Book Of Mormon Problems?

[Rob Osborn]

So, Adam was born as a result of sexual union between God and one of his immortal wives? Is that what you're saying?

Precisely. And there is quite the list of prophets and apostles in LDS church history that think the same way.

Edited June 3, 2014 by Rob Osborn

[jkwilliams]

Have you ever once considered that your view of the physical evidence could be faulty?

All the time.

 

There is no creative interpretation to deal with. The flood happened and we see the physical evidence of it all over the world plain as the day is light.

Then we simply disagree. I find "Flood Geology" to be a good example of that creative interpretation of the evidence.

Edited June 3, 2014 by jkwilliams

[Rob Osborn]

That's the point there is nothing "intelligent" about it. It is just chemistry. It gains information, it eats, it grows, it evolves. It results from entirely simple chemical processes. Whether God(Intelligent Designer) was involved or not is a question for religion not chemistry.

Life is intelligent. the ingredients of life (chemicals) are not. Thats the whole point- they are not re-creating intelligence in the lab, all they are doing is coming up with different ingredients that have no intelligence to build with.

[Rob Osborn]

All the time.

 

Then we simply disagree. I find "Flood Geology" to be a good example of that creative interpretation of the evidence.

Uniformatarian belief does not explain the vast sediment layers we see. Some of these layers cover vast regions of entire continents. There isn't anywhere in the world where we see that happening. rivers that deposit sediment into the sea is entirely miniscule in comparison. In the Grand Canyon we see many of these flood layers exposed. These layers cover hundreds of thousands of square miles. Uniformatarian theories state that these layers were built up very slowly over millions of years. But where is the endless mountain chain that was being eroded to build these grand layers so high and over such a vast area? We are not talking about te simple erosion of a mountain chain here, we would be speaking of a hundred mountain chains being eroded to make that much sediment. So where is it coming from? No geologist i have asked can come up with he answer to that.

[thesometimesaint]

You are missing the point. These chemicals do it by themselves. So unless some intelligent designer is dictating how and when each and every chemical reaction happens we have to admit that no intelligence is required. We don't know at what point chemical reactions crossed over into life. Whether God(Intelligent Designer) was involved is a question of religion not of science.

[jkwilliams]

Uniformatarian belief does not explain the vast sediment layers we see. Some of these layers cover vast regions of entire continents. There isn't anywhere in the world where we see that happening. rivers that deposit sediment into the sea is entirely miniscule in comparison. In the Grand Canyon we see many of these flood layers exposed. These layers cover hundreds of thousands of square miles. Uniformatarian theories state that these layers were built up very slowly over millions of years. But where is the endless mountain chain that was being eroded to build these grand layers so high and over such a vast area? We are not talking about te simple erosion of a mountain chain here, we would be speaking of a hundred mountain chains being eroded to make that much sediment. So where is it coming from? No geologist i have asked can come up with he answer to that.

I'm not going to argue with you, as we've been down this path before, but you might find the following article from my brother's alma mater interesting:

http://www.csun.edu/~vcgeo005/Flood%20geology.pdf

[Rob Osborn]

You are missing the point. These chemicals do it by themselves. So unless some intelligent designer is dictating how and when each and every chemical reaction happens we have to admit that no intelligence is required. We don't know at what point chemical reactions crossed over into life. Whether God(Intelligent Designer) was involved is a question of religion not of science.

I am not missing the point. These chemical reactions you are speaking of that happen naturally according to law are incapable of creating intelligent information such as DNA. Science has yet to show where chemical reactions have led to producing anything intelligent. Chemical reactions are not intelligent.

[thesometimesaint]

Uniformatarian belief does not explain the vast sediment layers we see. Some of these layers cover vast regions of entire continents. There isn't anywhere in the world where we see that happening. rivers that deposit sediment into the sea is entirely miniscule in comparison. In the Grand Canyon we see many of these flood layers exposed. These layers cover hundreds of thousands of square miles. Uniformatarian theories state that these layers were built up very slowly over millions of years. But where is the endless mountain chain that was being eroded to build these grand layers so high and over such a vast area? We are not talking about te simple erosion of a mountain chain here, we would be speaking of a hundred mountain chains being eroded to make that much sediment. So where is it coming from? No geologist i have asked can come up with he answer to that.

