World Wide Flood Of Noah

[thesometimesaint]

keith_brian:

The beauty of science is that anyone, even Franktalk, can study up on any subject they so desire. They are entitled to make any statement about the natural world/universe. The problem for Franktalk, and those like him, is in demonstrating through actual evidence their case, and having other scientists being able to replicate it.

It take more than one scientist to make a scientific theory.

Edited August 23, 2011 by thesometimesaint

[thesometimesaint]

Franktalk:

I have no problem with JS when he makes claims about the Supernatural. Just as I have no problem with JFS when he makes claims about the Supernatural.

However when JS claimed that the earth was 2 and 1/2 billions of years old. He is no longer making a claim about the Supernatural and is making a claim about the Natural world that is subject to testing. He was much closer than Archbishop Ussher, whom along with the Chritian world, believed that the earth was only some 7,000 years old. But JS was equaly wrong because of his methodology was based on his unique reading of the Bible, and not what was supported by Natural evidence. The earth is some 4 and 1/2 Billions of years old in reality.

JFS was also wrong when he claimed that man would never be in space or land on the the earths moon because God would not permit it.

Edited August 23, 2011 by thesometimesaint

[keith_brian]

keith_brian:

The beauty of science is that anyone, even Franktalk, can study up on any subject they so desire. They are entitled to make any statement about the natural world/universe. The problem for Franktalk, and those like him, is in demonstrating through actual evidence their case, and having other scientists being able to replicate it.

It take more than one scientist to make a scientific theory.

I agree. He can study as much as he wants and form his own understanding of science. However, that's not the problem here.

The fundamental misunderstanding that I think people like Franktalk have is that he seems to think of science as an area accessible to the amateur in the same way that art collecting would be accessible. In that field, someone might be an amateur art collector, decide that their neighbor Joe is the best artist that ever lived, and make a life out of studying his work. And, who knows -- the art community might agree with him 50 years from now.

However, science doesn't work like that. There have been thousands of experiments run, papers published, conference talks given, and careers spent proving theories like continental drift. It's very highly unlikely that some dude on the internet is going to come in and overturn those theories with a bunch of off-the-cuff calculations that he did on his napkin during lunch break. Science doesn't work that way. Furthermore, it gets a little annoying to me, as someone who works as a scientist and has more knowledge of the field than the average person, to keep reading these types of silly posts that Franktalk and others like him make constantly on the internet.

By the way, your post about the depth of the ocean as it relates to continental drift was fascinating and very well done. Thank you.

[thesometimesaint]

keith_brian:

While a good background in the area study is important it is not essential to good science. Mostly all it takes is a willingness to record accurately everything you do, observe, and report those observations; and have other disinterested parties do, observe, report the same thing.

That is the problem with neophytes in any science or art. They generally don't have the patience or willingness to learn how, BEFORE they make grand statements about what they think they know.

[Franktalk]

That's great. I am glad that you are willing to follow your own path in life.

However, scientific inquiry is different. Personal opinions don't matter, only facts and evidence. So, no it's not okay to do your own amateurish experiments to try and overthrown thousands of scientific articles published in journals. It makes you look ... ignorant.

I have laid out my sources and my methods, I have also detailed all of the steps in my work. Yet instead of showing me where my error is all I get is others opinions. If what I do is so error filled please take the full minute it may take to find my errors so I can learn. After all if all of those other guys are right then I must be wrong. Just show me.

I have posted this work and other work dealing with evolution. I have never had one person find an error that overturns what I said. Maybe you will be the first.

If I was holding onto your opinion I would do the following:

1. Follow each source back and see if Frank used the data in proper context.

2. Examine the equations to see if the math used was appropriate to obtain meaningful results.

3. Check each equation and the math to see if any calculations were done in error.

4. Check each conclusion stated and see if they are tied to the results of the math.

Or you can post a link to wiki in which some person says the earth is old. If indeed my work is amateurish then the task of finding errors should be simple. If however you find no errors then I expect you to tell me why the scientific community holds to conclusions where such obvious anomalies exist. And you need to tell me why the assumptions I made in my estimates are not reasonable and the assumptions made by atomic dating are reasonable. Take your time.

