Elder Holland Declares GoE in Missouri, Noah's Flood Covered the Whole Planet, Pangea separated after Noah's flood, Jaredites first to Populate the New World

[waveslider]

39 minutes ago, Gray said:

It's might be possible to derive water from air (even simple condensation can do that). But given the physical state of the earth today and the development of human civilization, it's not possible in any meaningful sense of the word that there was a global flood any time in human history. The reason for that is the same reason why it's not possible that aliens cut the moon in half and took their half away to another galaxy. Simply put, if that had happened, we would have half a moon, and we don't. 

Similarly, the earth would look a lot different than it does today if we'd had a global flood. 

That is only if you believe that it takes a long, long time for change to happen. If it doesn't need to take a long time for massive then the Earth indeed could look like it does today and still have been changed by a global flood. God isn't limited by time, like we are. He lives on a different plain of existence. He is the one who created the construct we call time.

[Gray]

10 minutes ago, waveslider said:

The modus operandi of God is, the He just speaks the words and it is done, period. This leaves the rest of us to try and figure out the actual mechanics of how things got set in order by Him, so we come up with hypothesis, and theory as we try to asses the limited amount of data we have, in a forensic type of way. This is at best an imperfect method for discerning the truth, and it is impossible to ever gain all truth from such a method, since there are things that just can't be tested scientifically. If we don't believe that God just speaks and things just obey His command, then we are only left to bash our heads against a wall in an, "ever learning and never able to come to the knowledge of the turth," scenario.

How does naturalism explain the basket of fish and loaves of bread feeding so many people, or the raising of someone who has been dead for days on end. The healing of lame and blind people, etc.? There is a lot more natural things than science admits to, and because of missing data, and even wrong interpretations of data science is still blind to true naturalism thus far.

I'm not sure that level of confidence in exactly what goes on behind the scenes with God is really warranted. The general Mormon answer to such questions is that any technology that is advanced enough will appear to be miraculous. Maybe Jesus was being handed the loaves and fishes through a dimensional portal maintained via a small fusion reactor. Who knows?

In any case, the supernatural does not exist in the philosophy of Mormonism as such. Mainstream Christianity is all about the supernatural, of course. Mormonism is a lot more physicalistic and material. 

[stemelbow]

45 minutes ago, Gray said:

It's might be possible to derive water from air (even simple condensation can do that). But given the physical state of the earth today and the development of human civilization, it's not possible in any meaningful sense of the word that there was a global flood any time in human history. The reason for that is the same reason why it's not possible that aliens cut the moon in half and took their half away to another galaxy. Simply put, if that had happened, we would have half a moon, and we don't. 

Similarly, the earth would look a lot different than it does today if we'd had a global flood. 

I pretty much agree.  But I think there's plenty of room for someone to take the flood literally.  Such a person would have to accept that God decided to make it as if there was no flood in the scientific record.  The same people are also likely to think the earth to be just a few thousand years old, Adam and Eve to have been the first mortal humans not too long ag0 (relatively speaking) and God made it all so and fixed it so we couldn't possible figure it out. 

To me God doesn't seem like he's that involved.  But to others He is.  So, what do you do?  Well, make room for both perspectives I say.

[Gray]

6 minutes ago, waveslider said:

That is only if you believe that it takes a long, long time for change to happen. If it doesn't need to take a long time for massive then the Earth indeed could look like it does today and still have been changed by a global flood. God isn't limited by time, like we are. He lives on a different plain of existence. He is the one who created the construct we call time.

That doesn't really respond to what I was saying. If there were a flood of that magnitude we would see dramatic evidence of it today, even if it had happened a million years ago.

Chinese civilization (and many others) would not exist if the flood had happened in the Biblical timelines. And so on and so on.

