Ron Beron Posted September 20, 2011 Posted September 20, 2011 It would seem quite obvious that during a massive flood, the mixture and contents of it would not be the same as our modern oceans. DUH!As you stated, Rob, "pure conjecture". I would recommend a book written by Wm Ryan and Walter Pitman called "Noah's Flood" which looks at the Mediterranean after the collapse of the Strait of Gibraltar and subsequent flooding of the Black Sea. They compare those creatures that are capable of living in a sea environment compared to that of fresh water ecosystems. Their findings are a bit remarkable.
BookofMormonLuvr Posted September 20, 2011 Posted September 20, 2011 Did I see someone write about the problem of genetics with there being only two of one species at one time?Please, go back and read the story of Noah.
Rob Osborn Posted September 20, 2011 Posted September 20, 2011 Just... show me a kangaroo that can hop from Africa to Australia and I will believe in a global flood.Yep, that's all it will take.How about a kangaroo that can hop onto a boat that is heading to Australia? Much more believable. The Jaredites took animals, insects, fish and seeds of many many kinds to the new land they were going. They took them on their boats. Surely they weren't the only group that God led away to all four corners of the earth. 1
Rob Osborn Posted September 20, 2011 Posted September 20, 2011 As you stated, Rob, "pure conjecture". I would recommend a book written by Wm Ryan and Walter Pitman called "Noah's Flood" which looks at the Mediterranean after the collapse of the Strait of Gibraltar and subsequent flooding of the Black Sea. They compare those creatures that are capable of living in a sea environment compared to that of fresh water ecosystems. Their findings are a bit remarkable.I don't have any problem at all with what I present to be conjecture, I already know it is. It's when others who present material as some type of "facts" when there is no real evidence to support such supposition that I have issues with. Just want people to be honest with themselves and others.
thesometimesaint Posted September 20, 2011 Posted September 20, 2011 (edited) Rob:No I don't agree. I prefer real evidence to support what I say.Supposition definition:The mental act of supposing something to be the case, or ideas that result from supposing, especially as opposed to ideas based on firm evidence"All this is mere supposition."Ps. The earth is a slightly pear shaped ball. It doesn't have corners. Edited September 20, 2011 by thesometimesaint
Rob Osborn Posted September 20, 2011 Posted September 20, 2011 As long as we agree that the evidence doesn't paint any "facts" for or against the flood I have no problem proceeding. You can say the evidence points to no global flood and I can state that the evidence does point to a global flood but in reality, neither of us possess the knowledge to actually know the facts regarding the truth of the matter- whether it happened or not. Would you agree?
LeSellers Posted September 20, 2011 Posted September 20, 2011 The earth is a slightly pear shaped ball. It doesn't have corners.This is very true, but most maps of the earth do.Lehi
thesometimesaint Posted September 20, 2011 Posted September 20, 2011 Lehi:True. That's just one of the problems with trying to repreesent a three dimensional object in essentially two dimensions.
thesometimesaint Posted September 20, 2011 Posted September 20, 2011 Rob:Sorry I can't agree. Evidence in science is something that I can measure either directly or indirectly by the effects of that evidence on something I can measure. A Global Flood is problematic on a large number of fronts.My personal preference is for a major regional flood. That preference meets the requirements of the Scripture, and it doesn't deny science.
cinepro Posted September 20, 2011 Posted September 20, 2011 My personal preference is for a major regional flood. That preference meets the requirements of the Scripture, and it doesn't deny science.An allegorical understanding meets the requirements of the Scripture as well.
Rob Osborn Posted September 20, 2011 Posted September 20, 2011 Rob:Sorry I can't agree. Evidence in science is something that I can measure either directly or indirectly by the effects of that evidence on something I can measure. A Global Flood is problematic on a large number of fronts.My personal preference is for a major regional flood. That preference meets the requirements of the Scripture, and it doesn't deny science.The requirements of the scripture demand a world flood not a localized event. That is one issue you cannot take sides with. The flood according tot eh scriptures was a global deluge and nothing short of that.
thesometimesaint Posted September 20, 2011 Posted September 20, 2011 Rob:Not really. All that it needs to meet Scriptural demands is to be what Noah saw. To him his entire world was under water.
Ron Beron Posted September 20, 2011 Posted September 20, 2011 The requirements of the scripture demand a world flood not a localized event. That is one issue you cannot take sides with. The flood according tot eh scriptures was a global deluge and nothing short of that.Absolutely not. It never mentions a world-wide deluge rather a large regional flooding. Read the passage in Hebrew and you will see the difference.
Tarski Posted September 20, 2011 Posted September 20, 2011 (edited) Who said what the water was like at that time during a grand cataclysmic event? It's all just speculation what the water actually contained.The number of such ad hoc rationalizations of this sort that are needed to save the flood story grows exponentially as one pursues consequences and runs up against more evidence--and there is a massive amount of it from multiple fields.Fixing things up in a piecemeal manner always requires remaining blind to the big picture. Evidence on this matter forms an interconnect whole and cannot be easily changed at isolated places without destroying the integrity of the whole. To think otherwise is like imagining that the beautiful jigsaw puzzle of Einstein's face that one just put together is really a miss-assembled jigsaw puzzle intended to be a full body picture of Lady-Gaga. Not likely to say the least. Edited September 20, 2011 by Tarski
Tarski Posted September 20, 2011 Posted September 20, 2011 (edited) dup Edited September 20, 2011 by Tarski
LeSellers Posted September 20, 2011 Posted September 20, 2011 Not really. All that it needs to meet Scriptural demands is to be what Noah saw. To him his entire world was under water.In your words: not really.It was Moses, not Noah, who saw the flood and wrote about it (at least as far as the record we have today is concerned).His vantge point was not from the ark, but, as we learn in Moses, from a high mountain where he saw the whole earth.Lehi 1
Mola Ram Suda Ram Posted September 20, 2011 Posted September 20, 2011 Wondering were Tarski has been. It has been a while. Good to see you.