[keith_brian]

I have laid out my sources and my methods, I have also detailed all of the steps in my work. Yet instead of showing me where my error is all I get is others opinions. If what I do is so error filled please take the full minute it may take to find my errors so I can learn. After all if all of those other guys are right then I must be wrong. Just show me.

I have posted this work and other work dealing with evolution. I have never had one person find an error that overturns what I said. Maybe you will be the first.

If I was holding onto your opinion I would do the following:

1. Follow each source back and see if Frank used the data in proper context.

2. Examine the equations to see if the math used was appropriate to obtain meaningful results.

3. Check each equation and the math to see if any calculations were done in error.

4. Check each conclusion stated and see if they are tied to the results of the math.

Or you can post a link to wiki in which some person says the earth is old. If indeed my work is amateurish then the task of finding errors should be simple. If however you find no errors then I expect you to tell me why the scientific community holds to conclusions where such obvious anomalies exist. And you need to tell me why the assumptions I made in my estimates are not reasonable and the assumptions made by atomic dating are reasonable. Take your time.

I don't have to show you. Submit your work for peer review at a scientific journal. They will show you for me.

As I said, the amateur science explanations that people come up with on forums like this really don't measure up in scientific terms. This is one of the reasons why the whole peer reviewed system was established: to keep people from doing exactly what you're trying to do on this forum.

Edited August 23, 2011 by keith_brian

[Franktalk]

I don't have to show you. Submit your work for peer review at a scientific journal. They will show you for me.

As I said, the amateur science explanations that people come up with on forums like this really don't measure up in scientific terms. This is one of the reasons why the whole peer reviewed system was established: to keep people from doing exactly what you're trying to do on this forum.

I guess you are implying that what I believe will not be accepted. That is such great news. I have been working on leaving the ideas of men for some time now. Is this what it feels like to leave the world behind? It does not feel bad at all, in fact I like it.

[keith_brian]

I guess you are implying that what I believe will not be accepted. That is such great news. I have been working on leaving the ideas of men for some time now. Is this what it feels like to leave the world behind? It does not feel bad at all, in fact I like it.

So, you consider it a strength to your original research that it WON'T be accepted by a peer reviewed journal?

That's a first.

[Calm]

I guess you are implying that what I believe will not be accepted. That is such great news. I have been working on leaving the ideas of men for some time now. Is this what it feels like to leave the world behind? It does not feel bad at all, in fact I like it.

Am curious. Would you call yourself a mystic?

[shalamabobbi]

I guess you are implying that what I believe will not be accepted. That is such great news. I have been working on leaving the ideas of men for some time now. Is this what it feels like to leave the world behind? It does not feel bad at all, in fact I like it.

And I'm curious what you make of Daniel 12:4..

[Franktalk]

Am curious. Would you call yourself a mystic?

No, I am on my walk with God. Not at the level of Enoch. I truly have cast off the world.

If you have read this thread you will see it is not a science thread. I spent most of the thread talking about faith and why people believe what they believe. I spent the time talking about the world and how we should not seek answers in the world. It is so easy to say and so easy to do yet most do not take this path. The flesh is strong and the world is strong.

I have been called many names because of how I have separated from the world. Many things which man holds dear I reject totally. So I am looked at as a nut job. But I care not for the opinions of man. The Holy Ghost and I get along just fine. I will say that scripture is open and the last days are here. The restrainer is pulling away but the Holy Ghost is becoming strong in some people. I know not why. But these things don't concern me. Some things I have asked have been answered after years of waiting. We are tested in all things.

[thesometimesaint]

Frsnktalk:

Evolution is not about impossibly high odds. It is about small changes over time.

[jo1952]

So, you consider it a strength to your original research that it WON'T be accepted by a peer reviewed journal?

That's a first.

I think the concept of peer reviews was admirable and was begun with the best of intentions. However, as is typical for man, what starts out as a good intention is easily corrupted. From the many articles I have read and other research I have done, it appears to me that they are pretty much agenda-driven today.

