World Wide Flood Of Noah

[jo1952]

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..

The problem is that it is your interpretation of various findings of science that their findings are true. Your so called facts are not necessarily facts. On the the other side of the coin, there are others who view these findings as insupportive of what you claim them to support. Therefore, their conclusion is that your interpretation is incorrect. Also, those who believe in a worldwide flood have plenty of evidence which supports a worldwide flood. However you believe their interpretation of that data is incorrect. So, I would ask, which conclusion is congruent with maintaining the integrity of the teachings of the Bible? I beieve it is the one which does not bring the teachings of the Bible into question.

I see this happen with the story of Adam and Eve; for evolution to work with the Genesis account you have to believe that at some point Adam and Eve evolved from Apes. This destroys the teaching of how Eve was created from one of Adam's ribs; it also destroys the teaching that Adam was made from the dust of the earth. Additionally, at what point in time was the ape developed enough to be considered a man? If we were made in the image of God, which man looks like him? Why do you suppose it took so long for God to have man evolve into to what he is today? Why did our knowledge and relationship with God only begin after man evolved into Adam? Doesn't evolution require that you debunk the Creation story as described in Genesis? You certainly have re-written the time frame; you have destroyed Adam's being created from dust - so I suppose that Eve's creation from Adam's rib needs to be thrown out as well. Heck, there is no evidence that the Garden of Eden ever existed; and whoever heard of a talking snake? Maybe Satan isn't real either. Maybe the Bible is really a philosophical record that has been added to throughout the ages to try to explain man's existance; but it is all really speculation and has nothing to do with spiritual truth, or, apparently, physical truth. Afterall, evolution, in the eyes of evolutionists, has proven this theory to be factual truth. You have no problem with throwing the Bible under the darwinian bus; perhaps soon you will be able to throw Christ under some scientific bus as well.

Ardipithicus ramidus

Australopithecus anamensis

Australopithecus afarensis

Australopithecus africanus

Australopithecus robustus

Homo habilis

Homo erectus

Homo sapiens archaic

Homo sapiens neandertalensis

Homo sapiens sapiens

So far, it seems that interpretations from various branches of science being referred to and discussed on this thread have necessary needed to debunk the Creation, the Flood, the Parting of the Red Sea...what's next? After science gets finished with scripture, what will be left of the Bible which CAN be believed? Did Moses really receive the tablets of the Ten Commandments? Did God write them, or did Moses just make them up? Where are they? Where is the Ark of the Covenant? Where is Christ's tomb? Are these also myths? Is Jesus a myth as well? Where do you draw the line???

Regards,

jo

[Robert F. Smith]

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"?

The problem with such estimates is that they assume that a particular version of the Bible is normative or correct. Different ancient versions of the Bible differ on chronology, many of the figures having more to do with symbolism than with actual calendar years.

Innocently using the KJV for a base date for the Flood or Garden event is just as questionable as the KJV translation of Hebrew 'eretz as "earth" rather than "land." It can mean either or both, and the translation has always to be taken in context, so that what may seem worldwide (planet "earth") may merely be local or regional.

Thus, for a variety of reasons, I put the Great Tower event in Ether ca. 3200 B.C. and figure Jaredite chronology from that point on. How much earlier were the Flood and Garden events? Can't say, but I do wonder whether it is essential to salvation to be able to establish the very day and year.

[Robert F. Smith]

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.

RIght on, Brother!!

[Franktalk]

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..

I don't care what others think of me. I only seek to question the knowledge of man. My argument is in support of a supernatural past. If I can cast doubt on man's knowledge then other options may be open to a seeking mind. It is that simple.

I do not know the age of the earth but I know the Biblical time line. How exactly they fit together I care not. Why is it so important to you that I accept scientific dogma?

[thesometimesaint]

Franktalk:

I have no problem with God. I do have a problem when God is used as a substitute for HOW he did it. The natural physical evidence for a world wide flood is sorely lacking. In FACT such an event violates the basic laws of science. There is a reason I post links to accepted science. Science works. The value of Pi didn't suddenly change, because thousands of years ago someone believed it was exactly three. It has always and forever been 3.14... . The earth has never been flat, and even Jesus didn't literally see the whole earth from a mountain top just outside of Jerusalem. Try it sometime, get as high on any hill or mountain you so desire and look out. You are not going to see literally the entire earth. We can't do it for the moon. The best we can do is see half of it at any one time. That Biblical story is allegory designed to tell a religious story about overcoming temptations. We should not give into temptations even if offered the entire world. What prospers it a man if he gains the entire world, but losses his own soul?

