World Wide Flood Of Noah

[Bond...James Bond]

I feel like I'm in an episode of The Twilight Zone...

The Twilight Zone doesn't even begin to cover some of the things in this thread.

[Bond...James Bond]

Paraphrasing this poster's posts on this thread:

Reality and sanity

Thank you sir!

[Hughes]

When you read the data and base a judgment upon that data it is not bias nor dogma. When you hold to a view that contradicts that data THAT is holding onto dogma because of bias.

Matter is eternal. I think that means it belongs to God rather than it is immortal. It can be placed into a condition of immortality but we don't know anything about that now.

Matter is held together and behaves in a certain manner with a rather sparse description of what are termed laws of physics. It is rather remarkable that such should be the case.

Besides this, a study has been made into what would happen if even tiny changes in these constants of nature were to occur and the results would be disastrous for life as we know it. This is the finely tuned universe argument and I believe it has merit.

The crux of the problem is that data doesn't interpret itself.

You claim that Matter is eternal. That is dogma. Not fact. We can't and won't ever be able to demonstrate what is eternal or not, using science.

You claim that decay rates haven't changed. This may or may not be true. However, the data alone won't demonstrate this to be true or not. A model is constructed to incorporate the data. Your claim through this whole thread is that the Old Earth Model is the only model in existence. That only pseudo-science postulates YEC models. This is a false statement and you know it. You know there are real scientists who disagree with the Old Earth Model.

You attempt to undercut the idea of a world wide flood, by disparaging scientists or anyone believing in such models.

And even Katharine states, "I see no reason to continue to debate a worldwide flood (which I will never believe in)..." (post #337)

And this is supposed to be an example of an unbiased person?

[Bond...James Bond]

And even Katharine states, "I see no reason to continue to debate a worldwide flood (which I will never believe in)..." (post #337)

And this is supposed to be an example of an unbiased person?

That's right the person who listens to what 99.98% of scientists believe is the biased one. KtG you're blinded by your adherence to science and evidence and whatnot. Repent ma'am.

[Franktalk]

I wonder why scripture is so definite about who will take the right path.

1 Corinthians 1 20Where is the wise? where is the scribe? where is the disputer of this world? hath not God made foolish the wisdom of this world?

I guess this must be talking about the old wisdom of this world. Because the new wisdom of this world is used to cut and paste scripture.

1 Corinthians 2 5That your faith should not stand in the wisdom of men, but in the power of God.

6Howbeit we speak wisdom among them that are perfect: yet not the wisdom of this world, nor of the princes of this world, that come to nought:

Again this must be talking about the old wisdom of men. Because the new wisdom allows each of us the walk in the spirit of man's knowledge.

1 Corinthians 2 13Which things also we speak, not in the words which man's wisdom teacheth, but which the Holy Ghost teacheth; comparing spiritual things with spiritual.

It sure is a good thing that man's knowledge trumps spiritual things. Can someone tell me the year that happened?

1 Corinthians 3 19For the wisdom of this world is foolishness with God. For it is written, He taketh the wise in their own craftiness.

Those old guys sure were fools. I am so glad that today's science is not foolishness at all. In fact an area of study that leaves out God must be the sure path to heaven.

[shalamabobbi]

The crux of the problem is that data doesn't interpret itself.

You claim that Matter is eternal. That is dogma. Not fact. We can't and won't ever be able to demonstrate what is eternal or not, using science.

This is the very first post of yours that I absolutely agree with! Who says miracles can't happen.

It is in the Doctrine and Covenants and the remark was directed to the LDS readers not to you..

You claim that decay rates haven't changed. This may or may not be true. However, the data alone won't demonstrate this to be true or not.

It most certainly does and I demonstrated it in the last couple of posts with a solid proof.

The more familiar proofs are in the link at the bottom. Do I have to place everything in front of your eyes for you?

1. The constancy of radioactive decay is not an assumption, but is supported by evidence:

* The radioactive decay rates of nuclides used in radiometric dating have not been observed to vary since their rates were directly measurable, at least within limits of accuracy. This is despite experiments that attempt to change decay rates (Emery 1972). Extreme pressure can cause electron-capture decay rates to increase slightly (less than 0.2 percent), but the change is small enough that it has no detectable effect on dates.

