Post-Flood Return To Normalcy

[Eldwynn]

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.

FINALLY we agree

[jo1952]

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.

Thank you! That was my point exactly, and why I shared my thoughts about it.

Regards,

jo

[Tarski]

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.

Non sequiter. Rob, I can tell that you haven't thought much about science. Let me put it this way, predicting Katrina would have been hard but finding evidence that it happened is not. Our inability to predict a flood does not work against our current understanding of what happens to things when a flood occurs. In fact, the unpredictability itself follows from the science of floods.

Also, consider the experiment of shuffling some cards with the letters written on them and then drawing 43 or so of them. I may not be able to predict the order of the lettered cards but I can pretty well predict that they will not spell out the sentence "the fossil record is highly ordered and tells a story".

[Zakuska]

As my wife and I were watching Evan Almighty and enjoying each other's company tonight, I started wondering about the plant life. It seems that a world-wide flood would have wiped out most of the plant-life, yet there seems to be a functional ecology rather quickly. On the one hand that would seem to argue for a local flood, On the other hand, a global-flood believer could argue that God protected the plant life, which could explain why there is so little geological evidence. For the record, the idea doesn't affect my opinion. (I'm about 75 percent in favor of a local flood. The remaining is split between it being a global flood and it being purely a fable.) I do hope it adds something to the debate, at least make it a little less boring.

Yours under the mad oaks,

Nathair /|\

Well the dove did find a fig leaf rather quickly.

[Zakuska]

I'm inclined to multiple local floods, which occurred at different times but eventually "baptized" the whole earth. The reason for this is that almost every culture has a flood history and evidence of oceanic life can be found in the mountains of north America.

Personally, I prefer the Snow and Ice theory. No need to carry every animal on the ark when many could have all survived on floating ice. Penguins and polar bears are good examples. None of the sea life would have had a problem. Otters would survive, seals and sea lions. We only have to account for land animals and fresh water fish. Edited September 21, 2011 by Zakuska

[Calm]

None of the sea life would have had a problem.

That would depend on how sensitive they were to changes in the salinity of their water environment. Some are very sensitive. The only way I see of avoiding problems is believing that God imposed barriers that kept the fresh water from mixing with the salt....but the whole idea of a global flood requires a miraculous intervention by the Lord so why not?

If one is going to accept the global view based on taking what the scriptures say in a literal way, then why not accept the rest as literal as well?

That would include what is stated in Genesis 7:4:

every living substance that I have made will I destroy from off the face of the earth

And

15 And they went in unto Noah into the ark, two and two of all flesh, wherein is the breath of life

Edited September 21, 2011 by calmoriah

[Zakuska]

That would depend on how sensitive they were to changes in the salinity of their water environment. Some are very sensitive. The only way I see of avoiding problems is believing that God imposed barriers that kept the fresh water from mixing with the salt....but the whole idea of a global flood requires a miraculous intervention by the Lord so why not?

If one is going to accept the global view based on taking what the scriptures say in a literal way, then why not accept the rest as literal as well?

That would include what is stated in Genesis 7:4:

RE: Salinity, yes I agree. but theres a logical explanation for that as well. Have you ever watched those cave dives on PBS? Where Salt water meets fresh water and then theres an area in the middle teaming with bacterial life and it distorts the camera image as the divers pass through it?

This was intresting and pertinant...

Paleosalinity.

From Bjerrum plots, it is found that a decrease in the salinity of an aqueous fluid will act to increase the value of the carbon dioxide-carbonate system equilibrium constants, (pK*). This means that the relative proportion of carbonate with respect to carbon dioxide is higher in more salinity fluids, e.g. seawater, than in fresher waters. Of crucial importance for paleoclimatology is the observation that an increase in salinity will thus reduce the solubility of carbon dioxide in the oceans. Since there is thought to have been a 120m depression in sea level at the last glacial maximum due to the extensive formation of ice sheets (which are solely freshwater), this represents a significant fractionation towards saltier seas during glacial periods. Correspondingly, this will cause a net outgassing of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere because of its reduced solubility, acting to increase atmospheric carbon dioxide by 6.5‰. This is thought to partly offset the net decrease of 80-100‰ observed during glacial periods.[1]

So during ice ages the salinity of the salt water rises and so too the carbon dioxide levels. A Global flood would show the salinity decreasing with the influx of fresh water.

Now how many ice ages have we had and how many species in the waters have survived those periods of high and low salinity in our oceans. I think people play up the salinity issue too much. What was it that Jeff Goldblum said in Jurassic Park... "Life will find a way".

I also think people are looking at the flood as if it were a bathtub model. A world wide Tsunami that pushed tidal waves all over the land would also fit the bill.

