Sunday School And A Worldwide Flood (Pt.3)

[Rob Osborn]

Why would the creator endow us with reason and intelligence and then expect us to forebear the use of these gifts?

It truly makes one wonder. Reason and logic should tell us that when we see massive sediment layers in the rocks with billions of fossils in them that there was a massive flood in the past.

[Gray]

Did you intend your statement to be taken literally?

 

Yes.

 

If I start talking about one time when a bird told me to climb mount Olympus, you may safely assume I am not speaking literally.

[Gray]

So the mountains and cracks and seams we see showing the various sedimentary layers is all false?

 

I'm not sure why that would follow from what I said

[ALarson]

You do know that the areas below could have been under water without a global flood, right?

 

Rob Osborn, on 12 Feb 2014 - 08:46 AM, said:

So the mountains and cracks and seams we see showing the various sedimentary layers is all false?

 

Edited February 12, 2014 by ALarson

[Gray]

It truly makes one wonder. Reason and logic should tell us that when we see massive sediment layers in the rocks with billions of fossils in them that there was a massive flood in the past.

 

There is no evidence in the sedimentary layers of a massive, global flood. If you do find a tyrannosaur in the same layer as a mongoose, let me know. 

[JLHPROF]

First reason I can think of is because Moses probably never existed. 

 

The ability to take myths and folk tales literally isn't intrinsically valuable. Literalism certainly adds nothing of value to most of these stories. Literalism really misses the point, and makes us bifurcate our brains, where we'll trust the evidence only so far as it doesn't conflict with our own dogma. 

 

So I'm assuming you are not LDS.  Atheist perhaps?

Because Moses is most definitely real.  After all, he appeared to Joseph Smith and Jesus.  We know he laid hands on Joseph and conferred priesthood keys.  Pretty hard for a myth to do.

Edited February 12, 2014 by JLHPROF

[thesometimesaint]

First reason I can think of is because Moses probably never existed. 

 

The ability to take myths and folk tales literally isn't intrinsically valuable. Literalism certainly adds nothing of value to most of these stories. Literalism really misses the point, and makes us bifurcate our brains, where we'll trust the evidence only so far as it doesn't conflict with our own dogma. 

 

I don't have any problem with Moses. I agree with the rest.

[danielwoods]

Yes.

 

If I start talking about one time when a bird told me to climb mount Olympus, you may safely assume I am not speaking literally.

Right. And the Bible has much that was intended to be taken literally, and has been done so for most of it's life. There are plenty of places also where it's not intended to be taken literally. On what basis does one take what one says literally at one time, then later abandoning that to take it not literally?

[Gray]

Right. And the Bible has much that was intended to be taken literally, and has been done so for most of it's life. There are plenty of places also where it's not intended to be taken literally. On what basis does one take what one says literally at one time, then later abandoning that to take it not literally?

 

I don't believe the ancient Hebrews even had the concept of historicity, so I'm not sure they could have produced a literal history, any more than they could have produced a mystery novel (another form of writing with which they were unfamiliar)

Edited February 12, 2014 by Gray

[ALarson]

So I'm assuming you are not LDS.  Atheist perhaps?

Because Moses is most definitely real.  After all, he appeared to Joseph Smith and Jesus.  We know he laid hands on Joseph and conferred priesthood keys.  Pretty hard for a myth to do.

I'm sure you know that what you offer as proof that Moses existed doesn't mean much to a nonmember.  I'm not real knowledgeable on the proofs that Moses existed and would love to know if there are others that a nonmember would accept?

[Gray]

So I'm assuming you are not LDS.  Atheist perhaps?

Because Moses is most definitely real.  After all, he appeared to Joseph Smith and Jesus.  We know he laid hands on Joseph and conferred priesthood keys.  Pretty hard for a myth to do.

 

I'm definitely LDS, I'm just not very orthodox. I'd describe myself as a progressive Mormon. I don't put a wall up against either evidence or against communion with the divine. I accept evidence as the best means for determining physical reality, while seeking to know God in my personal life within an LDS framework. I also sometimes describe myself as a Mormon universalist. 

 

As far as Joseph's visions go, I don't think these were ever physical visitations, but rather figurative visions. 

 

Moses might have existed, but it seems unlikely given the evidence. I defer to the evidence but am always open to changing my mind

Edited February 12, 2014 by Gray

[danielwoods]

There is no evidence in the sedimentary layers of a massive, global flood. If you do find a tyrannosaur in the same layer as a mongoose, let me know.

How about wood in 45 million year old rock?

http://www.examiner.com/article/discordant-radiometric-dates-present-recurring-problem

[Gray]

How about wood in 45 million year old rock?

http://www.examiner.com/article/discordant-radiometric-dates-present-recurring-problem

 

It's hard to read with all the popups on that page. What kind of source is the examiner? 

[danielwoods]

I don't believe the ancient Hebrews even had the concept of historicity, so I'm not sure they could have produced a literal history, any more than they could have produced a mystery novel (another form of writing with which they were unfamiliar)

If someone claims to see and experience something, like an earthquake for example. They have to be a historian in your mind to write it down for you to believe it's accurate? Understand, no one is claiming that the ancient writers understood plate tectonics or they exact How and Why things occurred. They simply were observing and writing down their experiences.

On what basis do you label that as a "non-literal" account of their experience?

[danielwoods]

It's hard to read with all the popups on that page. What kind of source is the examiner?