* Supernovae are known to produce a large quantity of radioactive isotopes (Nomoto et al. 1997a, 1997b; Thielemann et al. 1998). These isotopes produce gamma rays with frequencies and fading rates that are predictable according to present decay rates. These predictions hold for supernova SN1987A, which is 169,000 light-years away (Knödlseder 2000). Therefore, radioactive decay rates were not significantly different 169,000 years ago. Present decay rates are likewise consistent with observations of the gamma rays and fading rates of supernova SN1991T, which is sixty million light-years away (Prantzos 1999), and with fading rate observations of supernovae billions of light-years away (Perlmutter et al. 1998).

* The Oklo reactor was the site of a natural nuclear reaction 1,800 million years ago. The fine structure constant affects neutron capture rates, which can be measured from the reactor's products. These measurements show no detectable change in the fine structure constant and neutron capture for almost two billion years (Fujii et al. 2000; Shlyakhter 1976).

2. Radioactive decay at a rate fast enough to permit a young earth would have produced enough heat to melt the earth (Meert 2002).

3. Different radioisotopes decay in different ways. It is unlikely that a variable rate would affect all the different mechanisms in the same way and to the same extent. Yet different radiometric dating techniques give consistent dates. Furthermore, radiometric dating techniques are consistent with other dating techniques, such as dendrochronology, ice core dating, and historical records (e.g., Renne et al. 1997).

4. The half-lives of radioisotopes can be predicted from first principles through quantum mechanics. Any variation would have to come from changes to fundamental constants. According to the calculations that accurately predict half-lives, any change in fundamental constants would affect decay rates of different elements disproportionally, even when the elements decay by the same mechanism (Greenlees 2000; Krane 1987).

http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CF/CF210.html

A model is constructed to incorporate the data.

That's right. A model that has been proven correct and verified. How? By agreement between UNRELATED methods. Your job is to explain why the agreement with something other than "I believe the Bible was written literally when discussing talking snakes". Even English majors (no offense intended - my jab to get back at all the poor grades I got in those mandatory English electives) understand that a literal interpretation of Genesis falls flat with very little meaning.

Your claim through this whole thread is that the Old Earth Model is the only model in existence. That only pseudo-science postulates YEC models. This is a false statement and you know it.

I do?

You know there are real scientists who disagree with the Old Earth Model.

There are? And where do they work? What science have they done? Could it be the ones that can't even understand celestial mechanics well enough not to embarrass themselves with arguments about the galaxies winding themselves up? If they are scientists then I'm bloody Einstein and Schrodinger combined..

You attempt to undercut the idea of a world wide flood, by disparaging scientists or anyone believing in such models.

How so when I believed in a world wide flood myself at one point in time? Educate yourself for goodness sake.

And even Katharine states, "I see no reason to continue to debate a worldwide flood (which I will never believe in)..." (post #337)

And this is supposed to be an example of an unbiased person?

She went to school. So should you.

The first people to discount a world wide flood were atheists Christians. Yep, and it happened before Darwin came along.

[shalamabobbi]

I wonder why scripture is so definite about who will take the right path.

1 Corinthians 1 20Where is the wise? where is the scribe? where is the disputer of this world? hath not God made foolish the wisdom of this world?

I guess this must be talking about the old wisdom of this world. Because the new wisdom of this world is used to cut and paste scripture.

1 Corinthians 2 5That your faith should not stand in the wisdom of men, but in the power of God.

6Howbeit we speak wisdom among them that are perfect: yet not the wisdom of this world, nor of the princes of this world, that come to nought:

Again this must be talking about the old wisdom of men. Because the new wisdom allows each of us the walk in the spirit of man's knowledge.

1 Corinthians 2 13Which things also we speak, not in the words which man's wisdom teacheth, but which the Holy Ghost teacheth; comparing spiritual things with spiritual.

It sure is a good thing that man's knowledge trumps spiritual things. Can someone tell me the year that happened?

1 Corinthians 3 19For the wisdom of this world is foolishness with God. For it is written, He taketh the wise in their own craftiness.

Those old guys sure were fools. I am so glad that today's science is not foolishness at all. In fact an area of study that leaves out God must be the sure path to heaven.

Frank, when you've got something more than "This is how I think scripture should be interpreted" I'll look into replying more in depth.

[Rob Osborn]

What you haven't stated is whether you agree that the actual mass of either object can be determined in your view, not just the ratio of two masses. If not, why not. This is very important. Please respond to this and then we'll get to the hollow versus solid idea.

