at least and hundreds of feet deep with fast moving water. But with all of my driving around I have come across hundreds of these "rivers".

Hey Franktalk,

I'm going to break with my decision to leave this thread just yet and see if you can explain something that Hughes was unable to explain when I brought it up with him on a similar thread.

Under the city of Detroit is an old salt mine. The salt bed is hundreds and hundreds of feet thick. The salt bed actually covers something like 170,000 square miles, underlying parts of Michigan, Ontario, Ohio, Pennsylvania, New York and West Virginia.

Sticking just to the one salt bed, the one lying under Michigan, Ontario, Ohio, Pennsylvania, New York and West Virginia, it appears that what we see is a fairly long series of some enclosed area, inland sea, being flooded, then evaporating, drying up and depositing the salt, only to be inundated again and repeating the process over and over.

http://gsa.confex.com/gsa/2004AM/finalprogram/abstract_75403.htm

Sea water is about 3.4% by weight total salt, with sodium chloride making up a big majority of all the salts. A sodium chloride solution of 26% is saturated, meaning that's all the salt it can hold. So if you take eight liters of seawater and evaporate it down to one liter, sodium chloride will be starting to fall out of solution. (Other salts, like gypsum = calcium sulfate, will start dropping out before the table salt does. Magnesium chloride, for one example, will still be in solution at this point.)

Sodium chloride has a density of 2.17 g/cc and seawater about 1.03. This lets us calculate that for each centimeter of salt deposited, you must evaporate about 62 centimeters equivalent of ocean. That would be tough if you were in open ocean or in a worldwide flood.

In Southwestern NY the salt bed is found at a depth of over 3000 feet.

In Northeastern Ohio the bed is about 150 feet thick and found at a depth of 1900 feet to 2800 feet.

It seems there are several things that are needed to explain this. First, how to evaporate and deposit multiple layers of salt each from 100 to 300 feet thick. Second a model that explains this happening at least seven times, each separated by sufficient time to lay down rock between the beds. Third a model that will explain burying the beds under 1000 to 3000 feet of rock.

Remember that you can't even evaporate the flood waters off to get any salt since the atmosphere can't hold the water. There weren't sufficient flood waters anyhow to provide that much salt. The flood waters came from hidden underground reservoirs and returned there.

source: EvC forum thread in the section geology and the flood, titled salt domes started by Jar.

Edited August 27, 2011 by shalamabobbi

[shalamabobbi]

I see it all over. Many features are made from water that was trapped during the flood and later broke out. The water that made the Columbia Gorge I think came from the flood as well as later water from melting ice. The Grand Canyon probably came from the lake that was left over from the flood. That lake was in the four corners area. It is estimated that the water was a mile deep as it ran to the sea. I see a small version of it each monsoon season here in Tucson. As we get a burst of rain there are some fields to the south that flood quickly and then run off as a sheet. When it hits the edge of the flat area it falls to a lower flat area. It only drops about ten feet. But the soils are in layers and each layer has its own resistance to erosion. Much like the Grand Canyon. And like the Grand Canyon it is cut by the water in the same way. So it looks the same just smaller. One day I will take a video of it while it is happening. I will not submit it to anyone. It will be for myself.

Then when I drive I see sediment layers where it is obvious that the round rocks were worn by rolling in water. But these rocks are huge and the mixed sediments go on for miles in all direction. Some what similar to the planation surfaces in Africa which cover 80% of the continent. So we can see all of this around us and connect the dots or explain it away by saying it is just some river bottom. Yes a river in Arizona 20 miles wide and 200 miles long at least and hundreds of feet deep with fast moving water. But with all of my driving around I have come across hundreds of these "rivers".

And when you're done with the previous post, please address this:

How can a 'global' flood cause so much local variation in mineral concentrations and indeed even composition by locality. Are you familiar with the Borax mining near the appropriately named town Boron, California?