Edited August 12, 2016 by Gray

[stemelbow]

10 minutes ago, Johnnie Cake said:

Forgive my archaic formatting...I've been relegated to Purgatory and limited to I think 12 posts a day.  However your post deserved a reply so I'm going to shower YOU with a reply...(Feel Blessed) and if by chance I don't immediately respond it is because I've used up my limited allotment of daily posts.

Please give me a simple answer to this question.  Take the single genera Oncorhynchus mykiss, better know as a Rainbow Trout...it is a very common variety of fish that thrives in our Utah mountain lakes and steams.  But unlike its distant cousin the Salmon, if place in sea water, quickly perishes.  So my question is this, Magic aside....How exactly did this fresh water fish survive YOUR global flood and then reintroduce itself back in to the exact eco system in which it survives? Noting that even a small increase in saline within the fresh water will bring on death to these fish...how exactly did they survive?  Now times that by the MILLIONS of other unique animals each with their own unique eco systems from which if removed would perish and explain how exactly each of them survived your global flood.  Do this without the aid of magic...and you may have a new convert.

The answer could be as simple as God's magic, so what's it matter? 

Just think during the flood God put his effort into keeping things like trout alive until the floods subsided. 

 

[Gray]

5 minutes ago, stemelbow said:

I pretty much agree.  But I think there's plenty of room for someone to take the flood literally.  Such a person would have to accept that God decided to make it as if there was no flood in the scientific record.  The same people are also likely to think the earth to be just a few thousand years old, Adam and Eve to have been the first mortal humans not too long ag0 (relatively speaking) and God made it all so and fixed it so we couldn't possible figure it out. 

To me God doesn't seem like he's that involved.  But to others He is.  So, what do you do?  Well, make room for both perspectives I say.

While anything is technically possible, not everything is reasonably possible. It's possible God hid all the evidence in an effort to trick us. At that point we must ask if we are worshiping Yahweh or Loki. 

[stemelbow]

1 minute ago, Gray said:

While anything is technically possible, not everything is reasonably possible. It's possible God hid all the evidence in an effort to trick us. At that point we must ask if we are worshiping Yahweh or Loki. 

Well this type of question is why I side with you.  But that doesn't we're right.  It merely means we feel like our position is more reasonable.  But God still could have done it, is the argument.  there's no defeating that.  It is what it is.  Might as well get used to it being ever present at least until God inspires a new prophet to teach us something new, finally.

[Gray]

2 minutes ago, stemelbow said:

Well this type of question is why I side with you.  But that doesn't we're right.  It merely means we feel like our position is more reasonable.  But God still could have done it, is the argument.  there's no defeating that.  It is what it is.  Might as well get used to it being ever present at least until God inspires a new prophet to teach us something new, finally.

I feel that there has to be a higher bar than "technically possible". Anything is technically possible. Absolutely anything. A global flood falls under that, but it doesn't count as reasonably possible. It's technically possible that Steve Buscemi is the creator of the universe. We can't absolutely rule that out, but it's so ridiculous that I feel it's not worth serious consideration. 

 

[waveslider]

6 minutes ago, Johnnie Cake said:

Forgive my archaic formatting...I've been relegated to Purgatory and limited to I think 12 posts a day.  However your post deserved a reply so I'm going to shower YOU with a reply...(Feel Blessed) and if by chance I don't immediately respond it is because I've used up my limited allotment of daily posts.

Please give me a simple answer to this question.  Take the single genera Oncorhynchus mykiss, better know as a Rainbow Trout...it is a very common variety of fish that thrives in our Utah mountain lakes and steams.  But unlike its distant cousin the Salmon, if place in sea water, quickly perishes.  So my question is this, Magic aside....How exactly did this fresh water fish survive YOUR global flood and then reintroduce itself back in to the exact eco system in which it survives? Noting that even a small increase in saline within the fresh water will bring on death to these fish...how exactly did they survive?  Now times that by the MILLIONS of other unique animals each with their own unique eco systems from which if removed would perish and explain how exactly each of them survived your global flood.  Do this without the aid of magic...and you may have a new convert.