I have problems with science stating they can determine the absolute mass of the planet. The reason I say this because there is no way that I have heard of to actually measure the force of the planet to see if "all" or just "part" of it is directly attracted to one small indivual object on the surface such as you or I. Does a planet's total mass attract to an object or just part of it? Experiments with small balls is fine and shows what relative force can be measured. But is it measured against the whole earth or just part of it? How can we tell? I have long debated this and I have yet to determine a way one could test this- we just do not have the technology and precision to make tests like this.

We do know masses of objects and we can calculate densities of materials. The vindication again is that the results of the predictions of all this knowledge work as predicted in calculating the arcs and trajectories of fired ordnance, flights of space craft through the cosmos, orbits of planets and comets. If it didn't work your assertions would hold some weight, but Newtonian mechanics works just fine which contradicts your assertion that there is something we don't know. We know it to such a fine degree that we had to polish Newtonian mechanics and upgrade it with relativistic mechanics.

Yes but none of this explains the true density of the planet earth against itself. It only is known in relevence to some other object.

Cancellation effect due to magnetism?? Magnetic fields affect other objects with magnetic fields. If you do not possess a magnetic field, you remain uninfluenced by a magnetic field.

The other way to create a magnetic field is with relative motion of an object with a net electric charge. That's it. This is all quite well understood and for quite awhile now.

So how much of the earth's total mass creates magnetic fields?

Not so. You assume magnetism has an effect but as stated only on other magnets and not much of an effect at that.

Magnetic fields may very well effect gravity. Scientists still do not have an absolute perfect value for gravity. Scientists are debating why. Some believe that perhaps the earths magnetic field has an effect of either boosting gravity or dampening it. There is still a lot we do not know about gravity, electricity and magnetism.

Hint: all of it. Gravity has been upgraded since Newton who simply described it's effects with a mathematical model. Try some Einstein. You may have heard of him. He lived a bit more recently than Newton and described how mass warps spacetime to cause the effect known as gravity.

Theories on paper are pipe dreams until proven. I have read a lot of einsteins work on relativity and don't really agree with most of it.

You need to master static fields before moving on to electromagnetism buddy..

garbage in, garbage out..

Be careful what you feed your mind because it really does matter, just as diet affects the body's health..

Logic is the best tool and logic still tells me that there is no way to determine if our planet is hollow or solid based off of simple gravity experiments and math calculations. We know so little as is obvious with what was causing the auroras. I mean, for Pete's sake, they just kinda stumbled upon the ion fountains spewing material from inside the earth and then determined it was these particles causingt he auroras. A perfect case of not knowing heads from tails. What really do we know about gravity and how it effects the mass on earth? I am afraid that we know very little indeed.

[keith_brian]

What, based on their opionion of what a wave graph should look like? Unbelievable!

So, when scientists use sound to look at a fetus and see what that looks like ... is that their opinion of what the fetus looks like or is it pretty close to what the fetus actually looks like?

Believe it or not, the same algorithms and physics that describe the second situation also apply to the first situation. I know it's hard to grasp at times, but science really doesn't have two sets of rules: one that they apply in cases where science contradicts the Bible and ones that they apply in all other cases. It's the same science, believe it or not.

[keith_brian]

Sorry to use a wikipedia site. Some of the other Russian sites had umm..inappropriate adversting on them.

http://en.wikipedia....erdeep_Borehole

Research

The Kola borehole penetrated about a third of the way through the Baltic continental crust, estimated to be around 35 kilometres (22 mi) deep, reaching rocks of Archaean age (greater than 2.5 billion years old) at the bottom.[7] The project has been a site of extensive geophysical studies. The stated areas of study were the deep structure of the Baltic Shield; seismic discontinuities and the thermal regime in the Earth's crust; the physical and chemical composition of the deep crust and the transition from upper to lower crust; lithospheric geophysics; and to create and develop technologies for deep geophysical study.

