Noah's Flood And "mental Gymanstics" - Local Flooders Wanted!

[MormonFreeThinker]

They are related. If the global flood was real, evolution is bogus. If evolution is real, the bibles a joke.

 

Two extremes 

 

 

There also isnt any evidence for the Book of Mormon according to that same science institution...

 

Many LDS intellectuals agree that there is no evidence for modern horses, near east chariots, steel from ancient america. . 

 

Elder Christofferson said, "Faith will not come from the study of ancient texts as a purely academic pursuit. It will not come from archaeological digs and discoveries. It will not come from scientific experiments. It will not even come from witnessing miracles" 

Edited December 7, 2014 by MormonFreeThinker

[MortyS]

Rob seems a little extreme.

 

Didn't the Pope come out in support of evolution and the big bang about a month ago? Ins't he a theist?

[thesometimesaint]

Rob seems a little extreme.

 

Didn't the Pope come out in support of evolution and the big bang about a month ago? Ins't he a theist?

 

Rob is more than a little extreme. According to him BYU is full of Atheistic professors.

[mnn727]

. If evolution is real, the bibles a joke.

Not at all, once you realize the Bible is not a history or a science text.

[Rob Osborn]

Rob is more than a little extreme. According to him BYU is full of Atheistic professors.

Just proves you can find atheism even in church owned places

[Rob Osborn]

Not at all, once you realize the Bible is not a history or a science text.

Much easier to believe science has quite a lot wrong.

[mnn727]

Much easier to believe science has quite a lot wrong.

Yes, because you're still holding on to the Protestant concept of a magical God who creates things ex-nilho (from nothing).

God is the greatest scientist ever but some here don't believe that He follow's the scientific principles He Himself set up.

Edited December 8, 2014 by mnn727

[ERayR]

Yes, because you're still holding on to the Protestant concept of a magical God who creates things ex-nilho (from nothing).

God is the greatest scientist ever but some here don't believe that He follow's the scientific principles He Himself set up.

 

That would be a ridiculous position to take.  In case you are unaware there is other plausible positions between that and macro-evolution.  

[Rob Osborn]

Yes, because you're still holding on to the Protestant concept of a magical God who creates things ex-nilho (from nothing).

God is the greatest scientist ever but some here don't believe that He follow's the scientific principles He Himself set up.

Whoa there pard,

I believe in a God who always uses science and nothing he does is by any other means than truly scientific means. It seems in reality that there are far too many evolutionists who will not place God into the equation because they say he is "supernatural". So, I turn the tables back on ya. Why do you guys think God is supernatural?

Also, I am curious, why is there no evidence for life popping into existence from non-life as you guys claim. Isnt that akin to creation ex-nihlo?

[Calm]

I just read four threads in a row basically arguing the same thing...scientists are atheists/no they are not. Does the argument really need that many threads to debate?

[MormonFreeThinker]

I just read four threads in a row basically arguing the same thing...scientists are atheists/no they are not. Does the argument really need that many threads to debate?

 

How was it before I started to participate here? 

[Calm]

I'd say you've at least double it, just more of the same though with everyone doing a fine job of convincing themselves and no one else.

Edited December 8, 2014 by calmoriah

[thesometimesaint]

Whoa there pard,

I believe in a God who always uses science and nothing he does is by any other means than truly scientific means. It seems in reality that there are far too many evolutionists who will not place God into the equation because they say he is "supernatural". So, I turn the tables back on ya. Why do you guys think God is supernatural?

Also, I am curious, why is there no evidence for life popping into existence from non-life as you guys claim. Isnt that akin to creation ex-nihlo?

 

Some 40% of all American scientists are Theists.

 

We can't place God into any science because he is omnipotent.

 

Supernatural simply means pertaining to God.

 

Please tell me what 2+2+God equals.

 

Here is just some of the evidence.

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/abioprob/

[bcuzbcuz]

I just read four threads in a row basically arguing the same thing...scientists are atheists/no they are not. Does the argument really need that many threads to debate?

With my life experiences I believe that if I say and write the same thing often enough, over and over and over again, eventually everybody will agree with me. Works for me?

[Rob Osborn]

Some 40% of all American scientists are Theists.

 

We can't place God into any science because he is omnipotent.

 

Supernatural simply means pertaining to God.

 

Please tell me what 2+2+God equals.

 

Here is just some of the evidence.

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/abioprob/

Were like a broken record, over and over and over and over and over and over...

Do you ever get tired of posting the same exact stuff over and over and over and over...?

I sure do. If you want to discuss some new angle we havnet already covered a billion times I am up for it, otherwise, I am done.