Try this:

quote:The major ores of boron are a small number of borate (boron oxide) minerals, including ulexite (NaCaB5O9.8H2O), borax (Na2B4O5(OH)4.8H2O), colemanite (Ca2B6O11.5H2O) and kernite (Na2B4O6(OH)2.3H2O). These minerals form when boron-bearing waters percolate into inland desert lakes and evaporate, leaving layers of borates, chlorides, and sulfates. These minerals are referred to as evaporite minerals. Very large deposits of evaporite boron minerals are found in the United States (especially California), Turkey, Chile and Argentina. Less-important deposits occur in Iran (formerly called Persia), and elsewhere.

In addition, boron silicate minerals are mined as boron ores in China, Russia, and a few other countries.

Turkey, the United States and Russia are the largest producers of boron minerals. Argentina, Chile, and China have important ore production, and five or six other countries produce minor amounts. The U.S. production is all from the deserts of southeastern California.

Source: http://www.mii.org/Minerals/photobor.html

Now what about Searles Lake? Why does this evaporite deposit have so many rare minerals like Trona and Hanksite?

quote:The minerals to crystallize first on desiccation were sodium carbonate decahydrate (Na2CO3.10H2O) and Borax (Na2B4O7.10H20), and this would occur in the winter. During the following summer the Na2CO3.10H2O would melt, and carbon dioxide from the atmosphere and from biological action would react with the Na2CO3 to cause Na2CO3.NaHCO3.2H2O, also known as Trona, to replace the Na2CO3.10H2O. The next major mineral to crystallize as desiccation continued was sodium sulfate decahydrate (Na2SO4.10H2O). This would also crystallize in the winter but during the following summer it too would melt and the released Na2SO4 would recrystallize as Thenardite, Na2SO4 without the hydrating water. When there was a sufficient amount of potassium, it would crystallize as Glaserite (K3Na(SO4)2) at the same time as sodium sulfate decahydrate. Over time much of the Glaserite has recrystallized as the rare mineral Hanksite. The final major mineral to crystallize was Halite (NaCl) and this occurred near the end of desiccation. This depositional sequence is easily observed in the vertical stratification found today in the highest saline mineral bed, the Upper Salt, where Halite makes up the top 20 to 25 feet, Borax and Trona are next to the mud at the bottom of the salt bed, and the sulfates (Hanksite and Thenardite) are in between.

Source: http://www1.iwvisp.com/tronagemclub/geology.htm

And what about those 1500 feet of repeating layers of halite, anhydrite and, and gypsum below my feet and nearby in over 260,000 correlated layers in the Castile formation. Where is the Borax and Hanksite? How did these obviously seasonal layers occur in a matter of several hours?

quote: The thickness of each couplet in the 260,000-varve sequence (a total thickness of 447.2 m, 1467 ft) has been measured individually and recorded and provides the basis for subdividing and correlating major stratigraphic units within the basin. The uppermost 9.2 m (30.3 ft) of the Bell Canyon Formation contains about 50,850 varve couplets; the Basal Limestone Member of the Castile about 600; the lowermost anhydrite member of the Castile (Anhydrite I) contains 38,397; Halite I, 1,063; Anhydrite II, 14,414; Halite II, 1,758; Anhydrite III, 46,592; Halite III, 17,879; and Anhydrite IV, 54,187. The part of the Salado collected (126.6 m) contains 35,422 varve couplets. The Bell Canyon-Castile sequence in the cores studied is apparently continuous, with no recognizable unconformities.

The dominant petrologic oscillation in the Castile and Salado, other than the laminations, is a change from thinner undisturbed anhydrite laminae to thicker anhydrite laminae that generally show a secondary or penecontem-poraneous nodular character, with about 1,000 to 3,000 units between major oscillations or nodular beds. These nodular zones are correlative throughout the area of study and underly halite when it is present. The halite layers alternate with anhydrite laminae, are generally recrystallized, and have an average thickness of about 3 cm. The halite beds were once west of their present occurrence in the basin but were dissolved, leaving beds of anhydrite breccia. The onset and cessation of halite deposition in the basin was nearly synchronous.

Source: http://bulletin.geoscienceworld.org/...content/abstract/83/1

So here is the problem. How can the same physical mechanism (global flood) create several different types of mineral percentages or indeed even existence at different locations? And remember this does not only apply to evaporites but also virtually all mineral concentrations and different mineral compositions that geology directly observes at different places on the surface or indeed down to the Precambrian throughout the earth's crust.

same source

[katherine the great]

No geological evidence for a world wide flood?