I have seen some very good points and excellent sources which Franktalk has presented to support his non-peer review approved stances. Rather than dealing with the actual content of those sources and any attempts to try to explain discrepancies shown in those sources vs peer review approved stances, mostly what I see is hand-waving dismissal. Such responses do not appear to me to be very open-minded. In fact, it is a repetition of the pattern I see used by orthodox Christians in their arguments against LDS beliefs. If any of the posters who are waving away these sources are LDS, I would have hoped they would have recognized the similarities in that they are doing the same thing in the fields of Science as Orthodoxy is doing to LDS beliefs.

Thank heavens Joseph Smith was unwilling to just accept what man was trying to teach him. Also, pointing his comments toward our relationship with God, Brigham Young taught us to do our own investigating and not just take a Prophet's word as the final say. I think the same prinicple should be applied in all things which effect our lives; especially with regards to science. Why has man become so quick and willing to use science to disprove scripture. I would think that if our study of science is being conducted properly and "correct" theories are developing from research, then science would be supporting the Word of God. It seems that the research Franktalk has done establishes that the Bible does not have to be viewed to change its intent, for instance (since this is the subject of the OP) the worldwide view of the flood as it is depicted in the Bible is supported by the evidences he has found to actually be accordance with a worldwide flood. Yet many in science claim their peer-reviewed approved resarch, supports only some sort of localized flood; or worse, as being symbolic and that no flood took place at all.

Yet the event of the Flood has more significance than merely presenting what some think is a fairy tale flood. There was a specific purpose for the flood, and the world as it was prior to the flood perished. This held great significance for what was to follow. The connection between that information becomes minimalized and even lost on some people because they have chosen to believe the flood was not worldwide. It has a domino effect on what else is being taught after the flood. Hence the significance of whether we believe it WAS worldwide, or if we believe it was local, or if we believe it never happened, absolutely effects how we will interpret what happenes after the flood.

I believe that when we are taught and encouraged to increase our worldly knowledge, that this should be tempered with what the Holy Ghost can teach us. I have seen remarks made where a person does study and reason what the world has taught him through science and was happy to accounce that there was not a book in the Bible that didn't, as a result, present to him problems such as misinterpretations, etc. However, I believe the intent of our increasing our worldly knowledge (and this is actually what has happened in my personal experience), what I have learned in the world SUPPORTS what I read in the Bible. Therefore, I find I am led to understand more TRUTH; NOT less truth, or problems, or inconsistencies.

Are there mistakes in the Bible? Yes! However, the message we are supposed to receive from the Holy Ghost which is contained there, even if it has not been written 100% correctly due to the fallibility of the men who wrote it or later re-wrote it, or translated it from one language to another, does not matter. Whatever Truth is supposed to be learned from scripture WILL be learned by the sincere and prayerful seeker of Truth regardless of what man has to say. The Power of the Holy Ghost is greater than man.

Regards,

jo

Edited August 24, 2011 by jo1952

[keith_brian]

I think the concept of peer reviews was admirable and was begun with the best of intentions. However, as is typical for man, what starts out as a good intention is easily corrupted. From the many articles I have read and other research I have done, it appears to me that they are pretty much agenda-driven today.

I have seen some very good points and excellent sources which Franktalk has presented to support his non-peer review approved stances. Rather than dealing with the actual content of those sources and any attempts to try to explain discrepancies shown in those sources vs peer review approved stances, mostly what I see is hand-waving dismissal. Such responses do not appear to me to be very open-minded. In fact, it is a repetition of the pattern I see used by orthodox Christians in their arguments against LDS beliefs. If any of the posters who are waving away these sources are LDS, I would have hoped they would have recognized the similarities in that they are doing the same thing in the fields of Science as Orthodoxy is doing to LDS beliefs.

Regards,

jo

Many of the things you said in that post directly contradict my personal experience (and that of my colleagues) with peer review. Although there are certainly politics involved in the process, it's overall a highly reliable method for filtering the crackpot theories from the good ones. I cannot think of one example of a valid scientific idea with good evidence that has not made it through the peer review process after a sufficient amount of date has been accumulated and sufficient time has passed, including revolutionary theories like plate tectonics, dark matter, and inflation. To attack peer review speaks to, at least to me, your lack of understanding and experience with science.

[jo1952]

Frsnktalk:

Evolution is not about impossibly high odds. It is about small changes over time.