Like I said earlier. The burden of proof doesn't lie with me to prove that the global flood did literally happen. The burden of proof lies with you to prove that it didn't happen based on your statement that it was a provable thing.

That said, I will entertain you with your answer. It will be the same answer to this question: How exactly did life originate on this planet? If you can answer this, "without the aid of magic.... you may have a new convert," as well.

I am not worried about getting a quick response. On the contrary, I would rather have a well thought out and studied response than a quick one where it is obvious that the other person didn't even take the time to properly look at the opposite person's point of view with a truly open mind, while looking up references and such. So your limitations don't even matter to me, and I actually view it as a plus to foster a more intelligent discussion than rash conclusions and assumed ideas on what the other person's views are based upon, as have happened with a couple of people (whom I will keep unnamed) on this site in previous discussions. I am not trying to put you on trial or anything. I'm not being judgemental even. I am not even trying to convert your way of thinking. I rather want to see what drives your opinion to the point that something that is obviously not proven beyond all doubt, however unlikely it is that it could have happened, can be proven.

[stemelbow]

2 minutes ago, Gray said:

I feel that there has to be a higher bar than "technically possible". Anything is technically possible. Absolutely anything. A global flood falls under that, but it doesn't count as reasonably possible. It's technically possible that Steve Buscemi is the creator of the universe. We can't absolutely rule that out, but it's so ridiculous that I feel it's not worth serious consideration. 

 

I'm fine with your line of reasoning.  I'm just saying we'll always be faced with literalists when it comes to this stuff.  We might as well get used to it.  And since it's technically possible, there's nothing we can do but say they aren't being reasonable when considering the big picture (well the big as far as we can see).  In this way, I say we need to keep room for literalists and non literalists. 

[thesometimesaint]

21 minutes ago, waveslider said:

The modus operandi of God is, the He just speaks the words and it is done, period. This leaves the rest of us to try and figure out the actual mechanics of how things got set in order by Him, so we come up with hypothesis, and theory as we try to asses the limited amount of data we have, in a forensic type of way. This is at best an imperfect method for discerning the truth, and it is impossible to ever gain all truth from such a method, since there are things that just can't be tested scientifically. If we don't believe that God just speaks and things just obey His command, then we are only left to bash our heads against a wall in an, "ever learning and never able to come to the knowledge of the turth," scenario.

How does naturalism explain the basket of fish and loaves of bread feeding so many people, or the raising of someone who has been dead for days on end. The healing of lame and blind people, etc.? There is a lot more natural things than science admits to, and because of missing data, and even wrong interpretations of data science is still blind to true naturalism thus far.

Golem Spell SEE https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Golem

Science by definition can not posit any God or Godlike force onto science to make it work, and it still be science. Doing such it becomes religion. We can't disprove the universe or God was formed from a Cosmic Egg.

SEE

 

[waveslider]

17 minutes ago, Gray said:

I'm not sure that level of confidence in exactly what goes on behind the scenes with God is really warranted. The general Mormon answer to such questions is that any technology that is advanced enough will appear to be miraculous. Maybe Jesus was being handed the loaves and fishes through a dimensional portal maintained via a small fusion reactor. Who knows?

In any case, the supernatural does not exist in the philosophy of Mormonism as such. Mainstream Christianity is all about the supernatural, of course. Mormonism is a lot more physicalistic and material. 

So likewise, the way that God can do things without the constraints of time could probably be explained as being done through a porthole to a different dimension where time as we know it doesn't even exist. It isn't any more far fetched than Jesus being handed the loaves and fishes by a similar means. What I am saying here is that we are like embryos in how advanced our technology is, compared to God, who actually only has to speak and things get done has. He is omnipotent and omniscient. We are far from that, so indeed what God's so called technology is, it does seem like miracles to us.