 

You deliberately misuse the term uniformatarianism

SEE http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrary/article/history_12

 

Here is how the Grand Canyon was formed.

http://www.bobspixels.com/kaibab.org/geology/gc_geol.htm

[thesometimesaint]

I am not missing the point. These chemical reactions you are speaking of that happen naturally according to law are incapable of creating intelligent information such as DNA. Science has yet to show where chemical reactions have led to producing anything intelligent. Chemical reactions are not intelligent.

 

We've formed RNA in the lab.

SEE http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2010/02/100222162009.htm

 

How DNA was formed.

SEE http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg21528795.500-dna-could-have-existed-long-before-life-itself.html#.U44avCi9Ztg

[jkwilliams]

You deliberately misuse the term uniformatarianism

SEE http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrary/article/history_12

 

Here is how the Grand Canyon was formed.

http://www.bobspixels.com/kaibab.org/geology/gc_geol.htm

I must say I was puzzled as to Rob's insistence that no geologist can explain where the sediment came from.

[Rob Osborn]

I'm not going to argue with you, as we've been down this path before, but you might find the following article from my brother's alma mater interesting:

http://www.csun.edu/~vcgeo005/Flood%20geology.pdf

Oh, the famed YEC? I am not a young earth creationist so i am unsure why some think all flood believers believe in a young earth. I believe the matter that makes up the earth has been around forever. How long the earth has been in its formed state- who knows and who really cares. All that is important to me is the "temporal age" of the earth and that the flood happened.

[jkwilliams]

Oh, the famed YEC? I am not a young earth creationist so i am unsure why some think all flood believers believe in a young earth. I believe the matter that makes up the earth has been around forever. How long the earth has been in its formed state- who knows and who really cares. All that is important to me is the "temporal age" of the earth and that the flood happened.

The article isn't about YEC. It's about flood geology, which you said you were interested in.

[Rob Osborn]

You deliberately misuse the term uniformatarianism

SEE http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrary/article/history_12

 

Here is how the Grand Canyon was formed.

http://www.bobspixels.com/kaibab.org/geology/gc_geol.htm

I am using it correctly.

They say that the rock layers formed slowly over time with coming and going oceans and some mountain chain (or more) eroded which accounts for at least some lower layers. A very wishy washy answer that still doesnt answer why you have so much vast material in relatively parallel layers. A coming and going ocean will not leave anything close to uniform parallel layers like we see.

[Rob Osborn]

The article isn't about YEC. It's about flood geology, which you said you were interested in.

But the paper is written with the intention of bashing upon YEC.

[jkwilliams]

But the paper is written with the intention of bashing upon YEC.

Actually, it discusses potential strata that could be evidence of a period of worldwide submergence (PWS) and what the flood geologists have concluded from that evidence. The article rests entirely on evidence the flood geologists have published and uses that evidence to narrow down which strata are candidates for PWS.

But if you're not interested, no big deal.

Edited June 3, 2014 by jkwilliams

[thesometimesaint]

Oh, the famed YEC? I am not a young earth creationist so i am unsure why some think all flood believers believe in a young earth. I believe the matter that makes up the earth has been around forever. How long the earth has been in its formed state- who knows and who really cares. All that is important to me is the "temporal age" of the earth and that the flood happened.

 

You keep saying that but keep presenting the same arguments used by the YEC's

 

The matter that makes up our earth has been around for a very long time, but not forever.

 

The earth is about 4.5 billion years old. Life has been on earth some 3.5 billion years. No Adam and Eve didn't ride around on a coconut eating T-Rex.

 

No one knows what JS meant by temporal age of the earth being 7000 years old, and unfortunately he isn't here to clarify.

 

That one of many floods happen is beyond dispute. Whether it was a single Global Flood during the propose time of Noah is a different question. Such a Global Flood is incompatible with science.

[Rob Osborn]

You keep saying that but keep presenting the same arguments used by the YEC's

 

The matter that makes up our earth has been around for a very long time, but not forever.

 

The earth is about 4.5 billion years old. Life has been on earth some 3.5 billion years. No Adam and Eve didn't ride around on a coconut eating T-Rex.

 

No one knows what JS meant by temporal age of the earth being 7000 years old, and unfortunately he isn't here to clarify.

 

That one of many floods happen is beyond dispute. Whether it was a single Global Flood during the propose time of Noah is a different question. Such a Global Flood is incompatible with science.

You do realize that its your opinion versus mine dont you? You cannot prove what you claim just as i cannot do the same.

[thesometimesaint]

I am using it correctly.