Edited September 21, 2011 by Zakuska

[Calm]

RE: Salinity, yes I agree. but theres a logical explanation for that as well. Have you ever watched those cave dives on PBS? Where Salt water meets fresh water and then theres an area in the middle teaming with bacterial life and it distorts the camera image as the divers pass through it?

This was intresting and pertinant...

Paleosalinity.

So during ice ages the salinity of the salt water rises and so too the carbon dioxide levels. A Global flood would show the salinity decreasing with the influx of fresh water.

Now how many ice ages have we had and how many species in the waters have survived those periods of high and low salinity in our oceans. I think people play up the salinity issue too much. What was it that Jeff Goldblum said in Jurassic Park... "Life will find a way".

However there are significantly longer periods of time involved in ice ages than floods.

I have not seen the cave dives. What is the mechanism that keeps the waters from mixing (are you suggesting that the fresh water does not enter into the salt water as happens when rivers meet the ocean)?

PS: I think I will attempt to sleep now, Zak, so no hurry on the info. As always, nice chatting with you.

Edited September 21, 2011 by calmoriah

[Zakuska]

However there are significantly longer periods of time involved in ice ages than floods.

I have not seen the cave dives. What is the mechanism that keeps the waters from mixing (are you suggesting that the fresh water does not enter into the salt water as happens when rivers meet the ocean)?

The Mecahnism is called halocline.

What do you see in the caves?

In fact there is quite a lot to see within the underwater caves here. Although all the caves vary in their appearance there are some common characteristics that they share. Since these caves were all dry during the last ice age, it is quite common to find the same beautiful decorations or speleothems that you would find in a dry cave anywhere else in the world. Within the entrances of many of the cenotes, the bigger the better, a diver will encounter an incredible pyrotechnics display of natural daylight as it enters and refracts in beautiful curtains of light silhouetting the stalactites that drip from the ceiling. A more beautiful blue and green color scheme you will never see. One of the more unique aspects of the caves here is a phenomenon called the halocline. The halocline occurs where saltwater penetrating through the limestone from the ocean meets and interfaces with fresh water moving in the opposite direction from the jungle. In some areas with high flow you can actually see the fresh water skipping over the top of the salt water. As a diver passes through the halocline their body mixes the two layers making it appear as though someone has poured oil into the water. If a diver rises up from the saltwater layer to the fresh water they experience the optical illusion of coming into a dry cave due to the different way light refracts in salt and fresh water. The sizes of the cave passageways vary considerably. As an example, the main trunk passage of Ox Bel Ha called the Mayan Skyway is enormous. It's sidewall to sidewall distance exceeds 100 feet in some areas and its floor to ceiling distance averages around 25 feet. There are also small areas that exist but in general the caves are larger than you might imagine. There is a considerable amount of life within the caves themselves.

http://www.mexicocav...divingfaqs.html

Edited September 21, 2011 by Zakuska

[Calm]

LOL, I knew you were going to go out and find it for me right away, will read it in the 'morning' (which is whenever I wake up even if it's the middle of the night just like 'night' is whenever I'm tired enough I have to sleep).

[Zakuska]

LOL, I knew you were going to go out and find it for me right away, will read it in the 'morning' (which is whenever I wake up even if it's the middle of the night just like 'night' is whenever I'm tired enough I have to sleep).

Wifey is calling me time to hit the sack too.

Heres another link:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Halocline

Edited September 21, 2011 by Zakuska

[Cobalt-70]

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.

There's no need to separate truth from myth. Things are myths because of the truths they embody. Myths are generally "truer" than history.

As to the virgin birth being a myth, probably the virgin part was (if you take Mormon theology seriously, and pay attention to people like Brigham Young). Jesus himself was not merely mythology, however. He was a real person whose teachings are, I believe, pretty well represented in the Gospels. People say he was resurrected, and I wasn't there, but who am I to question that? All I have is my faith. Ultimately, I don't really care that much whether the myth equals the history. For religious purposes, it is the mythology that counts. You can't gain salvation through the scientific method or the techniques of historical research.

That's why I think people should just quit being so uptight about the Noah's Ark story. If you just accept the fact that it is mythology, not history, you have much more freedom to understand its meaning. It's a beautiful story, and a great addition to scripture. But when you start measuring mountain heights, and making conjectures about magic forms of water, you have lost the point of the story.

[thesometimesaint]

Cobalt-70:

Agreed.

[thesometimesaint]

Jo1952:

That's what I just said. It was a religious vision, not a literal see with his own eyes.

[Rob Osborn]

There's no need to separate truth from myth. Things are myths because of the truths they embody. Myths are generally "truer" than history.