[stemelbow]

1 minute ago, waveslider said:

So likewise, the way that God can do things without the constraints of time could probably be explained as being done through a porthole to a different dimension where time as we know it doesn't even exist. It isn't any more far fetched than Jesus being handed the loaves and fishes by a similar means. What I am saying here is that we are like embryos in how advanced our technology is, compared to God, who actually only has to speak and things get done has. He is omnipotent and omniscient. We are far from that, so indeed what God's so called technology is, it does seem like miracles to us.

yep, if prayer works at all, it's but a miracle to us.  Maybe why I struggle with it so much, though.

[thesometimesaint]

Then your God is an ever receding collection of things you don't know.

God of the Gaps

SEE https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/God_of_the_gaps

Edited August 12, 2016 by thesometimesaint

[waveslider]

23 minutes ago, Gray said:

That doesn't really respond to what I was saying. If there were a flood of that magnitude we would see dramatic evidence of it today, even if it had happened a million years ago.

Chinese civilization (and many others) would not exist if the flood had happened in the Biblical timelines. And so on and so on.

Oops I missed the word, "Change," right after the word, "Massive." Perhaps it will make more sense now:
 

30 minutes ago, waveslider said:

If it doesn't need to take a long time for massive then the Earth indeed could look like it does today and still have been changed by a global flood.

Sorry about any confusion.

[thesometimesaint]

Wave:

While time is relative, it still takes time to do things.

[waveslider]

20 minutes ago, thesometimesaint said:

Science by definition can not posit any God or Godlike force onto science to make it work

So why are you here on a religious site instead of a purely scientific site, if we aren't allowed to posit God into the picture on our points of view?

[waveslider]

11 minutes ago, thesometimesaint said:

Wave:

While time is relative, it still takes time to do things.

Even if there were another dimension where time as we know it doesn't even exist?

[Gray]

35 minutes ago, waveslider said:

So likewise, the way that God can do things without the constraints of time could probably be explained as being done through a porthole to a different dimension where time as we know it doesn't even exist. It isn't any more far fetched than Jesus being handed the loaves and fishes by a similar means. What I am saying here is that we are like embryos in how advanced our technology is, compared to God, who actually only has to speak and things get done has. He is omnipotent and omniscient. We are far from that, so indeed what God's so called technology is, it does seem like miracles to us.

It's possible that God is omnipotent and omniscient, but I'm not sure that He is either of those things within the constraints of Mormon theology (certainly He is very powerful and knows more than we do). But I agree with the gist of what you're saying here. 

[thesometimesaint]

5 minutes ago, waveslider said:

So why are you here on a religious site instead of a purely scientific site, if we aren't allowed to posit God into the picture on our points of view?

Asked and answered. I'm here because I like discussion even if I don't agree with certain claims. I've never said you, or anyone else, can't posit God onto their points of view. Only that science can't and have it still be science.

14 minutes ago, waveslider said:

Even if there were another dimension where time as we know it doesn't even exist?

There are 4 known dimensions length, width, depth, and time. Whether there are others we don't know of yet, is a supposition, at best. If there is a God, and I believe there is, we don't yet have any empirical way of establishing him.

[bcuzbcuz]

2 hours ago, Bobbieaware said:

A naturalist who makes room -- as do all the prophets -- for the God of mighty miracles. 

So you believe it's theoretically possible for God to instantaneously turn mere dust into billions of glorified and immortal human beings, but it isn't theoretically possible for him to momentarily change air molecules into water molecules? Since I would imagine that spontaneously creating billions of incredibly complex immortal human beings from dust is a much more difficult task to perform than it would be to turn molecules of air into molecules of water (as when the Lord turned water into wine), I'm wondering why a naturalist of your sort finds rearranging some air molecules into water is so unbelievable? Is it the volume of water that boggles your mind? Or is it that you believe it's easier for the Lord to resurrect human beings from dust into glorious immortality than it would be for him to temporarily turn air into water?

Apparently you see this as some kind of comparison competition. "If God can do THIS, then he must be able to do THAT" kind of argument. 