You can't change the laws of physics just to meet some emotional need you have to justify clinging to a literalist interpretation of Scipture.

Edited August 28, 2011 by thesometimesaint

[shalamabobbi]

This destroys the teaching of how Eve was created from one of Adam's ribs.

Interesting. You are LDS, correct? I guess I just assumed that you had been to the temple..

[thesometimesaint]

jo1952:

"I see this happen with the story of Adam and Eve; for evolution to work with the Genesis account you have to believe that at some point Adam and Eve evolved from Apes. This destroys the teaching of how Eve was created from one of Adam's ribs; it also destroys the teaching that Adam was made from the dust of the earth".

No it doesn't. Adam and Eve have a common ancestor of Apes. The Apes are a separate line of life. The only living people we have are Homo Sapiens Sapiens. ALL the others are merely ancestors. It's bit like saying you and I are related, but that relationship may have separated a thousand years ago. Now take the relationship back many millions of years.

Take the rib of any male animal, including man, do anything you want with it. You ain't gonna get a female.

We're actually more close to a dirty water drop, with an air bubble in it. We're nearly all water with a litte bit of carbon, and trace minerals tossed in.

Edited August 28, 2011 by thesometimesaint

[katherine the great]

I see this happen with the story of Adam and Eve; for evolution to work with the Genesis account you have to believe that at some point Adam and Eve evolved from Apes.

Bam! I rest my case...

[Calm]

Interesting. You are LDS, correct? I guess I just assumed that you had been to the temple..

[Hughes]

Franktalk:

I have no problem with God. I do have a problem when God is used as a substitute for HOW he did it. The natural physical evidence for a world wide flood is sorely lacking. In FACT such an event violates the basic laws of science. There is a reason I post links to accepted science. Science works. The value of Pi didn't suddenly change, because thousands of years ago someone believed it was exactly three. It has always and forever been 3.14... . The earth has never been flat, and even Jesus didn't literally see the whole earth from a mountain top just outside of Jerusalem. Try it sometime, get as high on any hill or mountain you so desire and look out. You are not going to see literally the entire earth. We can't do it for the moon. The best we can do is see half of it at any one time. That Biblical story is allegory designed to tell a religious story about overcoming temptations. We should not give into temptations even if offered the entire world. What prospers it a man if he gains the entire world, but losses his own soul?

You can't change the laws of physics just to meet some emotional need you have to justify clinging to a literalist interpretation of Scipture.

The juxtaposition, that this is between religion and science is false. This is between science and science.

Scientists who are believers in the scientific evidences that support the YEC model verses those who don't.

Scientists who believe that the evidences for intelligent design verses those who don't.

For these scientists, there is no need to suspend the physical laws. Of course this is a small group of scientists. Just like any new idea usually starts out with a small following (especially when their ideas are vilified as "anti-science" and they are ostracized for holding these views).

I agree with the one who said that we should just follow where the evidence leads.

Edited August 28, 2011 by Hughes

[jo1952]

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

Hi Katherine:

Seeing as it is God who actually created our world, and man did NOT, it seems to me that your understanding of science cannot even begin to scratch the surface of God's scientific knowledge.

How is that man thinks he is even capable, while in the flesh, to feel wise or learned enough about secular knowledge to so willingly cast aside what God, through His chosen Prophets by spiritual means, instructed them to teach man? Is man now worldly learned enough to determine that God DIDN'T really mean what He said in some instances, and likewise determine when God DID mean what He said in other instances? CAN secular knowledge now trump what is spiritually discerned about the physical world?

Regards,

jo

[katherine the great]

Hi Katherine:

Seeing as it is God who actually created our world, and man did NOT, it seems to me that your understanding of science cannot even begin to scratch the surface of God's scientific knowledge.

How is that man thinks he is even capable, while in the flesh, to feel wise or learned enough about secular knowledge to so willingly cast aside what God, through His chosen Prophets by spiritual means, instructed them to teach man? Is man now worldly learned enough to determine that God DIDN'T really mean what He said in some instances, and likewise determine when God DID mean what He said in other instances? CAN secular knowledge now trump what is spiritually discerned about the physical world?