Evolution also teaches that through natural selection that the good things, stong things, healthy things, will survive. Yet the human genome is failing. What does evolution have to say about that? Are we a species that is doomed because we don't meet the standards wherein only the strong survive? Or is it possible this is all part of the plan which God initiated which is something that was missed while everyone was following god Darwin, rather than God the Father? The Bible clearly indicates a change in entropy - amazingly one of the biggest impacts was The Flood. Go figure. It's all in there if you look for it. I would offer that man in his pursuit of science should use what the Bible teaches as a guideline in order that they can be led in the right direction and toward the correct interpretations of their observations creating theories which would then be more dependable than those theories which are moving targets. Of course, I doubt seriously the could become peer review approved. I asky, why give man so much more power than where the Holy Ghost can lead us? I believe we need to re-evaluate and recognize who it is we giving power to.....is it man? Or is it God?

Regards,

jo

[jo1952]

Many of the things you said in that post directly contradict my personal experience (and that of my colleagues) with peer review. Although there are certainly politics involved in the process, it's overall a highly reliable method for filtering the crackpot theories from the good ones. I cannot think of one example of a valid scientific idea with good evidence that has not made it through the peer review process after a sufficient amount of date has been accumulated and sufficient time has passed, including revolutionary theories like plate tectonics, dark matter, and inflation. To attack peer review speaks to, at least to me, your lack of understanding and experience with science.

Global warming comes to mind immediately.

I appreciate your response, btw. What about the other sources which were presented to you? Did you take the time to review them? If so, why do you reject them? There must be specific reasons which you can share with us other than they weren't peer review approved. You could very easily be throwing out good water with the bad.

Thank you,

jo

[keith_brian]

Global warming comes to mind immediately.

I appreciate your response, btw. What about the other sources which were presented to you? Did you take the time to review them? If so, why do you reject them? There must be specific reasons which you can share with us other than they weren't peer review approved. You could very easily be throwing out good water with the bad.

Thank you,

jo

What other sources are you talking about?

I was commenting in my posts to you on the peer review system, not specifically on the merits of Franktalk's theories. This whole conversation started by me suggesting to him that, if the theories he stated on this thread were valid, he should submit them to a scientific journal for peer review and possible publication. He declined.

Then, you posted your comments on the peer review system and I responded. That's where the discussion stood when I last visited it.

Edited August 24, 2011 by keith_brian

[jo1952]

What other sources are you talking about?

I was commenting in my posts to you on the peer review system, not specifically on the merits of Franktalk's theories. This whole conversation started by me suggesting to him that, if the theories he stated on this thread were valid, he should submit them to a scientific journal for peer review and possible publication. He declined.

Then, you posted your comments on the peer review system and I responded. That's where the discussion stood when I last visited it.

Okay - maybe we talking past each then. Let me take some time and find the posts where he provided links and I will get back you. It might not be until tomorrow, though. I have the munchies right now....would you care to join me in a milkshake??

Regards,

jo

[Franktalk]

And I'm curious what you make of Daniel 12:4..

Daniel is a mixed book. The prophecy of the 69 weeks was clear and not sealed. The 70th week was different, it required Jesus to add detail so the week was made clear. Then Jesus through John added Revelation, a witness of the 70th week. But as Daniel John did not understand much of what he saw.

Knowledge has increased but it is but a bigger stumbling block for man. And because man has increased practical knowledge the unpractical becomes a snare. That which can not be known because we were not there is considered known. The witness of the prophets is ignored. Just as we have seen since the beginning.

Romans 1:16-32

16For I am not ashamed of the gospel of Christ: for it is the power of God unto salvation to every one that believeth; to the Jew first, and also to the Greek.

17For therein is the righteousness of God revealed from faith to faith: as it is written, The just shall live by faith.

18For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who hold the truth in unrighteousness;

19Because that which may be known of God is manifest in them; for God hath shewed it unto them.

20For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse:

21Because that, when they knew God, they glorified him not as God, neither were thankful; but became vain in their imaginations, and their foolish heart was darkened.

22Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools,

23And changed the glory of the uncorruptible God into an image made like to corruptible man, and to birds, and fourfooted beasts, and creeping things.