To scientists, one of the more fascinating findings to emerge from this well is that the change in seismic velocities was not found at a boundary marking Harold Jeffreys's hypothetical transition from granite to basalt; it was at the bottom of a layer of metamorphic rock that extended from about 5 to 10 kilometers beneath the surface. The rock there had been thoroughly fractured and was saturated with water, which was surprising. This water, unlike surface water, must have come from deep-crust minerals and had been unable to reach the surface because of a layer of impermeable rock.[8]

Another unexpected discovery was the large quantity of hydrogen gas, with the mud flowing out of the hole described as "boiling" with hydrogen.[9]

It seems that other deep drilling projects are coming up with the same problem. They can only get so deep before drilling efforts are impaired by water and mud, making it impossible to continue drilling in a straight downward line.

Since Seismographic data is only a theory which shows "strongly that the earth is not hollow and contains very little water in its interior", has no physical evidence that man has been able to dig that far in support of their conclusion, I would offer that the Kola Hole findings put this theory in question. So, as you were kind enough to point out, I will use your very own words: Try again.

Regards,

jo

So ... a bore whole that goes 10 km deep means that the entirety of the earth is hollow and filled with water and contradicts seismic data?

Huh.

[keith_brian]

Sorry to use a wikipedia site. Some of the other Russian sites had umm..inappropriate adversting on them.

http://en.wikipedia....erdeep_Borehole

Research

The Kola borehole penetrated about a third of the way through the Baltic continental crust, estimated to be around 35 kilometres (22 mi) deep, reaching rocks of Archaean age (greater than 2.5 billion years old) at the bottom.[7] The project has been a site of extensive geophysical studies. The stated areas of study were the deep structure of the Baltic Shield; seismic discontinuities and the thermal regime in the Earth's crust; the physical and chemical composition of the deep crust and the transition from upper to lower crust; lithospheric geophysics; and to create and develop technologies for deep geophysical study.

To scientists, one of the more fascinating findings to emerge from this well is that the change in seismic velocities was not found at a boundary marking Harold Jeffreys's hypothetical transition from granite to basalt; it was at the bottom of a layer of metamorphic rock that extended from about 5 to 10 kilometers beneath the surface. The rock there had been thoroughly fractured and was saturated with water, which was surprising. This water, unlike surface water, must have come from deep-crust minerals and had been unable to reach the surface because of a layer of impermeable rock.[8]

Another unexpected discovery was the large quantity of hydrogen gas, with the mud flowing out of the hole described as "boiling" with hydrogen.[9]

It seems that other deep drilling projects are coming up with the same problem. They can only get so deep before drilling efforts are impaired by water and mud, making it impossible to continue drilling in a straight downward line.

Since Seismographic data is only a theory which shows "strongly that the earth is not hollow and contains very little water in its interior", has no physical evidence that man has been able to dig that far in support of their conclusion, I would offer that the Kola Hole findings put this theory in question. So, as you were kind enough to point out, I will use your very own words: Try again.

Regards,

jo

So ... a bore whole that goes 10 km deep means that the entirety of the earth is hollow and filled with water?

Huh.

Edited September 4, 2011 by keith_brian

[Cobalt-70]

Teachers are paid too much, based on what they actually provide to society....

Wow. Never heard anybody argue that teachers were overpaid in relation to their contribution to society. I think that's quite incorrect, both economically and aesthetically. Assume that you didn't have public schools, and you didn't have stay-at-home parents that could work full time for free on your education. What would you have paid someone for your K-12 grade education? Well, without your education, you probably would be consigned to a life of minimum wage jobs. So calculate your actual total salary from age 18 until retirement, subtract a minimum wage you would have received during that same period, and the difference is what your K-12 grade education is "worth" to you. Give some of the money to school administrators, building upkeep, and supplies. What remains is the value of teachers to society, as it relates to you.

The value of teachers to society is far higher than we pay them. The only reason they don't get that money is that teachers have very low bargaining power, due to competition with other teachers, and the fact that their jobs are in the public sector. If you were to fairly bargain with these teachers, one on one, for your education, so that they had equal bargaining power with you, you would end up paying a lot of money, and you would probably do so willingly, so that you could avoid a life of minimum wage jobs. If you split the difference with them, and gave them half of what they are worth to you--half of their value to society as apportioned to you--that would be far more than a couple thousand dollars per year, which is their 30K+ salary divided by about 20-30 kids per class.

[jo1952]

So ... a bore whole that goes 10 km deep means that the entirety of the earth is hollow and filled with water?

Huh.

Hmmm - do you always just jump to the conclusion you want to reach in order to dismiss any data that causes your theory to be questioned? This explains a lot.

