bcuzbcuz Posted August 9, 2012 Author Posted August 9, 2012 (edited) Don't you know that God transported the log whole from another planet.Shouldn't this site be named 'Mormon "deo log" and discussion board' then? Edited August 9, 2012 by bcuzbcuz
bcuzbcuz Posted August 9, 2012 Author Posted August 9, 2012 How do you know that any wood available at present time is equal to it? Do you claim that Balsa and Walnut have such similar characteristics that they are functionally interchangeable?You mean pollen from extinct plants? Have all of those been found, cataloged and the engineering characteristics of all of those various plants identified?I'm just wondering how many "ifs" your conclusions take to make them function.Mine takes only one "if". If the story of Noah is a typical 'fisherman's story' (where any real details get stretched beyond recognition) then everything else falls into place.
CASteinman Posted August 9, 2012 Posted August 9, 2012 I'm just wondering how many "ifs" your conclusions take to make them function.I have not used any "if"s at all. On the other hand, you have.Mine takes only one "if".No. You have many many many ifs -- including an "if" that goes "If the scriptures are not valid". On the other hand, by definition, I do not have any "if"s at all.
Ron Beron Posted August 9, 2012 Posted August 9, 2012 I'm just wondering how many "ifs" your conclusions take to make them function.Mine takes only one "if". If the story of Noah is a typical 'fisherman's story' (where any real details get stretched beyond recognition) then everything else falls into place.Give it up bcuzbcuz. It's nothing but sophistry.
thesometimesaint Posted August 9, 2012 Posted August 9, 2012 bcuzbcuz:Shouldn't this site be named 'Mormon "deo log" and discussion board' then?I kinda like the name of our little group of posters here. It does allow for a certain amount of flexibility.But back to the topic of The Flood. I see no overarching need to make the flood global. A massive but regional flood would meet the requirements of both the Bible and science. So it works for me.
Ron Beron Posted August 9, 2012 Posted August 9, 2012 bcuzbcuz:I kinda like the name of our little group of posters here. It does allow for a certain amount of flexibility.But back to the topic of The Flood. I see no overarching need to make the flood global. A massive but regional flood would meet the requirements of both the Bible and science. So it works for me.I agree. The evidence for a multi-regional inundation seems entirely possible given the nature of tsunamis caused by earthquakes or cosmic collisions.
danielwoods Posted August 9, 2012 Posted August 9, 2012 bcuzbcuz:I kinda like the name of our little group of posters here. It does allow for a certain amount of flexibility.But back to the topic of The Flood. I see no overarching need to make the flood global. A massive but regional flood would meet the requirements of both the Bible and science. So it works for me.Unless the more than 30 eyewitnesses and the bible are correct that the ark is on Mt. Ararat, 14 thousand feet in elevation would present a problem with your theory of a local flood. Beyond that a local flood isn't worth writing home about. http://www.noahsarksearch.com/Eyewitnesses.htm
thesometimesaint Posted August 9, 2012 Posted August 9, 2012 danielwoods:Unless the more than 30 eyewitnesses and the bible are correct that the ark is on Mt. Ararat, 14 thousand feet in elevation would present a problem with your theory of a local flood. Beyond that a local flood isn't worth writing home about.http://www.noahsarks...yewitnesses.htmNot if you were Noahhttp://scienceblogs.com/tfk/2010/04/29/fake-noahs-ark-found-on-mt-ara/
Ron Beron Posted August 9, 2012 Posted August 9, 2012 Unless the more than 30 eyewitnesses and the bible are correct that the ark is on Mt. Ararat, 14 thousand feet in elevation would present a problem with your theory of a local flood. Beyond that a local flood isn't worth writing home about.http://www.noahsarks...yewitnesses.htmWrong Ararat. The one in Turkey wasn't named so until the 4th century. The Bible doesn't reference a Mount Ararat, but a mountain range called Ararat which is more than likely in Iraq.A local, as in Mississippi or the Nile, perhaps not, but certainly a flooding ala hemispheric, yes.
danielwoods Posted August 9, 2012 Posted August 9, 2012 danielwoods:Not if you were Noahhttp://scienceblogs....ound-on-mt-ara/Unfortunately this doesn't refute anything I said, or referenced. Eye-witness testimony of a ship in the ice of Mt. Ararat presents a problem with the theory of a local flood.
Ron Beron Posted August 9, 2012 Posted August 9, 2012 Unfortunately this doesn't refute anything I said, or referenced. Eye-witness testimony of a ship in the ice of Mt. Ararat presents a problem with the theory of a local flood.With all respect there isn't any accepted eyewitness testimony. It has been discounted.
bcuzbcuz Posted August 9, 2012 Author Posted August 9, 2012 Unfortunately this doesn't refute anything I said, or referenced. Eye-witness testimony of a ship in the ice of Mt. Ararat presents a problem with the theory of a local flood.Too bad their "eye-witness testimony" holds only enough water to float a flying saucer abduction.
thesometimesaint Posted August 9, 2012 Posted August 9, 2012 No one alive today is a "eye witness" to The Flood.
