Sunday School And A Worldwide Flood (Pt.3)

[Bikeemikey]

Hey, guess what everybody! Meridian Magazine has a new article about the flood.

http://www.ldsmag.com/article/1/14059

Good stuff!

What is LDSmag.com?

[danielwoods]

Thanks for the video.  I'll admit that as a non-believer of a global flood, this video seems to shows some scientific experiments as evidence against the standard geological argument.  Seems compelling evidence for how strata can form simultaneously, and broken up on angles, without the necessity for each strata layer being older than the next.

 

I would be curious to see the counter arguments, especially if what the video is saying is flat out wrong, or the experiments were flawed, etc.

 

Even if these experiments are correct, I find it hard to believe ALL strata formed in this way because the fossil record in the strata is very strong in support of layers forming slowly over time.

 

We all agree (both models that is) that sedimentary rock was formed by water. That fossils were buried quickly by mud flows. That there is evidence that even the tallest mountains were underwater at some point. The disagreement is over time. 

 

So with that in mind. What the studies show (in the film clip) is that the strata we observe today couldn't have formed over long periods of time unless they formed under perfectly calm water. Instead, the stratification that we observe is indicative of formations that occur with water moving at different speeds. 

Edited March 12, 2014 by danielwoods

[The Nehor]

Hey, guess what everybody!  Meridian Magazine has a new article about the flood.

 

http://www.ldsmag.com/article/1/14059

 

Good stuff!

 

The magazine's argument for why the evidence suggests that there was never a flood:

 

Miracles are by definition out of the norm and God performs them using natural laws that we do not understand and even may seem to override those laws we think we do understand. A worldwide flood is a great miracle, a fantastic, very hard to explain, out of the ordinary miracle. 

I believe that this monumental historical event had to be planned and executed by God with great care and skill so it would not destroy all that He had done in creating the world for His children. Another effect of this carefully executed miracle is that God probably did not leave behind the signs we would expect from other floods that we know about in earth’s history. 

 

Summary: God used a miracle so there would be no evidence left behind to preserve the world for the survivors (presumably including saving all the plant life). I can at least respect that position. Makes more sense then Ham's and the stuff thrown around in this thread at least.

Edited March 12, 2014 by The Nehor

[Rob Osborn]

The magazine's argument for why the evidence suggests that there was never a flood:

 

Miracles are by definition out of the norm and God performs them using natural laws that we do not understand and even may seem to override those laws we think we do understand. A worldwide flood is a great miracle, a fantastic, very hard to explain, out of the ordinary miracle. 

I believe that this monumental historical event had to be planned and executed by God with great care and skill so it would not destroy all that He had done in creating the world for His children. Another effect of this carefully executed miracle is that God probably did not leave behind the signs we would expect from other floods that we know about in earth’s history. 

 

Summary: God used a miracle so there would be no evidence left behind to preserve the world for the survivors (presumably including saving all the plant life). I can at least respect that position. Makes more sense then Ham's and the stuff thrown around in this thread at least.

The article is poorly researched on what Ham's actual beliefs are regarding the flood. His whole article is built on this idea of God causing the flood to cover Mt. Everest. But either he has no clue on what Hams position is or chooses not to say, not sure, but anyone who knows anything about global flood believers already knows that Mt. Everest did not exist before the flood and so therefore the flood would not cover the earth to this great depth. Then he goes on to say that it must have been a miracle to remove the water and leave no trace. This guy, while genuine, hasn't a clue to what global flood believers adhere to.

[bcuzbcuz]

We all agree (both models that is) that sedimentary rock was formed by water. That fossils were buried quickly by mud flows. That there is evidence that even the tallest mountains were underwater at some point. The disagreement is over time.

So with that in mind. What the studies show (in the film clip) is that the strata we observe today couldn't have formed over long periods of time unless they formed under perfectly calm water. Instead, the stratification that we observe is indicative of formations that occur with water moving at different speeds.

The film clip makes several mistakes. The model that supposedly demonstrates layering from wave action or a current passing over a surface displays a layering effect that the model doesn't actually support. It talks about how a restricted current would lay down layers of varying density. But how is a current restricted...except in the model they show that has a top and bottom to the screen. Currents, in a river, are only restricted on top when they undercut a bank, a form of erosion, not deposition.

The model in the film clip to demonstrate layering that occurs at angles presupposes that the deposition of fine grained material comes in a thin stream, right at the top of formed "hill" of material. You will get such a "hill" of deposition at the spout of a drain pipe, for example, but I find it difficult to see how such a model of deposition could occur under natural sources. The funnel for the material would have to be stationary and of a considerably harder material than the silt that flows through it....plastic comes to mind, or copper or steel. Not too many naturally occurring spouts of such materials exist in nature.