I guess it depends how you look at things. I see evidence for it everywhere.

The Grand Canyon is incomparably beautiful and majestic. A true wonder. How is it evidence that the entire earth was underwater?

[Franktalk]

And when you're done with the previous post, please address this:.....

.......So here is the problem. How can the same physical mechanism (global flood) create several different types of mineral percentages or indeed even existence at different locations? And remember this does not only apply to evaporites but also virtually all mineral concentrations and different mineral compositions that geology directly observes at different places on the surface or indeed down to the Precambrian throughout the earth's crust.

Why do you assume that the flood made these features? There are many different ways sediments are formed. You probably know more about them than I do yet you ask me questions that you can probably answer your self. The problem is you are stuck with a long age mindset in which things happen real slow. So slow that fast acting effects don't even appear on your radar. Things like tides, storms, seasons, tidal waves, and supernatural events.

First we can talk about a salt (salts) lake. We see these today. The salts do not grow from nothingness they are transported there. The problem is to find a mechanism that might make the deposits we see. If the lake bed is a low land like most are and if it is land locked like most are then we might be able to see a way to make layers of minerals. If the minerals come from the surrounding area then what is happening is that as the area is rained on some minerals will dissolve and flow to the lake bed. The rain may not even make it to the lake. Depending on the size of the drainage system and content of the sediments around the lake it may allow for many different minerals to layer on the lake floor. The layers can then be dissolved in the lake bed and relayered in the deepest parts of the bed with changing amounts of runoff. Then with some kind of large event or even shifts in elevation of the surrounding terrain sand may layer the lake bed for some period before salts gather again. But with erosion being so quick we may lose much of the surrounding terrain and we can only look at the lake bed. The surrounding terrain being higher than the lake bed.

I have not described anything new and that has not been seen in action. But we see some events that may give us a clue to some large deposits we find. Some being salt and another being coal. Take off your I won't believe anything from Frank hat and put on your open mind hat. We see tidal waves today but we have evidence that much larger waves have occurred in the past. What I suggest is that even larger ones happened. Imagine if you would a wave or swell 500 feet high or higher. It would rip whole forest off coast lines and deposit them in inland valleys. This could make the coal seams we see. It would also explain the fossils and plants we see in coal and what we see in peat. Many feel that coal comes from peat which is silly when you look at whats in peat and what is in coal. Now let us say that a land form was shaped to trap the salt water after a huge tsunami. The salt could easily drain into the lowest areas. Even if those areas are huge. Repeated tsunamis over a wide area could deposit lots of salt. There is also very salty water deep in the earths crust. If it percolated upward and flowed to a valley we could easily see thousands of feet of salt.

Notice how I said could, maybe, might be, all of those things which indicate I don't know for sure. Yet you know for sure what methods were not used. That means you know for sure what was used to form these features. Your assumption that you know is incorrect.

http://www.icr.org/article/261/

This link shows some results of the Mt. Saint Helen Volcano eruption. Compared to what I see in the past this is a small event. Yet a canyon was formed 1/40 the size of the Grand Canyon in a day.

http://atlasobscura.com/place/kola-superdeep-borehole

The last link is great, rock mixed with water deep in the ground. Who could have thought of such a thing. Almost like a fountain of the deep. I just love geology. The data.

[Hughes]

The Grand Canyon is incomparably beautiful and majestic. A true wonder. How is it evidence that the entire earth was underwater?

Because Guy Berthault demonstrated that stratafication does happen under water. And stratification is found all over the world.

http://www.sciencevsevolution.org/Berthault.htm

Edited August 28, 2011 by Hughes

[Zakuska]

Because Guy Berthault demonstrated that stratafication does happen under water. And stratification is found all over the world.

http://www.sciencevs...g/Berthault.htm

Funny... I watched a show yesterday on discovery where geologist have shown that straification in rocks can be caused in the middle of the nevada desert by hot pots on dry land.