Cobalt-70 Posted August 9, 2012 Posted August 9, 2012 Wrong Ararat. The one in Turkey wasn't named so until the 4th century. The Bible doesn't reference a Mount Ararat, but a mountain range called Ararat which is more than likely in Iraq.A local, as in Mississippi or the Nile, perhaps not, but certainly a flooding ala hemispheric, yes."Ararat" is a variation of the name "Urartu," so my understanding is that the biblical reference is to the "mountains of Urartu." The Urartu region was in the Armenian highland area, and what was later named Mount Ararat is in that region, but I don't think there is any particular region to link that particular mountain with the Noah myth.
danielwoods Posted August 10, 2012 Posted August 10, 2012 With all respect there isn't any accepted eyewitness testimony. It has been discounted.Indeed, that is your opinion, and you are certainly entitled to it. Those whom I linked to would certainly disagree, as would their photographs. My only point was that the local flood theory doesn't answer all the problems as claimed.
Ron Beron Posted August 10, 2012 Posted August 10, 2012 Indeed, that is your opinion, and you are certainly entitled to it. Those whom I linked to would certainly disagree, as would their photographs. My only point was that the local flood theory doesn't answer all the problems as claimed.Well, we agree in part. I don't believe it was local either, but hemispheric due to a cosmic collision, but all the evidences given by "eyewitnesses" have proved to less than authoritative. Fuzzy photos, false wood samples, and faked eyewitness accounts on a mountain that wasn't even the actual mountain leads me to disbelieve their accounts.On top of that the Bible states the water only rose 20 feet. This is hardly enough to get any vessel to the top of Ararat.
Rob Osborn Posted August 10, 2012 Posted August 10, 2012 The mountains we have today rose at the time starting with the flood. Regardless of what modern geologists say, the major mountain chains of the world are no more than 5000 years old. 1
ERayR Posted August 10, 2012 Posted August 10, 2012 The mountains we have today rose at the time starting with the flood. Regardless of what modern geologists say, the major mountain chains of the world are no more than 5000 years old.I am not ready to put a number to it but with the jumble in the so called geologic strata I have a hard time with the circular dating methods used.
mfbukowski Posted August 10, 2012 Posted August 10, 2012 (edited) Nevermind.Life is too short. Edited August 10, 2012 by mfbukowski 1
danielwoods Posted August 10, 2012 Posted August 10, 2012 (edited) Well, we agree in part. I don't believe it was local either, but hemispheric due to a cosmic collision, but all the evidences given by "eyewitnesses" have proved to less than authoritative. Fuzzy photos, false wood samples, and faked eyewitness accounts on a mountain that wasn't even the actual mountain leads me to disbelieve their accounts.On top of that the Bible states the water only rose 20 feet. This is hardly enough to get any vessel to the top of Ararat.Of course we can agree to disagree on the validity of eye-witness accounts. However, I don't think a plain reading of the passage indicates that the water only rose 20 feet, when it says that the mountains were covered by the water level. Edited August 10, 2012 by danielwoods
Ron Beron Posted August 10, 2012 Posted August 10, 2012 The mountains we have today rose at the time starting with the flood. Regardless of what modern geologists say, the major mountain chains of the world are no more than 5000 years old.And where did you get this information?
Ron Beron Posted August 10, 2012 Posted August 10, 2012 Of course we can agree to disagree on the validity of eye-witness accounts. However, I don't think a plain reading of the passage indicates that the water only rose 20 feet, when it says that the mountains were covered by the water level.I stand corrected. The NET Bible reports it thus...Heb “the waters prevailed fifteen cubits upward and they covered the mountains.” Obviously, a flood of twenty feet did not cover the mountains; the statement must mean the flood rose about twenty feet above the highest mountain." While it states that the waters covered the earth it is important to remember that the earth or eretz was limited primarily by that which was seen and not other continents and locales. Therefore, the earth as Noah knew it was certainly regional.
Rob Osborn Posted August 10, 2012 Posted August 10, 2012 And where did you get this information?The bible. Psalms records how God caused the mountains to rise and canyons to form so that the flood waters would no more cover the whole earth.
Ron Beron Posted August 10, 2012 Posted August 10, 2012 The bible. Psalms records how God caused the mountains to rise and canyons to form so that the flood waters would no more cover the whole earth.If you are referring to Psalms 104 then that is a discussion of the creation of the earth and God overcoming tiahom or the waters of the deep. 1:9 God said, “Let the water under the sky be gathered to one place and let dry ground appear.” It was so. 10 God called the dry ground “land” and the gathered waters he called “seas.” God saw that it was good. ©NET
bcuzbcuz Posted August 10, 2012 Author Posted August 10, 2012 The mountains we have today rose at the time starting with the flood. Regardless of what modern geologists say, the major mountain chains of the world are no more than 5000 years old.Is this an opinion based strictly on a very narrow interpretation of scripture or do you have some evidence to back it up?
Recommended Posts