Miners found fragments of wood, intact or burned, embedded in basalt--a classic igneous rock. Snelling and his team sent samples of the wood to two separate dating laboratories for carbon-14 dating, and samples of the surrounding rock to a third laboratory. They did not tell any laboratory about the specimens sent to the other two.

The wood samples "dated" at either 40,000 years or 33,000 years, depending on where it had been found. (One laboratory produced dates significantly "younger" than the other.) But the surrounding rock "dated" at about 45 million years on average. When confronted with these findings, critics have insisted that one does not bother to date fossilized wood buried in rock, and even question whether the wood had any carbon-14 remaining in it--and anyone reading the article would know that carbon-14 was in fact present in the wood, and the two laboratories reported no difficulty in dating it.

Snelling published his findings in December of 1997.

[JLHPROF]

 

As far as Joseph's visions go, I don't think these were ever physical visitations, but rather figurative visions. 

 

Well, on this I would just completely disagree.  Doctrinally it would make pretty much all of Joseph's claims worthless.  He really would be the dreamer/visionary instead of the prophet.  And there is only one way to bestow priesthood in the Mormon religion - laying on of hands.  It has always been so.  So when Moses bestowed his keys, just as with John the Baptist, Peter, James and John, he would have had to lay his hands upon Joseph's head.

[thesometimesaint]

How about wood in 45 million year old rock?

http://www.examiner.com/article/discordant-radiometric-dates-present-recurring-problem

 

Please. You really do make this too easy.

http://www.ncsu.edu/project/archae/enviro_radio/overview.html

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/hovind/howgood-c14.html

[thesometimesaint]

If someone claims to see and experience something, like an earthquake for example. They have to be a historian in your mind to write it down for you to believe it's accurate? Understand, no one is claiming that the ancient writers understood plate tectonics or they exact How and Why things occurred. They simply were observing and writing down their experiences.

On what basis do you label that as a "non-literal" account of their experience?

 

Maybe it was just God opening up the earth and swallowing the escaping Hebrews as punishment for unrighteousness. How is that possible to falsify?

[Gray]

If someone claims to see and experience something, like an earthquake for example. They have to be a historian in your mind to write it down for you to believe it's accurate? Understand, no one is claiming that the ancient writers understood plate tectonics or they exact How and Why things occurred. They simply were observing and writing down their experiences.

On what basis do you label that as a "non-literal" account of their experience?

 

 

This idea of writing down just the facts ma'am is anachronistic. That was not a concept in ancient Hebrew culture. It's my understanding that you start to get that sort of literal retelling of history from the Greeks. 

[danielwoods]

Please. You really do make this too easy.

http://www.ncsu.edu/project/archae/enviro_radio/overview.html

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/hovind/howgood-c14.html

Yeah especially if you don't deal with the arguments made.

Maybe it was just God opening up the earth and swallowing the escaping Hebrews as punishment for unrighteousness. How is that possible to falsify?

Nothing in history can be falsified, it's not observed or repeatable as a experiment is. We are talking about when something is written with the intention of being taken literally.

[danielwoods]

This idea of writing down just the facts ma'am is anachronistic. That was not a concept in ancient Hebrew culture. It's my understanding that you start to get that sort of literal retelling of history from the Greeks.

Seems to me that most of the OT is just factual history. "In the 7th year of king.... this or that happened... bla bla bla..."

[Gray]

 

It's hard to read with all the popups on that page. What kind of source is the examiner?

Miners found fragments of wood, intact or burned, embedded in basalt--a classic igneous rock. Snelling and his team sent samples of the wood to two separate dating laboratories for carbon-14 dating, and samples of the surrounding rock to a third laboratory. They did not tell any laboratory about the specimens sent to the other two.

The wood samples "dated" at either 40,000 years or 33,000 years, depending on where it had been found. (One laboratory produced dates significantly "younger" than the other.) But the surrounding rock "dated" at about 45 million years on average. When confronted with these findings, critics have insisted that one does not bother to date fossilized wood buried in rock, and even question whether the wood had any carbon-14 remaining in it--and anyone reading the article would know that carbon-14 was in fact present in the wood, and the two laboratories reported no difficulty in dating it.

Snelling published his findings in December of 1997.

 

 

This isn't directly relevant to the issue of the fossil record, but do you know where these findings were published? Thanks!

Edited February 12, 2014 by Gray

[Gray]

Seems to me that most of the OT is just factual history. "In the 7th year of king.... this or that happened... bla bla bla..."

 

Some of it does indeed have some basis in historical fact (not the Pentateuch,) but even the when we're dealing with real history it is significantly "amplified"

[Gray]

Well, on this I would just completely disagree.  Doctrinally it would make pretty much all of Joseph's claims worthless.  He really would be the dreamer/visionary instead of the prophet.  And there is only one way to bestow priesthood in the Mormon religion - laying on of hands.  It has always been so.  So when Moses bestowed his keys, just as with John the Baptist, Peter, James and John, he would have had to lay his hands upon Joseph's head.

 

How would a vision rather than a physical visitation invalidate Joseph's status as prophet? I think prophets are known for experiencing visions. 

 

Why is laying on hands important in any objective sense? It's useful for us because we're symbol-minded and physical, and the laying on of hands is a great way of communicating that something important has just happened. 

[danielwoods]

This isn't directly relevant to the issue of the fossil record, but do you know where these findings were published? Thanks!

It has major implications on the accuracy of the dating methods used on rocks. I am sorry I don't know where he published his findings.