Regards,

jo

I do not believe in or worship a God who would execute a catastrophic world event and then hide all evidence of it and indeed create false evidence that shows that it did not happen. If that is the God you worship, that's fine. I find it much easier (and more intelligent) to believe that the scriptures were written by mortal men who were translating God's word the best they could in the world and culture they were a part of. Hence, I look to scripture for spiritual lessons of obedience and righteousness--not for a literal history of the world. I'm weary of debating this with you. We are clearly from different universes of thought so I see no reason to continue to debate a worldwide flood (which I will never believe in) with you.

[Ron Beron]

Hi Katherine:

Seeing as it is God who actually created our world, and man did NOT, it seems to me that your understanding of science cannot even begin to scratch the surface of God's scientific knowledge.

How is that man thinks he is even capable, while in the flesh, to feel wise or learned enough about secular knowledge to so willingly cast aside what God, through His chosen Prophets by spiritual means, instructed them to teach man? Is man now worldly learned enough to determine that God DIDN'T really mean what He said in some instances, and likewise determine when God DID mean what He said in other instances? CAN secular knowledge now trump what is spiritually discerned about the physical world?

Regards,

jo

This argument seems to be a contradiction in itself. You state that the prophets through spiritual means are guided by God, but yet negate the possibility that many scientists are also guided by God to determine the nature of the world which God created. Shall we not let God decide who is guided by revelation whether spiritual or cognitive? Leave the faith to the follower. Ultimately, it is all we have plus the intelligence God gives us to determine some wisdom.

[Franktalk]

We speak of science as a path to an understanding of all things. As a group of men we have been at this quest for many years and spanning many generations. Our knowledge acquired is impressive yet is no where close to what we could define as the ultimate science. Or the ultimate scientist. Oh we can fix a computer and sometimes we can even cure a disease. We sure do pat our self on the back when we do these things. But let us setup a test of our science and see how it compares with other scientist in a special group.

Let us say that we are faced with restoring the life to a man that has been dead for some number of days. The cells in his body have suffered death and rot and decay have taken hold. In fact the body stinks from the rot and maggots have started to eat away the dead flesh. The brain is dead and all memories are gone. The electrical signals that once ran all over the body and the nerve cells and that transported those signals have all ceased to function. But it is our job to restore this person. So can we call upon our science and perform the tasks required to bring life back to this dead person? I don’t think it is an overstatement to say that our science can’t do this task. Our level of science is way to primitive to know what to do. We would have to fix each cell and at a molecular level change molecules to turn each cell from nonfunctioning to functioning. We would have to reestablish the electrical pathways in the brain and restore the chemical memories as well as the electrical connections so that the memories of that man would come back. We can do some limited fixing of computers and engines and we can even shape molecules. But on the scale of numbers and complexity the systems of a body are beyond our reach as scientist.

But I know of a scientist that has the knowledge of the body down to the molecular level. I know a scientist that can change molecules and electrical systems no matter how complex they may appear. This scientist is as far as I know the ultimate scientist. Heck, a few years back He fixed a body that was dead. He fixed the memories in the brain. He restored each cell so it functioned again. The dead man’s name was lazarus and the scientist name was Jesus. Now this scientist Jesus is much more aware of the functioning of the natural world. So much so that He has command over it. Now this scientist and His associates have through a number of writers given us a message that we are suppose to believe and follow. Even though I don’t understand His science I do see the effects of His science.

Now some of the scientist of men tell me that in reading the message from the ultimate scientist we should use the science of men to sort out the message. I find this limited view problematic. For in my mind the abilities of the ultimate scientist carry over into the message. So while the message from the ultimate scientist may be confusing in some degree it still is a pure message. It is my limited abilities that create that confusion. So why would I allow the group of men who call them self scientist with their limitations tell me how I should read the message. Or in some cases they tell me that the message is wrong and does not represent reality. I will stick to the face value interpretation of the message until I know I should use some other method. But I know that some scientist of men have cut out parts of the message. I know that some have rejected parts of the message. I know that some men teach that the message is false. They teach that it is their message that we should learn. Their message is their limited understanding of the natural world. Why would I settle for that limited message when I have a message from the ultimate scientist? I think that one day the scientist who are men will make progress towards a better understanding of things. As they do I think they will move towards the message from the ultimate scientist and not away from it. In my heart I know this is true. So if we know the final outcome today why would I not take that leap of faith today and treat the message from the ultimate scientist as truth. No matter if my limitations prevent me from connecting all of the dots of evidence right now.