They say that the rock layers formed slowly over time with coming and going oceans and some mountain chain (or more) eroded which accounts for at least some lower layers. A very wishy washy answer that still doesnt answer why you have so much vast material in relatively parallel layers. A coming and going ocean will not leave anything close to uniform parallel layers like we see.

 

No you are not. The exact conditions of billions/millions of years ago are not the same as the conditions we face today. It is not uniform. There are various depths and various plants and animals in each of the layers. IE; We don't find trilobites with the modern horse. Nor the modern horse with trilobites.

 

I've challenged you before to prove the scientists wrong. Go dig up a modern human skeleton in a layer of previously undisturbed Precambrian dirt. I eagerly await your discovery to be published in Nature Magazine.

[jkwilliams]

No you are not. The exact conditions of billions/millions of years ago are not the same as the conditions we face today. It is not uniform. There are various depths and various plants and animals in each of the layers. IE; We don't find trilobites with the modern horse. Nor the modern horse with trilobites.

 

I've challenged you before to prove the scientists wrong. Go dig up a modern human skeleton in a layer of previously undisturbed Precambrian dirt. I eagerly await your discovery to be published in Nature Magazine.

You should check out the article I linked to, as it's kind of fun. Basically, he takes flood geologists at their word as to possible strata that indicate a period of worldwide submergence, and he shows that by their own criteria, it's impossible.

And as you have noted, Rob Osborn doesn't believe in YEC, but he believes that the geologic strata show a global flood that occurred some 6000 years ago, so essentially he's on the same page as the YEC folks in that regard.

[thesometimesaint]

You do realize that its your opinion versus mine dont you? You cannot prove what you claim just as i cannot do the same.

 

Of course they are opinions. I'm not disputing that. I have solid established science behind those opinions. You have an quote from JS in a culture that believed the earth was created on Sunday, 23 October 4004 BC.

 

Of course I can't prove anything to you. It isn't about proof it about what the physical evidence points to. I see someone beating the crap out of someone. You see the laying on of hands.

[jkwilliams]

Of course they are opinions. I'm not disputing that. I have solid established science behind those opinions. You have an quote from JS in a culture that believed the earth was created on Sunday, 23 October 4004 BC.

 

Of course I can't prove anything to you. It isn't about proof it about what the physical evidence points to. I see someone beating the crap out of someone. You see the laying on of hands.

Yep, we're not talking proof but likelihood based on the evidence. If someone can show me a good reason to believe in a global flood that happened 6000 years ago, I'm happy to reconsider where I am now. Thus far, I haven't seen it.

[thesometimesaint]

You should check out the article I linked to, as it's kind of fun. Basically, he takes flood geologists at their word as to possible strata that indicate a period of worldwide submergence, and he shows that by their own criteria, it's impossible.

And as you have noted, Rob Osborn doesn't believe in YEC, but he believes that the geologic strata show a global flood that occurred some 6000 years ago, so essentially he's on the same page as the YEC folks in that regard.

 

if something looks like a duck, walks like a duck, and quacks like a duck, but religious dogma says it is a gorilla, then it is a gorilla.

 

Gotta love it.

[jkwilliams]

if something looks like a duck, walks like a duck, and quacks like a duck, but religious dogma says it is a gorilla, then it is a gorilla.

 

Gotta love it.

I could understand it if this were one of those set-in-stone things in the church, such as belief in the First Vision, but there is a wide spectrum of belief about the flood, evolution, and the age of the earth among members--and no one is getting excommunicated for not believing in a literal global flood.

I just have to remind myself sometimes that, for whatever reason, it's important to some people to take the scriptures literally. I've never been one of those people.

[thesometimesaint]

Yep, we're not talking proof but likelihood based on the evidence. If someone can show me a good reason to believe in a global flood that happened 6000 years ago, I'm happy to reconsider where I am now. Thus far, I haven't seen it.

 

I too eagerly await such.

[thesometimesaint]

I could understand it if this were one of those set-in-stone things in the church, such as belief in the First Vision, but there is a wide spectrum of belief about the flood, evolution, and the age of the earth among members--and no one is getting excommunicated for not believing in a literal global flood.

I just have to remind myself sometimes that, for whatever reason, it's important to some people to take the scriptures literally. I've never been one of those people.

 

That's why I'm comfortable in both worlds. I can sit comfortably in Sacrament Meeting on Sundays and comfortably visit the BYU Paleontology Museum on Mondays. At least when I visit the BYU campus. Not sure I could visit the Creationist Museum with out