The film displayed artificially created circumstances to explain naturally occurring phenomonem. That's tailoring a solution to fit an already defined outcome. BAckwards thinking.

[The Nehor]

The article is poorly researched on what Ham's actual beliefs are regarding the flood. His whole article is built on this idea of God causing the flood to cover Mt. Everest. But either he has no clue on what Hams position is or chooses not to say, not sure, but anyone who knows anything about global flood believers already knows that Mt. Everest did not exist before the flood and so therefore the flood would not cover the earth to this great depth. Then he goes on to say that it must have been a miracle to remove the water and leave no trace. This guy, while genuine, hasn't a clue to what global flood believers adhere to.

Either that or he has a clue and rationally doesn't believe a word of it.

Edited March 13, 2014 by The Nehor

[Rob Osborn]

The film clip makes several mistakes. The model that supposedly demonstrates layering from wave action or a current passing over a surface displays a layering effect that the model doesn't actually support. It talks about how a restricted current would lay down layers of varying density. But how is a current restricted...except in the model they show that has a top and bottom to the screen. Currents, in a river, are only restricted on top when they undercut a bank, a form of erosion, not deposition.

The model in the film clip to demonstrate layering that occurs at angles presupposes that the deposition of fine grained material comes in a thin stream, right at the top of formed "hill" of material. You will get such a "hill" of deposition at the spout of a drain pipe, for example, but I find it difficult to see how such a model of deposition could occur under natural sources. The funnel for the material would have to be stationary and of a considerably harder material than the silt that flows through it....plastic comes to mind, or copper or steel. Not too many naturally occurring spouts of such materials exist in nature.

The film displayed artificially created circumstances to explain naturally occurring phenomonem. That's tailoring a solution to fit an already defined outcome. BAckwards thinking.

Did you watch all 4 video segments? I thought it was nicely presented and explained. The tests were in a controlled environment but it was donethis way so we could literally see how sediments can form in currents.

[Rob Osborn]

Either that or he has a clue and rationally doesn't believe a word of it.

If you are going to quote positions of people and discuss their position with your own input at least do the research to find out what their position really is. All he had to do was make one small visit to their website, its all over their website.

[bcuzbcuz]

Did you watch all 4 video segments? I thought it was nicely presented and explained. The tests were in a controlled environment but it was donethis way so we could literally see how sediments can form in currents.

No, I didn't watch all four segments. I'm on vacation in Thailand and my wife called out to me, "Stop watching and complaining about that crap and come and have some fun snorkeling with me." So, I had to arrange my priorities. Swim or watch videos that are poorly done? Which would you choose?

And by the way, the videos are not tests. They are computer graphics that are programmed to give the desired outcomes. Not quite the same thing. (I can respond now cause my back is all sunburned from snorkeling)

[Bikeemikey]

If you are going to quote positions of people and discuss their position with your own input at least do the research to find out what their position really is. All he had to do was make one small visit to their website, its all over their website.

 

Why request of others what you clearly do not do yourself.

[CA Steve]

The magazine's argument for why the evidence suggests that there was never a flood:

 

Miracles are by definition out of the norm and God performs them using natural laws that we do not understand and even may seem to override those laws we think we do understand. A worldwide flood is a great miracle, a fantastic, very hard to explain, out of the ordinary miracle. 

I believe that this monumental historical event had to be planned and executed by God with great care and skill so it would not destroy all that He had done in creating the world for His children. Another effect of this carefully executed miracle is that God probably did not leave behind the signs we would expect from other floods that we know about in earth’s history. 

 

Summary: God used a miracle so there would be no evidence left behind to preserve the world for the survivors (presumably including saving all the plant life). I can at least respect that position. Makes more sense then Ham's and the stuff thrown around in this thread at least.

Couldn't that argument, in a slightly modified form, be used to defend anything?

 

"In order to allow us to develop our faith, God used a miracle to eliminate any evidence of the 'X' ."

 

In fact it could even be said, by this line of reasoning;

 

"In order to allow us to develop our faith, God used a miracle to create evidence against the possibility of 'X' ."

[Bikeemikey]

Couldn't that argument, in a slightly modified form, be used to defend anything?

 

"In order to allow us to develop our faith, God used a miracle to eliminate any evidence of the 'X' ."

 

In fact it could even be said, by this line of reasoning;

 

"In order to allow us to develop our faith, God used a miracle to create evidence against the possibility of 'X' ."

 

Yep... the next step is concluding the argument to be very silly indeed.