[jo1952]

To All:

When I see arguments among believers over events taught in the Bible regarding as to whether they should be taken literally or not, such as the Creation, the Flood, the Parting of the Red Sea, etc., I cannot help but notice that the confusion and derision caused by not accepting them as having literally taken place creates (among other things) a huge stumbling block for the unbeliever. This creates an atmosphere that is not congruent with the teachings of their own professed Savior, Jesus Christ.

I have seen agnostics and atheists point to those very arguments wherein they claim to be dissuaded to trust the believer's position of claiming there is a Christ. In fact the believer who supports the findings of science over what the Bible teaches is actually confirming the unbeliever's stance. I see this as very harmful against a believer's efforts to try to teach the Gospel message to anyone who has been subjected to such confusion, especially if the unbeliever's position has been affirmed by the believer's willingness to disgard events taught in the Bible.

Now, inasmuch as this thread is pointing specifically to the Flood, I will again point out how those who think the flood was either only a local one, or perhaps that it never took place at all, causes that believer to then also question whether or not God made a covenant with Noah. There is even one who has rationalized they believe that the flood was local, but the covenant WAS made. However to fit with what he believes science has proven, he has gone on to explain that covenant recorded by Moses was not understood correctly; that over the past several thousand years, the understanding of that covenant has needed to be adjusted (I suppose in accordance with the physical evidence being accepted by believers as proof the flood was not worldwide).

I am concerned with the effect such interpretations can have on the unbeliever, as these comments do nothing to encourage an unbeliever to begin the process of exercising faith in Christ. In light of the following passage, I would offer that believers - and particularly LDS believers - take a good look at what their choice to compromise the Bible's teachings looks like (even though their claim is to seek for truth according to what they believe they have been instructed to do), as it very much is at odds with the passage.

Moroni 7:14-17 (emphasis added)

14 Wherefore, take heed, my beloved brethren, that ye do not judge that which is evil to be of God, or that which is good and of God to be of the devil.

15 For behold, my brethren, it is given unto you to judge, that ye may know good from evil; and the way to judge is as plain, that ye may know with a perfect knowledge, as the daylight is from the dark night.

16 For behold, the Spirit of Christ is given to every man, that he may know good from evil; wherefore, I show unto you the way to judge; for every thing which inviteth to do good, and to persuade to believe in Christ, is sent forth by the power and gift of Christ; wherefore ye may know with a perfect knowledge it is of God.

17 But whatsoever thing persuadeth men to do evil, and believe not in Christ, and deny him, and serve not God, then ye may know with a perfect knowledge it is of the devil; for after this manner doth the devil work, for he persuadeth no man to do good, no, not one; neither do his angels; neither do they who subject themselves unto him.

My argument is not with the good which science has been able to provide mankind. My argument is against the faith man places in those theories of science which place scripture into question. I don't care how much "evidence" a person claims that science has provided which "proves" that scripture needs to be adjusted to be congruent with the findings of man. The point is, that those findings place scripture into a negative light. When such interpretations of the findings of man do not help to "persuade" a person to believe in Christ, then there is no other choice than to recognize that that interpreation of those findings cannot be of God.

Regards,

jo

Edited August 28, 2011 by jo1952

[katherine the great]

My argument is not with the good which science has been able to provide mankind. My argument is against the faith man places in those theories of science which place scripture into question. I don't care how much "evidence" a person claims that science has provided which "proves" that scripture needs to be adjusted to be congruent with the findings of man. The point is, that those findings place scripture into a negative light. When such interpretations of the findings of man do not help to "persuade" a person to believe in Christ, then there is no other choice than to recognize that that interpreation of those findings cannot be of God.

Regards,

jo

You just don't get it. There is no good or bad science. The science that you consider so wonderful is the same science you consider heresy. If the Bible said the sun is blue, I would consider the Bible wrong. There is no evil scientific conspiracy designed to disprove scripture. I suppose I could say that until I'm blue in the face and you still won't get it. Perhaps our paths will cross in the afterlife and I will see that you have been enlightened to the fact that God is the ultimate scientist.