[DragonLancer]

I posted this in another thread in response to another subject, but I realized that it fits here too, so I thought I would post it here too.  I do not believe in a global flood.  I believe in a local flood in America (Ether 13:2), not in the middle east, and that the flood waters took the ark out to sea.  I believe that the ark had a global sea trek and landed in the middle east on the coast of Iraq, not on a mountain.  I believe Ararat is a corruption or variant of the place-name Eridu/Iritu, because the consonants are the same.  And that it is a mistranslation in the scriptures that it says "mountains of."  I believe that it is actually meaning to say "land of" Ararat/Eridu, not "mountains of."  I believe that the word "har" in the text for mountain is a mistranslation of the Sumerian "kur" (land of/mountain), which is clearly a cognate.  But I believe that the intent of the scriptures is that it is meant to say "land of".  See this:

 

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

 

I believe this is clear evidence for some of the original documents were in Sumerian from whence source material was taken for our scriptures in Genesis.

 

The flood traditions of Sumer/Babylonia are clear to say that Noah or the flood hero landed at the mouth of the two rivers, not in Turkey.  The place-name Ararat in Turkey is a place-name migration.  It is not the origin of the name.  The origin of the name is the port on the coast of Iraq at the mouth of the two rivers of Mesopotamia.  

 

So, Noah landed on the coast of Eridu in the district of Dilmun, not on a mountain.  And so, everybody has been looking for the ark in the wrong place.  The ark, not landing in a frozen waste, would not have been preserved over time.  Noah landed in an already-inhabited land of Sumer.  It is interesting that Eridu in Sumerian means "house of the faraway built."  It was indeed the place far away from where Noah had come.

 

I believe that Egyptus/Zeptah was a historic person, and "discovered" an already inhabited Egypt.  Egyptus and her sons represent merely the first line of the descendants of Noah that made their way to Egypt that intermarried with the original inhabitants, much like Lehi's family who intermarried with the already-existing Native American inhabitants of America.  Or, if we even take it further.  Much like Adam's descendants that intermarried with already existing inhabitants of the earth before Adam ever was here, who are descendants of Cro-Magnon, Neanderthal and so forth.  The black skin of the black Africans came from their ancestors over millions of years in Africa, not from Cain, and not from Ham.  The fact that Cain's children were black has nothing to do with black Africa.  That was a separate blackness unrelated to them.  Ham was a historic person, as was Egyptus, but Ham and Egyptus did not bring black skin to Africa.  The scriptures are the record of the descendants of the covenant race, not the record of all the inhabitants of the earth.  And John Sorenson's concept of "others" not only applies to Native Americans and Lehi's seed.  It applies to all the scriptures in every generation of the covenant race.

Edited December 8, 2014 by DragonLancer

[DragonLancer]

In the ongoing discussion of Widstoe's theory regarding the scope of Noah's Flood (he believed it was global), the comment was made that a belief in a global flood requires some sort of "mental gymnastics".  This implies that some degree of illogical or excessively creative thinking is required to maintain a belief in a global flood. 

 

The implication was that a belief in a local flood (i.e. Noah's flood being limited to a specific region of the planet, and not covering the whole globe) does not require "mental gymnastics".  I'm not so sure.

 

So this thread is devoted solely and specifically to those who believe that Noah's flood as recorded in the Bible was a real, historical event, but that it only covered a specific region of the planet.

 

If you believe the flood was "global", please stay out of this thread (sorry, but that means you Rob Osborn).  If you believe the story is purely allegorical, please enjoy the discussion as a spectator.

 

But if you believe the flood as recorded in Genesis 6-8 was accurately reported but local in scope, please explain your answers to the two following questions:

 

In Genesis chapter 6, we read the following about Noah and the animals:

 

 

 

 

Then in chapter 7:

 

 

 

 

Question 1: If the flood were "local" or regional, why did Noah need to bring non-food animals into the ark?

 

Later, at the end of the story, we learn the following in Genesis 8:

 

 

 

 

Also, keep in mind that depending on the exact measure of a "cubit", the dimensions in Genesis 6:15 give an ark that is 450 feet long, 75 feet wide, and 45 feet high.

 

Question 2: If the flood were "local" or regional, where did the ark end up after the flood, and how did it get there?  Please explain the hydrologic actions needed in a local flood to float such a vessel, presumably, "upwards" into the mountains, instead of downwards towards a valley or the ocean.

 

Looking forward to some mental-gymnastics free answers!

 

The Jaredites brought animals and plants with them to the New World, and there was no flood in their case.  They were simply following the example of Noah.  Noah didn't take animals and plants with him  because all the animals and plants on the planet would be destroyed.  He took them for similar reasons that the Jaredites had to take them to have them where he was going.  Preservation of certain local species perhaps from extinction and to introduce those species to the middle east from America so that they would be in the same area where he was going.

[DragonLancer]

I am the one that said it takes mental gymnastics to believe much of the O.T. and tie it to the New Testament and weave it into our religious beliefs.

I need to first state before I answer your question that I do not believe the Bible or the BoM is 100% true/historical/scientific. I do believe that the writers did the best they could with what they knew at the time, but what appears as a world wide flood to someone 5-6000 years ago or so, long before satellites and weathermen could very well be a large but localized flood.