If I go into a pottery shop and there stands before me someone who is admiring the pots and the potter which one knows the nature of the pots better? The person who is admiring the pots or the potter? For me the potter knows more about the pot and can tell me things about the pot that the other person could not know. Whereas the observer is limited by their personal observation the potter is not. The potter knows how the pot was made. He does not have to guess. The potter knows the sequence and processes involved in making the pot. If the observer made a book on how to make pottery it would be a guess. But if the potter made a book on how to make pottery it would not be a guess. Which book would you trust if you had the desire to one day become a potter?

[jo1952]

This argument seems to be a contradiction in itself. You state that the prophets through spiritual means are guided by God, but yet negate the possibility that many scientists are also guided by God to determine the nature of the world which God created. Shall we not let God decide who is guided by revelation whether spiritual or cognitive? Leave the faith to the follower. Ultimately, it is all we have plus the intelligence God gives us to determine some wisdom.

Perhaps it was silly for God to choose Prophets at all to record the events of the Bible. Didn't He know that man would finally figure out His Prophets were incapable of writing down what He wanted them to? Certainly science is smarter than any Prophet. We already know for instance, that God picks the unlearned and simple men to be His Prophets. I guess that must be the reason He did that. He wanted to make sure that future learned scholars would be able to uncover the REAL truth He was teaching through His Prophets. Gosh, is there a specific college I can go to that will teach me what the Prophets really should have written? I would really be interested in knowing what Joseph Smith was supposed to teach us, rather than what he actually wrote. The thing I can't wrap my head around though, is why would God mislead us this way? I always thought He spoke only the truth. My bad.

Regards,

jo

[jo1952]

I do not believe in or worship a God who would execute a catastrophic world event and then hide all evidence of it and indeed create false evidence that shows that it did not happen. If that is the God you worship, that's fine. I find it much easier (and more intelligent) to believe that the scriptures were written by mortal men who were translating God's word the best they could in the world and culture they were a part of. Hence, I look to scripture for spiritual lessons of obedience and righteousness--not for a literal history of the world. I'm weary of debating this with you. We are clearly from different universes of thought so I see no reason to continue to debate a worldwide flood (which I will never believe in) with you.

Hi Katherine:

One last thought - I don't believe God created false evidence. I believe man is interpreting what he is seeing incorrectly. Man has a propensity for this as is evidenced by the myriad of denominations which hold to a myriad of different interpretations of doctrine. I don't see where you are applying your same concern across the boards; rather, it looks like you are picking and choosing where you will apply your precept of false evidence.

I suppose it is best if this the last correspondence we have on this subject, as in your eyes my intelligence must be almost non-existent by now. I'm not even sure if I am really standing erect anymore.

Regards,

jo

[jo1952]

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?

Moroni didn't feel the need to expound on numerical examples of his teaching. However, I will be happy to address your question, which is actually a very interesting one. If someone is persuaded to come to Christ based on a false interpretation, then the fact it was a false interpretation can cause problems with that person's faith down the road. Thus Moroni warned us against calling something of God which was NOT of God. Now, God, in His mercy, and His desire to have all of us return to Him, will still use ALL circumstances as they arise and will find a way to make something good happen out of something evil. However, this does not mean that the original persuasion based on a false interpretation was of God. I am reminded, for instance, of how Jonah took a boat to Tarshish in the total opposite direction of Nineveh. Though Jonah was punished and spent three days in a large fish, the men on the boat, who were not believers at the time Jonah joined them, became believers as a result of their experience on the boat. Thus God turned something evil (Jonah's disobedience), into something good.

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?