[jo1952]

You just don't get it. There is no good or bad science. The science that you consider so wonderful is the same science you consider heresy. If the Bible said the sun is blue, I would consider the Bible wrong. There is no evil scientific conspiracy designed to disprove scripture. I suppose I could say that until I'm blue in the face and you still won't get it. Perhaps our paths will cross in the afterlife and I will see that you have been enlightened to the fact that God is the ultimate scientist.

Hi Kathrine!

There IS interpretation of the findings of science; however, which can either be of God or of the adversary. The interpretation cannot come from both God and Satan at the same time. It is impossible to serve both God and the adversary at the same moment; it is either one or the other. If the interpretations of science do not help persuade a person to believe in Christ, then those interpretations simply cannot be of God. IOW, it is not science that is evil; it is what man does with science that can be evil. The passage provided in Moroni is meant to help teach man the difference; it is a test provided to guide us and help us to identify what is from God and what is from the devil. I'm not making this stuff up. This is solid LDS canon which leaves no loopholes for misunderstanding. There is no wiggle room for fallible man's reasoning to allow them to wave their arms in objection so that they can stand in the camp of their peers and claim that man's vote outweighs something so clearly taught in this passage.

BTW I do believe that God is the ultimate scientist. For you to have somehow come to the conclusion through my posts that I could somehow believe otherwise, then you have not interpreted the content of my posts correctly.

Regards,

jo

[katherine the great]

BTW I do believe that God is the ultimate scientist. For you to have somehow come to the conclusion through my posts that I could somehow believe otherwise, then you have not interpreted the content of my posts correctly.

Regards,

jo

I think you have a gross lack of understanding of basic science so it renders any meeting of the minds between us moot.

[shalamabobbi]

Why do you assume that the flood made these features?

I don't.

There are many different ways sediments are formed. You probably know more about them than I do yet you ask me questions that you can probably answer your self.

Because this is a discussion board.

The problem is you are stuck with a long age mindset in which things happen real slow.

I am? News to me. Actually it is more about observing facts and realizing what can be deduced from those facts that can create restraints on how the real world may properly be interpreted.

So slow that fast acting effects don't even appear on your radar. Things like tides, storms, seasons, tidal waves, and supernatural events.

Not at all really. But catastrophic or not, certain facts disallow certain interpretations of history.

Here's a tidbit that LDS will readily accept:

mountain moved in short time scale:

http://www.livescience.com/796-land-speed-record-mountain-moves-62-miles-30-minutes.html

No objections from me.

First we can talk about a salt (salts) lake. We see these today. The salts do not grow from nothingness they are transported there. The problem is to find a mechanism that might make the deposits we see. If the lake bed is a low land like most are and if it is land locked like most are then we might be able to see a way to make layers of minerals. If the minerals come from the surrounding area then what is happening is that as the area is rained on some minerals will dissolve and flow to the lake bed. The rain may not even make it to the lake. Depending on the size of the drainage system and content of the sediments around the lake it may allow for many different minerals to layer on the lake floor. The layers can then be dissolved in the lake bed and relayered in the deepest parts of the bed with changing amounts of runoff. Then with some kind of large event or even shifts in elevation of the surrounding terrain sand may layer the lake bed for some period before salts gather again. But with erosion being so quick we may lose much of the surrounding terrain and we can only look at the lake bed. The surrounding terrain being higher than the lake bed.

I have not described anything new and that has not been seen in action. But we see some events that may give us a clue to some large deposits we find. Some being salt and another being coal.

Well most scriptural literalists will claim that all the geologic column is the result of the one flood of Noah. Good to see you are not in that camp then? Anyhow finding you agree with how salt deposits form we can make the following observation. First any salt deposits on or near the surface at the time the flood took place would have been erased/dissolved away and redistributed by the flood waters. So that after the flood there would be no salt deposits on the surface anywhere of any significance as the most that could happen would be a single evaporative episode most of the water having returned to the earth's interior whence it came and a small amount evaporating away as the atmosphere is very limited in the amount of water it can carry as vapor.

So now we have the observation that what surface deposits of salt and dissolvable minerals of all kinds that are currently found around the globe must be the result of geologic activity that occurred since the flood. If you agree with this perhaps we can make some headway. Let me know.

Take off your I won't believe anything from Frank hat and put on your open mind hat.