 

Now onto your questions:

1. Why not? the local flora and fauna were going to be disrupted so it would be logical for him to gather local animals. To think he carried animals from all over the world; kangaroos, mongoose, platypuses, elephants, giraffes, etc is far fetched. If he started from either the middle east or even the Americas, how did he get the kangaroo's? How did both salt water and freshwater fish survive at the same time in the same water? How did a bird find a fresh olive leaf before they even landed if the entire world was covered to a depth of 17 cubits? And where did all that water go? The Bible never said they brought seeds, how did the plants survive after being covered with water for about a year?

2. We only have one reference to where the Ark landed and it was recorded a couple thousand years after the fact. Have you ever played the game where a story is repeated from person to person and it turns out it ain't even close to the original? Noah could have very well floated around the ocean for a while and then landed on a beach somewhere, perhaps even close to a mountain. 

 

I believe something happened, too many cultures have a flood myth for something not to have happened; perhaps a large comet strike in an ocean, or an earthquake causing a giant tsunami.

 

If all he was doing was preserving local species from extinction, even though there are many other species around the planet, then it is not far fetched.

[DragonLancer]

Just to add to the above, I lean towards Joseph Smith's ideas that humanity started in the America's. A Comet strike near a coastal area and Noah gets washed out to sea, floats across the Ocean and lands in the middle east. A comet strike explains both the flood and the 40 days of rain.

Wouldn't be disappointed if I was wrong about them starting in the America's but it makes sense; since the vegetation was already established when Noah and family landed in the Middle East.

 

There would have been some type of cataclysm on the east cost, if Joseph Smith's statement is correct that Noah launched from South Carolina.  South Carolina is a good, logical place on the east coast for a flood, because it is right there, on the coast, just in the right place for the ark to be swept out to sea.  It would be so much easier to search for flood evidence in that area in 3000 or 4000 BC than to find global flood evidence.

[DragonLancer]

But that's not what the Bible says. It doesn't say that Noah gathered only the local animals. It says every living thing of all flesh. That would include animals that wouldn't be facing an "extinction event". It's especially odd that he would have to gather birds. Sure, there might be a few birds that can't migrate to non-flood areas, but how many bird species are there that would need to be preserved in an ark?

Interesting. It would appear that the local flood theory relies, in part, on a belief that the details of the story as recounted in Genesis are simply wrong. I suspect that might be why it hasn't gained any traction among Church leaders and publications.

 

From my point of view, a global flood theory relies on mistranslations in the scriptures and misinterpretations of scope of what is meant.

 

The evidence that we know in science has to form the framework and scope within which the scriptures can be logically interpreted.  You cannot interpret the scriptures without taking other evidences into account.  Because a literal interpretation may just mean that all evidences ought to be taken into account

Edited December 8, 2014 by DragonLancer

[danielwoods]

Note, I stated that the same "DNA principles" are used today, as it was from the very start. Which indicates that it didn't derive itself from inorganic matter by itself. A program is evidence of a programer.

 

 

What exactly what are those "DNA principles" that were used before complex life first appeared on this planet? Yes; this is a CFR.

 

Your CFR doesn't really quote what I said. It's my opinion that any life with DNA is complex, so I don't know how to answer your CFR. 

[MormonFreeThinker]

I'd say you've at least double it

 

lol good 

 

 just more of the same though with everyone doing a fine job of convincing themselves and no one else.

 

What is the purpose of the MDDB? Is it just for retired employees to kill time? 

Everybody should be open minded, and open to the evidence. There is no reason to participate with a close mind. 

 

Science is important, it is sad that many members of the church do not like some of it. 

[MormonFreeThinker]

 

 I believe in a local flood in America (Ether 13:2), not in the middle east

 

 

Is that the only reason why? Ether 13:2 does not mention Noah or the Flood. 

 

America was covered by water 

 

Here is a better possibility 

 

 

 

 

http://www.oldearth.org/articles/flood_location.htm

Edited December 8, 2014 by MormonFreeThinker

[DragonLancer]

Ether 13:2 speaks of the water that receded off the face of "THIS LAND."  It is rational to read that in reference to the flood, even if you don't personally agree with that interpretation.  The flood can only be local, not global.  Reports have it that Joseph Smith said the ark was launched from South Carolina.

 

LDS tradition shows the chosen race originated in America before the flood, and ended up in Mesopotamia after the flood.

 

The shoe fits.

 

America was covered by water in prehistory, not in recent history (i.e. recorded history).  I am concerned with recent history for the flood, not the time of the stone age.  And I want to do research on evidence for a possible flood in South Carolina that would take an ark out to sea sometime in the time frame of 5000 BC to 2500 BC.

Edited December 8, 2014 by DragonLancer

[ERayR]

Reports have it that Joseph Smith said the ark was launched from South Carolina.

 

.

 

Would you please list a reference so I can look it up?