24Wherefore God also gave them up to uncleanness through the lusts of their own hearts, to dishonour their own bodies between themselves:

25Who changed the truth of God into a lie, and worshipped and served the creature more than the Creator, who is blessed for ever. Amen.

26For this cause God gave them up unto vile affections: for even their women did change the natural use into that which is against nature:

27And likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another; men with men working that which is unseemly, and receiving in themselves that recompence of their error which was meet.

28And even as they did not like to retain God in their knowledge, God gave them over to a reprobate mind, to do those things which are not convenient;

29Being filled with all unrighteousness, fornication, wickedness, covetousness, maliciousness; full of envy, murder, debate, deceit, malignity; whisperers,

30Backbiters, haters of God, despiteful, proud, boasters, inventors of evil things, disobedient to parents,

31Without understanding, covenantbreakers, without natural affection, implacable, unmerciful:

32Who knowing the judgment of God, that they which commit such things are worthy of death, not only do the same, but have pleasure in them that do them.

Knowledge is described in 19 - 22. We are living in the judgment of 24 - 32. We used to teach creation now we teach the children the god of nature, just as it says. Many of the people on this board worship the god of nature. They don't even know they are doing it. Go back and look at the posts in this thread. See the struggle between the witness of scripture to the witness of man's projections onto the creation. See the attitude the posters have towards the Word. See how with the wave of the arm all scripture which describes the past is pushed aside and replaced.

Just what is important? To me it is the knowledge that I am a spirit. As such the flesh which is in love with the world does not rule over me. I care not for man's knowledge that is based on the world. I see many who listen to the prophet of today yet cast off the scripture written by the prophets of God in the past. And why do they do this? To embrace the world. Yet scripture is very clear that we can have but one Master. If you embrace the world you do not embrace God. The world stands before you, cast it aside so you can open the door and sup with Christ. Anyone can do it. Few do it.

[Franktalk]

Many of the things you said in that post directly contradict my personal experience (and that of my colleagues) with peer review. Although there are certainly politics involved in the process, it's overall a highly reliable method for filtering the crackpot theories from the good ones. I cannot think of one example of a valid scientific idea with good evidence that has not made it through the peer review process after a sufficient amount of date has been accumulated and sufficient time has passed, including revolutionary theories like plate tectonics, dark matter, and inflation. To attack peer review speaks to, at least to me, your lack of understanding and experience with science.

So you wholly accept a process which denies God? A science review is based on science. Science is based on natural law. Science rejects the supernatural. I do not accept a Godless review as valid. Do you not see? You are upside down and until you right your self you will be blind.

[LeSellers]

would you care to join me in a milkshake??

Wouldn't that be messy?

Lehi

[shalamabobbi]

Knowledge has increased but..

But nothing. Either it is knowledge or it isn't.

2 Nephi 9

28 O that cunning plan of the evil one! O the vainness, and the frailties, and the foolishness of men! When they are learned they think they are wise, and they hearken not unto the counsel of God, for they set it aside, supposing they know of themselves, wherefore, their wisdom is foolishness and it profiteth them not. And they shall perish.

29 But to be learned is good if they hearken unto the counsels of God.

http://lds.org/ldsorg/v/index.jsp?vgnextoid=024644f8f206c010VgnVCM1000004d82620aRCRD&locale=0&sourceId=8ebf742e35474110VgnVCM100000176f620a____

Doesn't look as though the false dichotomy is supported at the top..

[keith_brian]

So you wholly accept a process which denies God? A science review is based on science. Science is based on natural law. Science rejects the supernatural. I do not accept a Godless review as valid. Do you not see? You are upside down and until you right your self you will be blind.

I do put my faith in science because science has worked so well in the past. For example, it allows us to communicate over vast spatial distances via computer.

[keith_brian]

Okay - maybe we talking past each then. Let me take some time and find the posts where he provided links and I will get back you. It might not be until tomorrow, though. I have the munchies right now....would you care to join me in a milkshake??

Regards,

jo

Sure.

What part of the world do you live in?

[jo1952]

Sure.

What part of the world do you live in?

The same part as my husband lives in!!! I was merely being a good hostess! We live in Arizona. Where do you live?

Regards,

jo