As to the virgin birth being a myth, probably the virgin part was (if you take Mormon theology seriously, and pay attention to people like Brigham Young). Jesus himself was not merely mythology, however. He was a real person whose teachings are, I believe, pretty well represented in the Gospels. People say he was resurrected, and I wasn't there, but who am I to question that? All I have is my faith. Ultimately, I don't really care that much whether the myth equals the history. For religious purposes, it is the mythology that counts. You can't gain salvation through the scientific method or the techniques of historical research.

That's why I think people should just quit being so uptight about the Noah's Ark story. If you just accept the fact that it is mythology, not history, you have much more freedom to understand its meaning. It's a beautiful story, and a great addition to scripture. But when you start measuring mountain heights, and making conjectures about magic forms of water, you have lost the point of the story.

No, the point of the story is that it really did happen. To mark it up as mythology, then you in reality just make a mockery of God. The freedom comes when one accepts it as history and it's literalness. Man has become so closeminded that he won't accept anything his precious science can't agree with. Man idolizes science to such extent that we can't even believe in God anymore. If science really has the last say then the Book of Mormon is false, the Creator never created anything, we are the sum result of random mutations, and all of the bible is a mythology invented by man to spice up reality.

Let me just say- what a lame excuse for living under such a holy umbrella.

[shalamabobbi]

Man has become so closeminded that he won't accept anything his precious science can't agree with.

Like gravity and the way it works and functions, and how that prevents someone from believing in a hollow earth with an interior sun that can't even be made to function as a sun at a size smaller than the earth to begin with?

You're one step away from being a flat earther.

People in the church like you are the reason some find it difficult to accept the gospel and others growing up in the church choose to leave it..

[Tarski]

Evidence in this exersize is mere conjecture.

No actually, the opposite is true. The evidence is real and manifold.

None of us were there to see it and make rational and absolute answers.

absolute answers? LOL

Rob, I come home from a vacation and my carpet is wrinkled up and muddy and there are all the signs a massive flood from a broken pipe. Was there really a flood? No one was there to see it.

Or, maybe I come home and everything looks normal. Oh, but maybe there was massive flood in my house while I was on vacation. After all, no one was there monitoring the situation.

Isn't that rather silly? What matters is the amount and kind of evidence. There isn't much room to doubt once all the evidence is laid out and understood. Only learning a lot of science--esp. biology and geology- can make that happen for you.

Again, what matters is the amount and kind of evidence. You seem unaware of how much we know and why we know it. It isn't just conjecture and it isn't a matter of isolated bits of evidence that are open to multiple interpretations. No, the evidence for the major outlines of geological history come from multiple fields and they are mutually supportive---massively so. There just was no global flood and by the way, there was no flood in my house while I was in Cancun (even though no one was there).

Rob, I am not sure how "far out there" you are with all this. For example, I wonder, are you one to doubt that the Grand Canyon was formed by erosion over geological time scales?

You really have to stop saying that this or that is mere conjecture when you don't understand the science.

Edited September 21, 2011 by Tarski

[thesometimesaint]

Rob:

The Definition of myth.

A traditional, typically ancient story dealing with supernatural beings, ancestors, or heroes that serves as a fundamental type in the worldview of a people, as by explaining aspects of the natural world or delineating the psychology, customs, or ideals of society:

It need not be false.

[cinepro]

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.

I wonder why one of the Church's foremost Hebrew scholars disagrees so forcefully with you.

What do you know that he doesn't?

[Tarski]

Man has become so closeminded that he won't accept anything his precious science can't agree with.

How about this: Man has become so closed minded that he won't accept anything his precious religious book can't agree with.

Equal footing? Standoff? No, one can use observation, reason and experiment to sort things out........or on the other hand, just accept the religious book with the most literal reading possible no matter what (but why do that??).

The fact of the matter is that science, properly approached, works against closed mindedness. There is nothing like a good two slit experiment to shake humans out of a dogmatic slumber. Nature will speak if you let her.

[jo1952]

I wonder why one of the Church's foremost Hebrew scholars disagrees so forcefully with you.

What do you know that he doesn't?

Thank you, Cinepro!

I would offer that it is good to allow the guidance of the Holy Ghost to keep us focused on God first, and His Creation second. Gaining temporal knowledge is, in and of itself, a good thing. We can use this knowledge to help us in our spiritual growth; which, I believe, is more important than temporal knowledge. Yet it is so easy to become focused on the world first in our anxiousness to discover worldly knowledge. If the knowledge we gain in the world shifts and becomes first, and we wind up putting God second, or if it causes us to compromise scripture, then we have crossed the line from the spiritual into the physical. I cannot understand why those who have been taught and have learned how to seek and recognize the Holy Ghost in their lives, will so quickly abandon the spiritual for the worldly. Though I suppose this is the same process that has repeated itself over and over and over again throughout the history of mankind in their relationship with God. Too quickly they forget and stray - even with the best of intentions. How clever and absolutely dangerous the adversary is. It has taken very little time even for some members of the Church to point to other members of the Church and call them the fools for not being as wise and learned about worldly knowledge as they are.