thesometimesaint Posted September 20, 2011 Posted September 20, 2011 Lehi:I have no problem with Moses(and Jesus) seeing the whole world in a vision. To make it literal is a stretch too far. Even from space the most you can see of the earth at any one time is half.
jo1952 Posted September 20, 2011 Posted September 20, 2011 Lehi:I have no problem with Moses(and Jesus) seeing the whole world in a vision. To make it literal is a stretch too far. Even from space the most you can see of the earth at any one time is half.Personally, I try to avoid projecting my own physical limitations upon something God is able to show anyone in a vision.Regards,jo 1
Maidservant Posted September 21, 2011 Posted September 21, 2011 Not that I want to get drawn into yet another protracted Flood thread, but Giorgio de Santillana and Hertha von Dechend have some interesting speculations on the possible cosmological nature of various "Floods" that are worth considering:http://www.bibliotec.../hamletmill.htmI started reading this . . . . o my GOSH! Ha ha.
Cobalt-70 Posted September 21, 2011 Posted September 21, 2011 The requirements of the scripture demand a world flood not a localized event. That is one issue you cannot take sides with. The flood according tot eh scriptures was a global deluge and nothing short of that.The Noah's Ark story doesn't make sense unless it is a global flood that kills all of humanity. But the story is mythology. Maybe it was based on a prehistoric local flood in the Black Sea. Maybe it is a sister-myth to that of Atlantis. Who knows? That the Noah story is myth doesn't detract from its value as scripture.
Rob Osborn Posted September 21, 2011 Posted September 21, 2011 (edited) The Noah's Ark story doesn't make sense unless it is a global flood that kills all of humanity. But the story is mythology. Maybe it was based on a prehistoric local flood in the Black Sea. Maybe it is a sister-myth to that of Atlantis. Who knows? That the Noah story is myth doesn't detract from its value as scripture.So, is the Jesus Christ story of his birth by the virgin Marry also myth? What is there to separate truth from myth? What is the criteria? As far as I know, there is no physical evidence that an immortal being made a mortal pregnant by miracle and from that came the Savior with power given to him of life over death. We might as well just chalk up all the stories from the scriptures as myth, especially the miraculous ones such as Christ turning water into wine or him walking on the water. Edited September 21, 2011 by Rob Osborn
Rob Osborn Posted September 21, 2011 Posted September 21, 2011 (edited) Lehi:I have no problem with Moses(and Jesus) seeing the whole world in a vision. To make it literal is a stretch too far. Even from space the most you can see of the earth at any one time is half.Well....not really. Moses, looking through the eyes of the spirit of God actually saw the "whole earth"- every last particle of it-27 And it came to pass, as the voice was still speaking, Moses cast his eyes and abeheld the earth, yea, even all of it; and there was not a particle of it which he did not behold, bdiscerning it by the cspirit of God.(Pearl of Great Price | Moses 1:27)One would think that God himself can view the entire earth at the same time. This is exactly how Moses saw it. Edited September 21, 2011 by Rob Osborn
Rob Osborn Posted September 21, 2011 Posted September 21, 2011 Absolutely not. It never mentions a world-wide deluge rather a large regional flooding. Read the passage in Hebrew and you will see the difference.So, what about Joesph's translation of the book of Moses? In those passages in the Pearl of Great Price, it mentions the whole earth not some regional flood.Nice try though! 1
Rob Osborn Posted September 21, 2011 Posted September 21, 2011 (edited) The number of such ad hoc rationalizations of this sort that are needed to save the flood story grows exponentially as one pursues consequences and runs up against more evidence--and there is a massive amount of it from multiple fields.Fixing things up in a piecemeal manner always requires remaining blind to the big picture. Evidence on this matter forms an interconnect whole and cannot be easily changed at isolated places without destroying the integrity of the whole. To think otherwise is like imagining that the beautiful jigsaw puzzle of Einstein's face that one just put together is really a miss-assembled jigsaw puzzle intended to be a full body picture of Lady-Gaga. Not likely to say the least.Evidence in this exersize is mere conjecture. None of us were there to see it and make rational and absolute answers. Someone else mentioned the flooding and other geologic events of Mt. St. Helens when it blew up and how it went totally against what they had predicted. This extremely small scale geologic event compared with the flood of Noah's day just proves that modern day predictions and evidence means nothing in the bigger picture. Man really knows nothing and it is proven by one small scale event such as the volcanoe event of Mt. St. Helens. BTW, I was just at the Helens national monument a month ago and walked out and read all their pamphlets and signs and it is quite clear that their predictions for both damage and regrowth were wayyyy off! If our best geologists can't even predict one small geologic event, then they obviously have no idea what evidence should look like with a global cataclysmic event....Just sayin. Edited September 21, 2011 by Rob Osborn
Recommended Posts