The story that the Creation only took six days is rather fantastic. However, this thing called "faith" encompasses not only desiring and believing that what we are taught about Jesus is true, it also (should) result in accepting scripture as the word of God. What you have not provided is the reason why, after the people had already accepted Jesus and then lost faith in God is if the interpretations of science which have tried to debunk the Genesis account had something to do with their losing faith. Was that the final straw that broke the camel's back? If they already were having trouble with having faith in the six-day Creation, perhaps the push by science of an interpretation of the earth taking millions/billions of years to evolve was enough to push them over the edge. This could certainly have caused them to believe that God was a liar.

Also, I would appreciate if you could clarify to me if you consider a person losing faith in Jesus the same as their "denying" Christ, which is the stipulation Moroni made. IOW, are you adding something to this passage which Moroni did NOT say? Usually "denying" Christ takes on the understanding that they have received a sure witness of the Holy Ghost but then turn around and forsake what the Holy Ghost has taught them. Is this what you mean by their losing faith? If it is not, then your example does not fit the profile of what Moroni's message encompassed.

Regards,

jo

Edited August 29, 2011 by jo1952

[thesometimesaint]

Hughs:

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-age-of-earth.html

[thesometimesaint]

jo1952:

While I'm sorry that anyone losses faith in Jesus Christ. To use science as the excuse to loose faith is silly. I guess if you're looking for an excuse ANY will do. There are 100's if not thousands of active scientists in every discipline that are also active faithfull LDS. Further do Jews loose faith in God, because Pi isn't exactly three? Do Christian loose faith in Christ because the earth doesn't have four corners? Do Christians loose faith because the sun doesn't revolve around the earth? Do LDS loose faith because Joseph Fielding Smith was wrong about man in space, and landing on the moon? Why on Gods' green earth should a LDS loose faith because someone didn't have an accurate understanding of what science actually says?

Edited August 29, 2011 by thesometimesaint

[Ron Beron]

Perhaps it was silly for God to choose Prophets at all to record the events of the Bible. Didn't He know that man would finally figure out His Prophets were incapable of writing down what He wanted them to? Certainly science is smarter than any Prophet. We already know for instance, that God picks the unlearned and simple men to be His Prophets. I guess that must be the reason He did that. He wanted to make sure that future learned scholars would be able to uncover the REAL truth He was teaching through His Prophets. Gosh, is there a specific college I can go to that will teach me what the Prophets really should have written? I would really be interested in knowing what Joseph Smith was supposed to teach us, rather than what he actually wrote. The thing I can't wrap my head around though, is why would God mislead us this way? I always thought He spoke only the truth. My bad.

Regards,

jo

First of all, the prophets probably didn't write anything down, but scribes did under the direction of redactors. Secondly, if you understood what ancient ecstatic prophets were really about you probably wouldn't champion them so much. Even modern LDS prophets are prone to disagree, e.g. the debate between James Talmadge and Joseph Fielding Smith over the origin of man. Third, we are all prophets for inspiration for ourselves. Prophets speak for the Lord for the populous not necessarily the scientific community. God has not spoken on many scientific areas because he has given us the brains, knowledge, and hopefully the wisdom to deal with them. And finally, it would be a mistake to assume things about a world wide flood scenario that may or may not have happened according to the Genesis account. There might be many factors that you haven't considered, i.e., language, idioms, and the relative cognition of those that recorded the "event".

[Hughes]

Hughs:

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-age-of-earth.html

I've read all the arguments. That doesn't change the fact that some scientists disagree with other scientists...

Edited August 29, 2011 by Hughes

[thesometimesaint]

Hughes:

Such is the definition of science. It thrives on disagreement. However to toss YEC into science is a incredible abuse of science. In fact there is NO SCIENCE involved in YEC at all.

[shalamabobbi]

The story that the Creation only took six days is rather fantastic. However, this thing called "faith" ...

I don't know what happened to Consiglieri but he offered what I think was the correct view of the Genesis creation account. Something to do with the number seven representing wholeness and completeness.

Anyhow we don't tell small children the stork story too much anymore, but that is the way I look at it. The gospel has to be adapted to the least intelligent among us and must be simple to understand. Likely the details of creation are not so simple, so it wouldn't be fair to require understanding it in order to gain eternal life. But the purpose of the creation and the atonement can be explained with a rather simple depiction of it.

It is official LDS doctrine that Eve being created from the rib of Adam is figurative BTW.