My question is: Why would God completely flood the world and then remove all the signs that he had done so? Floods leave definite telltale signs. A flood that would wipe out every single living creature, human, mammal, insects, amphibian (dinosaurs?) and all living plants (with the exception of the animals on the ark) would leave huge, HUGE, piles of bones. With all the insects, scavangers (of which only two of each kind were on the ark)  and bacteria cleansed from the earth, huge piles of these decaying bodies and bones would be left. There are NO layers of incredibly mixed flora and fauna, no layers of bones of mammals, (dinosaurs), reptiles, fish, amphibians and birds and/or layers of invertebrates that mark a world flood. 

The populations of Egypt and Babylonia built buildings of stone and bricks and packed clay, both before the flood and after the flood which show no signs of flood influence. Egypt's pyramids required tens of thousands of labourers. If their populations were wiped out by the flood, how could keep building pyramids immediately after the flood? (The records of the Egyptians show no gap in either population or production.)

Why or what would require that a God would perform a miracle, then remove all signs of that miracle?

[waveslider]

30 minutes ago, thesometimesaint said:

Asked and answered. I'm here because I like discussion even if I don't agree with certain claims. I've never said you, or anyone else, can't posit God onto their points of view. Only that science can't and have it still be science.

There are 4 known dimensions length, width, depth, and time. Whether there are others we don't know of yet, is a supposition, at best. If there is a God, and I believe there is, we don't yet have any empirical way of establishing him.

Thanks for clarifying and answering that question. It helps me to understand better where you are coming from. Sorry for any misunderstandings by me. I can understand that.

There is also other dimensions as taught in the church. They aren't called dimensions very often though, but the word describes it just as well. They are instead called things like Paradise, Spirit Prison, Heaven, Telestial, Terrestrial, and Celestial Kingdoms. These places are generally known to have different sets of rules for the states of being within them, where the dimension of time, for instance, is defined as eternal instead of finite.

[thesometimesaint]

21 minutes ago, waveslider said:

Thanks for clarifying and answering that question. It helps me to understand better where you are coming from. Sorry for any misunderstandings by me. I can understand that.

There is also other dimensions as taught in the church. They aren't called dimensions very often though, but the word describes it just as well. They are instead called things like Paradise, Spirit Prison, Heaven, Telestial, Terrestrial, and Celestial Kingdoms. These places are generally known to have different sets of rules for the states of being within them, where the dimension of time, for instance, is defined as eternal instead of finite.

You're welcome, and no problem. I have no problem with the Truth Claims of the Church. I've agreed with them for the last 45 years. I converted at 20 years old. I need to stop telling how old I am. If they exist, and I believe they do, I can't posit them onto science. We are all free to believe anything we want.

[Johnnie Cake]

3 hours ago, Gray said:

I feel that there has to be a higher bar than "technically possible". Anything is technically possible. Absolutely anything. A global flood falls under that, but it doesn't count as reasonably possible. It's technically possible that Steve Buscemi is the creator of the universe. We can't absolutely rule that out, but it's so ridiculous that I feel it's not worth serious consideration. 

 

Wait What? Are you suggest Steve Buscemi isn't the creator of the universe?  Oh woes me...I'm crushed, downtrodden and have lost all motivation to live... Now where did I put my remote?  Steeeevvveee you there? Can you help me?

Edited August 12, 2016 by Johnnie Cake

[jkwilliams]

2 minutes ago, Johnnie Cake said:

Wait What? Are you suggest Steve Buscemi isn't the creator of the universe?  Oh woes me...I'm crushed, downtrodden and have lost all motivation to live... Now where did I put my remote?  Steeeevvveee you there? Can you help me?

The flood is problematic, to say the least. For one thing, it wouldn't have just killed off all land-dwelling animals but the change in salinity that would have affected every river, lake, and ocean would have caused mass extinction of marine species, both animals and plants.