It has been my oberservation that very rarely do I see those who support the worldwide flood resorting to mocking the intelligence of those who disagree with them. More often then not, their efforts are presented as a warning to others. However, for those who believe the flood was either local or just a myth, the accusations of fool or ignorance toward any who disagree with them, manifest almost immediately. Warning others is one thing; but calling another fool because the "fool" cannot be convinced to agree with someone else's interpretation of knowledge is no longer an act of serving God. That is an act of serving one's own ego.

Regards,

jo

Edited September 21, 2011 by jo1952

[Calm]

It has been my oberservation that very rarely do I see those who support the worldwide flood resorting to mocking the intelligence of those who disagree with them

Yes, it is much more common for them to attack/question someone's spirituality.

[Cobalt-70]

No, the point of the story is that it really did happen. To mark it up as mythology, then you in reality just make a mockery of God. The freedom comes when one accepts it as history and it's literalness. Man has become so closeminded that he won't accept anything his precious science can't agree with. Man idolizes science to such extent that we can't even believe in God anymore. If science really has the last say then the Book of Mormon is false, the Creator never created anything, we are the sum result of random mutations, and all of the bible is a mythology invented by man to spice up reality.

Let me just say- what a lame excuse for living under such a holy umbrella.

First, I think you confuse myth with falsehood. A myth, by definition, embodies a truth, and quite often is based on a true story. Some myths are indistinguishable from history, such as the story of the midnight ride of Paul Revere, which is both a historical event and an example of American mythology.

Second, it is a fallacy to say that if one part of the bible is myth, the whole Bible and the Book of Mormon are false. The Bible is a lot of things, including fiction, letters, visions and dreams, chronologies, political propaganda, legal statutes, and even erotic poetry. Some of it, particularly in the Book of Genesis, is an attempt to document much older myths, some of which had been circulating around Mesopotamia for centuries prior. The flood story, the tower of Babel, and the story of Adam and Eve are among those. Versions of the flood story, in particular, are found written in other sources that predate the Book of Genesis. That's not to say that these stories are not based on historical events--just that whatever else they are, they are primarily mythology. The inclusion of these stories in the Bible is precisely because of their mythological value. These particular myths have deep meaning within Jewish, Christian, and Islamic religion. The Adam and Eve myth has even greater significance within Mormonism because of Adam's identification with the archangel Michael, and the fact that Mormon doctrine, as reflected in Mormon ritual, ties Adam and Eve to each human in an unprecedented way.

[Rob Osborn]

Like gravity and the way it works and functions, and how that prevents someone from believing in a hollow earth with an interior sun that can't even be made to function as a sun at a size smaller than the earth to begin with?

You're one step away from being a flat earther.

People in the church like you are the reason some find it difficult to accept the gospel and others growing up in the church choose to leave it..

I am sorry if ones faith is shaken because they can't believe all the holy prophets regarding the literalness of the flood. That to me is a sign of spiritual weakness and a lack of faith & belief.

[Rob Osborn]

No actually, the opposite is true. The evidence is real and manifold.

absolute answers? LOL

Rob, I come home from a vacation and my carpet is wrinkled up and muddy and there are all the signs a massive flood from a broken pipe. Was there really a flood? No one was there to see it.

Or, maybe I come home and everything looks normal. Oh, but maybe there was massive flood in my house while I was on vacation. After all, no one was there monitoring the situation.

Isn't that rather silly? What matters is the amount and kind of evidence. There isn't much room to doubt once all the evidence is laid out and understood. Only learning a lot of science--esp. biology and geology- can make that happen for you.

Again, what matters is the amount and kind of evidence. You seem unaware of how much we know and why we know it. It isn't just conjecture and it isn't a matter of isolated bits of evidence that are open to multiple interpretations. No, the evidence for the major outlines of geological history come from multiple fields and they are mutually supportive---massively so. There just was no global flood and by the way, there was no flood in my house while I was in Cancun (even though no one was there).

Rob, I am not sure how "far out there" you are with all this. For example, I wonder, are you one to doubt that the Grand Canyon was formed by erosion over geological time scales?

You really have to stop saying that this or that is mere conjecture when you don't understand the science.

Ok then, you seem so sure of yourself- explain to me what evidence one would find if a global flood were to occur? I highly doubt you can provide any informative and useful information.