[shalamabobbi]

We speak of science as a path to an understanding of all things. As a group of men we have been at this quest for many years and spanning many generations. Our knowledge acquired is impressive yet is no where close to what we could define as the ultimate science. Or the ultimate scientist. Oh we can fix a computer and sometimes we can even cure a disease. We sure do pat our self on the back when we do these things. But let us setup a test of our science and see how it compares with other scientist in a special group.

Let us say that we are faced with restoring the life to a man that has been dead for some number of days. The cells in his body have suffered death and rot and decay have taken hold. In fact the body stinks from the rot and maggots have started to eat away the dead flesh. The brain is dead and all memories are gone. The electrical signals that once ran all over the body and the nerve cells and that transported those signals have all ceased to function. But it is our job to restore this person. So can we call upon our science and perform the tasks required to bring life back to this dead person? I don’t think it is an overstatement to say that our science can’t do this task. Our level of science is way to primitive to know what to do. We would have to fix each cell and at a molecular level change molecules to turn each cell from nonfunctioning to functioning. We would have to reestablish the electrical pathways in the brain and restore the chemical memories as well as the electrical connections so that the memories of that man would come back. We can do some limited fixing of computers and engines and we can even shape molecules. But on the scale of numbers and complexity the systems of a body are beyond our reach as scientist.

But I know of a scientist that has the knowledge of the body down to the molecular level. I know a scientist that can change molecules and electrical systems no matter how complex they may appear. This scientist is as far as I know the ultimate scientist. Heck, a few years back He fixed a body that was dead. He fixed the memories in the brain. He restored each cell so it functioned again. The dead man’s name was lazarus and the scientist name was Jesus. Now this scientist Jesus is much more aware of the functioning of the natural world. So much so that He has command over it. Now this scientist and His associates have through a number of writers given us a message that we are suppose to believe and follow. Even though I don’t understand His science I do see the effects of His science.

Now some of the scientist of men tell me that in reading the message from the ultimate scientist we should use the science of men to sort out the message. I find this limited view problematic. For in my mind the abilities of the ultimate scientist carry over into the message. So while the message from the ultimate scientist may be confusing in some degree it still is a pure message. It is my limited abilities that create that confusion. So why would I allow the group of men who call them self scientist with their limitations tell me how I should read the message. Or in some cases they tell me that the message is wrong and does not represent reality. I will stick to the face value interpretation of the message until I know I should use some other method. But I know that some scientist of men have cut out parts of the message. I know that some have rejected parts of the message. I know that some men teach that the message is false. They teach that it is their message that we should learn. Their message is their limited understanding of the natural world. Why would I settle for that limited message when I have a message from the ultimate scientist? I think that one day the scientist who are men will make progress towards a better understanding of things. As they do I think they will move towards the message from the ultimate scientist and not away from it. In my heart I know this is true. So if we know the final outcome today why would I not take that leap of faith today and treat the message from the ultimate scientist as truth. No matter if my limitations prevent me from connecting all of the dots of evidence right now.

If I go into a pottery shop and there stands before me someone who is admiring the pots and the potter which one knows the nature of the pots better? The person who is admiring the pots or the potter? For me the potter knows more about the pot and can tell me things about the pot that the other person could not know. Whereas the observer is limited by their personal observation the potter is not. The potter knows how the pot was made. He does not have to guess. The potter knows the sequence and processes involved in making the pot. If the observer made a book on how to make pottery it would be a guess. But if the potter made a book on how to make pottery it would not be a guess. Which book would you trust if you had the desire to one day become a potter?

I interacted with a flat earther on another board once. He rejected the pictures of the spherical earth from cameras aboard the space shuttle because they disagreed with his literal interpretation of the scriptures. He claimed that because the signals being sent to earth were processed that he didn't trust the images that were relayed. His arguments were very similar to yours in many respects.

Learn some real science at a university. Gain some appreciation for the sacrifice, effort and work that has gone into where we are today.

I would suggest a modification of a phrase to you. Replace the original "What kind of church would this church be, if all of its members were just like me?" with "What kind of world would this world be if all of its science came from me?"

[Hughes]

Hughes:

Such is the definition of science. It thrives on disagreement. However to toss YEC into science is a incredible abuse of science. In fact there is NO SCIENCE involved in YEC at all.

Thus is your opinion, which differs from other scientists.