That is not how I think Frank. I was in your camp at one time. My open mind hat has led me to where I am currently. If you bring up arguments I have seen already and know why they are wrong it is not because they are being repeated by you personally that I discount them. You recognize the weakness of critics of the church who point to the idea that there was an agreement between Joseph and others to commit fraud. When does the sceptic investigating his claims become part of this hidden group and agree to this supposed fraud? Yet you can't see the weakness in this kind of thinking when it applies to scientific investigations? If there were a conspiracy everyone involved in scientific work would have to become a part of it. When exactly does this take place? Are we all members of skull and bones or some other organization?

We see tidal waves today but we have evidence that much larger waves have occurred in the past. What I suggest is that even larger ones happened. Imagine if you would a wave or swell 500 feet high or higher. It would rip whole forest off coast lines and deposit them in inland valleys. This could make the coal seams we see. It would also explain the fossils and plants we see in coal and what we see in peat.

Well here it is interesting to note that it is a fact that the quantity of carbon in the geologic column due to the deformation of life, whether plant or animal, is much greater than that of the entire biosphere. And by greater we are not talking 50% but rather several orders of magnitude. So whether due to catastrophism or gradual processes, the problem remains for the YEC viewpoint. But I am not sure what your particular viewpoint is.

Many feel that coal comes from peat which is silly when you look at whats in peat and what is in coal.

Well let's see.

http://www.mnn.com/earth-matters/translating-uncle-sam/stories/where-does-coal-come-from

Couldn't be too silly since that is the prevailing viewpoint.. Actually the creation of coal is one of the biggest problems for the YEC model. Are you familiar with isotopic analysis?

Now let us say that a land form was shaped to trap the salt water after a huge tsunami. The salt could easily drain into the lowest areas. Even if those areas are huge. Repeated tsunamis over a wide area could deposit lots of salt. There is also very salty water deep in the earths crust. If it percolated upward and flowed to a valley we could easily see thousands of feet of salt.

Notice how I said could, maybe, might be, all of those things which indicate I don't know for sure. Yet you know for sure what methods were not used. That means you know for sure what was used to form these features. Your assumption that you know is incorrect.

I'm not assuming Frank. 'Just looking at facts and seeing what constraints result from those facts.

http://www.icr.org/article/261/

This link shows some results of the Mt. Saint Helen Volcano eruption. Compared to what I see in the past this is a small event. Yet a canyon was formed 1/40 the size of the Grand Canyon in a day.

http://atlasobscura....erdeep-borehole

The last link is great, rock mixed with water deep in the ground. Who could have thought of such a thing. Almost like a fountain of the deep. I just love geology. The data.

Do you love geological data? That didn't seem to be the case when we discussed lake varves. You and a few others like to point to psuedo stratification and wave all stratification away as a consequence. But the problem remains that the individual layers contain C14 datable material which prove their annual nature and happen to agree with the C14 found in dendrochronology. Why the agreement? Even if C14 dating were completely bogus you can't explain the distribution being identical in lake varves and in tree rings.

And then you dismiss radioactivity with a wave of the hand which requires a change of a fundamental nature in the operation of the laws of physics no less.

And you want to be taken seriously..

The following link is for those who used this to discredit the stability of radioactive decay. You know who you are..

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/09/27/more-follow-up-on-the-solar-neutrinos-radioactive-decay-story-experimental-falsification/

[shalamabobbi]

To All:

When I see arguments among believers over events taught in the Bible regarding as to whether they should be taken literally or not, such as the Creation, the Flood, the Parting of the Red Sea, etc., I cannot help but notice that the confusion and derision caused by not accepting them as having literally taken place creates (among other things) a huge stumbling block for the unbeliever. This creates an atmosphere that is not congruent with the teachings of their own professed Savior, Jesus Christ.

I have seen agnostics and atheists point to those very arguments wherein they claim to be dissuaded to trust the believer's position of claiming there is a Christ. In fact the believer who supports the findings of science over what the Bible teaches is actually confirming the unbeliever's stance. I see this as very harmful against a believer's efforts to try to teach the Gospel message to anyone who has been subjected to such confusion, especially if the unbeliever's position has been affirmed by the believer's willingness to disgard events taught in the Bible.