I thought the scientific method was dedicated to assessing all of the data (not just the data which supports your chosen theory) in order to test if your theory may need to be adjusted as more information becomes available.

The scientists working at the Kola Hole were clearly not expecting to find ANY water at all. Obviously this doe not supply any type of proof that the earth is hollow and filled with water. They also were not expecting the temperatures they found. Their scientifically educated pre-determined calculations had shown them different projections from what they actually encountered at the depths they were digging.

Inasmuch as their findings were not what they had expected indicates to me that scientists simply don't really know what is in the center of the earth. They didn't find support for your theory, which means your theory is flawed and needs to be re-evaluated in order to incorporate the new findings.

Regards,

jo

[jo1952]

We did not build CERN to re-establish century old nuclear physics. If you don't believe me, a college physics professor should be able to field this question for you at a local campus. Be careful not to mention your pet theory though if you expect to be given any of his/her office time.

And you are okay with that??? Has it come to this? Someone who wants to discuss physics with a physics professor will not be given the time of day by that professor if you don't agree with his interpretations?

I see that same pattern in religious persecution as well.

a) Don't let them know you are sympathetic to the Jews, the Germans will take you, too.

b) Since you won't agree with the Trinity now that it has become official orthodox belief, you are now considered a heretic.

c) If you refuse to accept the Trinity, your soul is damned.

They were all just as convinced as you seem to be that their views were the only correct ones. In fact, you claim yours is the only possible interpretation, even though it is quite clear that it is not. Do you not see that this effectively persecutes those who do not agree with your scientific beliefs, just the same as when you are persecuted for your religious beliefs???!!!!

I shouldn't be astonished as this pattern is repeated throughout the Bible and the Book of Mormon; but it does sadden me nonetheless.

Regards,

jo

[Franktalk]

Just who can man trust? Can man trust man to supply answers to very difficult questions?

Why am I here?

What is my purpose?

Where am I going?

Does science answer these questions? I think they do but we don't like the answers. Why am I here? Answer - You are an accident of nature in which matter self organized over a long time. What is my purpose? Answer - There is no purpose, life is an accident and we are driven by evolved traits that tend to preserve species. Where am I going? Answer - You cease to exist, there is nothing after death.

These are the Godless answers of science. Why would anyone of faith hold science as truth when these are the results of science? Can those who embrace science see that when God is left of of the equation that these answers are the only ones possible. If science can be so wrong in answering these three questions then why do we trust the process to answer any hard question. Some people dance around the real truth of the scientific process. It is Godless. Someone show me where God is included in the scientific method? Someone show me one projection back in time that includes God as a variable. Yet there are people on this very thread that argue that science and religion are separate and we can't mix them. So I am to accept that the most important thing in my life can't be used to supply answers to questions about the past. I am to accept the conclusions of men and adjust my view of God based on their Godless interpretation of the universe. I will swear to the God I know that I will never bow down to man and treat him as my god. Science has become an idol and many worship at the altar. When Jesus walked the earth He quoted scripture He did not correct it. If it was good enough for Jesus it is good enough for me. So all of those who wish to tell me that I need to toss some areas of scripture will be balanced against that standard. Jesus verses man. Jesus will win every time.

So when scripture says the world was flooded then the world was flooded. I don't care what man has to say about the subject. It is man who can't get any thing straight and is always changing their theories. It is Jesus that is the corner stone and the more sure foundation.

[Nemesis]

And you are okay with that??? Has it come to this? Someone who wants to discuss physics with a physics professor will not be given the time of day by that professor if you don't agree with his interpretations?

I see that same pattern in religious persecution as well.

a) Don't let them know you are sympathetic to the Jews, the Germans will take you, too.

b) Since you won't agree with the Trinity now that it has become official orthodox belief, you are now considered a heretic.

c) If you refuse to accept the Trinity, your soul is damned.

They were all just as convinced as you seem to be that their views were the only correct ones. In fact, you claim yours is the only possible interpretation, even though it is quite clear that it is not. Do you not see that this effectively persecutes those who do not agree with your scientific beliefs, just the same as when you are persecuted for your religious beliefs???!!!!

I shouldn't be astonished as this pattern is repeated throughout the Bible and the Book of Mormon; but it does sadden me nonetheless.

Regards,

jo

This is a violation of Godwin's Law and our board guidelines of extreme comparisons and hyperbole. Thread closed.