[The Nehor]

If you are going to quote positions of people and discuss their position with your own input at least do the research to find out what their position really is. All he had to do was make one small visit to their website, its all over their website.

We only have one limited lifespan. Wasting it researching creationist science is like mocking God for giving it to us.

[danielwoods]

No, I didn't watch all four segments. I'm on vacation in Thailand and my wife called out to me, "Stop watching and complaining about that crap and come and have some fun snorkeling with me." So, I had to arrange my priorities. Swim or watch videos that are poorly done? Which would you choose?

And by the way, the videos are not tests. They are computer graphics that are programmed to give the desired outcomes. Not quite the same thing. (I can respond now cause my back is all sunburned from snorkeling)

 

The experiments and video graphics represent the flood model and the observations that support it. They are the same principled activities that scientists use to test and demonstrate any model. Even tests for whether life can be generated in the theoretical primordial soup are done in a lab under controlled environments. 

 

How accurately they represent real life is always a valid criticism. Given what we can see and understand, the layers under us couldn't have been laid in still calm water conditions, which is what is implied by evolutionary model. 

 

By the way, go snorkeling! 

Edited March 13, 2014 by danielwoods

[The Nehor]

Couldn't that argument, in a slightly modified form, be used to defend anything?

 

"In order to allow us to develop our faith, God used a miracle to eliminate any evidence of the 'X' ."

 

In fact it could even be said, by this line of reasoning;

 

"In order to allow us to develop our faith, God used a miracle to create evidence against the possibility of 'X' ."

Yes, it could. It is not truly an argument in the sense that it could convince someone. It is not necessarily untrue but I am always wary of this kind of thinking. It makes God look like a deceiver.

[Bikeemikey]

We only have one limited lifespan. Wasting it researching creationist science is like mocking God for giving it to us.

 

Smack-down!! I mean you could be playing x-box.

[Brian 2.0]

 

By the way, go snorkeling! 

 

It only took us 41 pages of posts and oftentimes heated debate, but we're all finally on the same page about something...  bcuzbcuz should go snorkeling.

 

I myself look up MD&D while in the bathroom on my iphone to avoid the ire from my wife.  I guess there's much worse dirty little secrets that I could have.

[Rob Osborn]

No, I didn't watch all four segments. I'm on vacation in Thailand and my wife called out to me, "Stop watching and complaining about that crap and come and have some fun snorkeling with me." So, I had to arrange my priorities. Swim or watch videos that are poorly done? Which would you choose?

And by the way, the videos are not tests. They are computer graphics that are programmed to give the desired outcomes. Not quite the same thing. (I can respond now cause my back is all sunburned from snorkeling)

watch all four, especially video 2, it actually shows them at the university doing their experiment in large glass sided containers.

[thesometimesaint]

But what if Rob is right and the church opinion is that: Adam is the first human and the earth isn't more than 6000 years old? Just "what if?"

 

What if axeheads float? Science is based on the ability of believers and nonbelievers alike to see if some claim is repeatable. IE: If axeheads really do float.

[thesometimesaint]

The article is poorly researched on what Ham's actual beliefs are regarding the flood. His whole article is built on this idea of God causing the flood to cover Mt. Everest. But either he has no clue on what Hams position is or chooses not to say, not sure, but anyone who knows anything about global flood believers already knows that Mt. Everest did not exist before the flood and so therefore the flood would not cover the earth to this great depth. Then he goes on to say that it must have been a miracle to remove the water and leave no trace. This guy, while genuine, hasn't a clue to what global flood believers adhere to.

 

http://gawker.com/watch-creationists-talking-about-creationism-1520841986

[Rob Osborn]

What if axeheads float? Science is based on the ability of believers and nonbelievers alike to see if some claim is repeatable. IE: If axeheads really do float.

And yet here we are a 100 years later and scientists still cant figure out how nature, on its own, could repeat their theory of chemical evolution. So much for repeatability. This is what you call dogmatic belief.

[Rob Osborn]

http://gawker.com/watch-creationists-talking-about-creationism-1520841986

Do you even Believe in the Creator?

[thesometimesaint]

Do you even Believe in the Creator?

 

Yes.

[Rob Osborn]

Yes.

What did he do to bring about life?

[Bikeemikey]

And yet here we are a 100 years later and scientists still cant figure out how nature, on its own, could repeat their theory of chemical evolution. So much for repeatability. This is what you call dogmatic belief.

Here we are 6000 years later and no one has been able to prove the existence of god! So much for religion...

Ohh, this game is fun.

At least science admits its limitations by openly stating they are not able to replicate the "origin of life" test.