Now, inasmuch as this thread is pointing specifically to the Flood, I will again point out how those who think the flood was either only a local one, or perhaps that it never took place at all, causes that believer to then also question whether or not God made a covenant with Noah. There is even one who has rationalized they believe that the flood was local, but the covenant WAS made. However to fit with what he believes science has proven, he has gone on to explain that covenant recorded by Moses was not understood correctly; that over the past several thousand years, the understanding of that covenant has needed to be adjusted (I suppose in accordance with the physical evidence being accepted by believers as proof the flood was not worldwide).

I am concerned with the effect such interpretations can have on the unbeliever, as these comments do nothing to encourage an unbeliever to begin the process of exercising faith in Christ. In light of the following passage, I would offer that believers - and particularly LDS believers - take a good look at what their choice to compromise the Bible's teachings looks like (even though their claim is to seek for truth according to what they believe they have been instructed to do), as it very much is at odds with the passage.

Moroni 7:14-17 (emphasis added)

14 Wherefore, take heed, my beloved brethren, that ye do not judge that which is evil to be of God, or that which is good and of God to be of the devil.

15 For behold, my brethren, it is given unto you to judge, that ye may know good from evil; and the way to judge is as plain, that ye may know with a perfect knowledge, as the daylight is from the dark night.

16 For behold, the Spirit of Christ is given to every man, that he may know good from evil; wherefore, I show unto you the way to judge; for every thing which inviteth to do good, and to persuade to believe in Christ, is sent forth by the power and gift of Christ; wherefore ye may know with a perfect knowledge it is of God.

17 But whatsoever thing persuadeth men to do evil, and believe not in Christ, and deny him, and serve not God, then ye may know with a perfect knowledge it is of the devil; for after this manner doth the devil work, for he persuadeth no man to do good, no, not one; neither do his angels; neither do they who subject themselves unto him.

My argument is not with the good which science has been able to provide mankind. My argument is against the faith man places in those theories of science which place scripture into question. I don't care how much "evidence" a person claims that science has provided which "proves" that scripture needs to be adjusted to be congruent with the findings of man. The point is, that those findings place scripture into a negative light. When such interpretations of the findings of man do not help to "persuade" a person to believe in Christ, then there is no other choice than to recognize that that interpreation of those findings cannot be of God.

Regards,

jo

I see it as a reason many are leaving the church, some of my close friends included, because of supporting this false dichotomy between science and religion. Note we are not talking about theories necessarily as much as simple facts. Like the fact that dendrochronolgy goes back 12,000 years. That is not a theory, it is a fact. Lake varves go back much further and they are C14 datable and the C14 dating matches dendrochronology.

When I posted about my disbelief in the literal viewpoints of J F Smith and B R McConkie I got the "mighty big elder" lecture from lightbearer. It is interesting to note that he/she wasn't much concerned about applying that same argument against J F Smith when he published "Man, His Origin and Destiny" contrary to the wishes of his leader and prophet at the time, David O McKay. He decided to be influenced instead by the writings of a denominational Christian.

Facts are facts. Teach the truth and let the chips fall where they may.

I guess your pronunciation will fall upon David O MacKay and other prominent figures within the LDS community as well..

[Calm]

There IS interpretation of the findings of science; however, which can either be of God or of the adversary. The interpretation cannot come from both God and Satan at the same time. It is impossible to serve both God and the adversary at the same moment; it is either one or the other. If the interpretations of science do not help persuade a person to believe in Christ, then those interpretations simply cannot be of God.

What if a particular interpretation persuades five people to come unto God and one person to come unto Satan on average? What about in equal numbers--5 good, 5 bad? What about one person to come unto God, but he becomes the most fantastic person after being a gross sinner and another 5 become greater sinners, but not that big of a change?

Is the interpretation from God or Satan in your view?

There are a number of people I know that look at the interpretation of the Bible that holds for a young earth as total bosh and therefore it has caused them to lose faith in God. Does that mean the young earth interpretation is of Satan?

Edited August 28, 2011 by calmoriah