New Findings in the (Maybe Not So) New World

[strappinglad]

Science may be self correcting but scientists as individuals are notoriously stubborn and reluctant to change , particularly if it entails a change in worldview. Take the recent cafuffle about soft tissue finds in 65 million year old dino bones. The vilification that rained down on Mary S was like unto a global flood. It took results from several other sources before some scientists begrudgingly came to accept soft tissue. Now they come up with all kinds of reasons why soft tissue can remain for millions of years. None consider the obvious, of course. That would involve a paradigm shift of Biblical proportions ( pardon the pun ). Fortunately the concept of catastrophism is enjoying a bit of a rally in some circles as uniformitarianism is showing itself to be inadequate for some geological evidence. Evidence keeps showing up  that something nasty wiped off civilized peoples in far flung locations all over the world about 12,000 years ago. Robert has referred to one possibility.

Again, I point out that the VAST majority of fossils that we have are marine fossils, and of the land fossils we have the majority of them only exist because they were buried rapidly and mostly by water born mud.

[clarkgoble]

3 hours ago, Robert F. Smith said:

You may note that I did not mention the Mediterranean or earthquakes, so don't understand why you mention them.  You do not understand the catastrophic nature of the great Pluvial rains, and so are going by modern surges or one kind or another which are minuscule in comparison.  In addition, the ancient coastline of southern Mesopotamia was quite different than today.

You weren't clear whether you were talking about coming in from Syria or Kuwait so I was trying to think up the best case for both. It might be helpful if you specified your time period. If you are talking the general dating in the Old Testament you are talking around 2500 BC - 2200 BC. My sense, since you keep raising Pluvial Rains that you're instead talking 12,000 or more years ago. Also when you say, "ancient coastline...was quite different" it sounds like you're talking tens of thousands of years or more.

To the degree you're talking of events during the height of the last ice age and it's decline you might have a point although again a lot would depend upon the shape & depth of the Persian Gulf as well as the type of storms you're referring to. What doesn't quite make sense is why on earth we should think Noah lived during the ice age. If you're already throwing out that much of the Noah story why not simply say it was a local flood and be done with it?

Edited April 29, 2017 by clarkgoble

[clarkgoble]

2 hours ago, strappinglad said:

Again, I point out that the VAST majority of fossils that we have are marine fossils, and of the land fossils we have the majority of them only exist because they were buried rapidly and mostly by water born mud.

Yes. There would be no rapid water born mud in the model of a global flood...

[clarkgoble]

3 hours ago, cinepro said:

What are you talking about, Rongo?  The Church published an essay explaining why the "local" flood theory is perfectly logical and acceptable for members to believe.  The FAIR article on the "Flood" has several references to it:

https://www.fairmormon.org/answers/Mormonism_and_science/Global_or_local_Flood

Oh, wait, I take that back.  That's a Sunstone article, not an essay by the Church.

The Encyclopedia of Mormonism, while not formally done by the church, was closely edited by the First Presidency. The entry for the flood primarily quotes Widstoe who says:

Quote

The details in the story of the flood are undoubtedly drawn from the experiences of the writer. Under a downpour of rain, likened to the opening of the heavens, a destructive torrent twenty-six feet deep or deeper would easily be formed. The writer of Genesis made a faithful report of the facts known to him concerning the flood. In other localities the depth of the water might have been more or less. In fact, the details of the flood are not known to us

Note that Widstoe points to a spectator view of the flood ("experiences of the writer") and that this would entail the author not knowing what was going on elsewhere. Widstoe is usually pointed to by advocates of a local flood, as is Joseph's comments about Noah living in the Carolinas. Admittedly though it's a very late third hand account. An 1891 entry in Charles Lowell Walker's diary that Dimick B. Huntinton heard in Nauvoo Joseph say the ark was built in South Carolina. So it's not much to build a theology on but is still interesting as a possibility due to hurricanes.

I think FAIR's point is simply that even a literalistic reading of Genesis 7 can imply a local flood. The reason most treat the flood as global is because that's the way culturally the text was read. So it's unsurprising it's treated as the way it should be read.

[Rajah Manchou]

4 hours ago, katherine the great said:

However, to our knowledge, Neanderthal never made it further east than Central Asia, Denisovans stayed in Asia and no human of any kind ever set foot in the New World before 20-30 kya or so. 

But Denisovan DNA made it as far east as Melanesia and Australia, so that would suggest they had some decent rafting skills. Although the timing of the arrival of humans in Australmelanesia doesn't help the arguments in the study, it is interesting that very old Australmelanesian DNA has been found in the New World. It does support the argument that homo had the ability to cross large bodies of water. But again, the timing is off and the Pacific is a verrrrrry large body of water.

Edited April 29, 2017 by Rajah Manchou

[Robert F. Smith]

3 hours ago, clarkgoble said:

You weren't clear whether you were talking about coming in from Syria or Kuwait so I was trying to think up the best case for both. It might be helpful if you specified your time period. If you are talking the general dating in the Old Testament you are talking around 2500 BC - 2200 BC. My sense, since you keep raising Pluvial Rains that you're instead talking 12,000 or more years ago. Also when you say, "ancient coastline...was quite different" it sounds like you're talking tens of thousands of years or more.

To the degree you're talking of events during the height of the last ice age and it's decline you might have a point although again a lot would depend upon the shape & depth of the Persian Gulf as well as the type of storms you're referring to. What doesn't quite make sense is why on earth we should think Noah lived during the ice age. If you're already throwing out that much of the Noah story why not simply say it was a local flood and be done with it?

Local is too timid an expression.  Only regional will do.  You are correct to understand the end of the last Ice Age as around 10,000 BC.  So much water was frozen during the last Ice Age that the world coastline was around 300 feet below its present level.  The melting of that ice dealt a catastrophic blow to normal human life all over the planet, first by storm surges, then by permanently raised coastlines.  Major disasters occurred, such as the immediate emptying of Lake Bonneville from the Great Basin (the flood went out the Columbia River track), or the filling of the Black Sea from the Mediterranean.  Lots of humans died, and flood stories began to be told worldwide.

As to biblical chronology, bear in mind that like the ten heroes of Old Babylonian tradition, post-Flood biblical characters from Adam to Noah are incredibly long-lived (1000-900 year range).  Early post-Flood have a vastly decreased longevity (600-200 years).  With that in mind, you might also want to consult the summary by David Bokovoy in his Authoring the Old Testament, vol 1, p. 108,

Quote

If the total of years connected with the names in Genesis 5 are calculated, the list covers a span of 6,695 years.  Then, if we convert this number to a sexagesimal number (the form used by the Sumerians), the result is 241,200 -- the exact total of the Sumerian King List.

Stephanie Dalley agrees on the sexagesimal implications in her Myths from Mesopotamia, rev. ed., 6, citing J. Oppert, Jewish Encyclopaedia (N.Y., 1903), IV:66-67.

[katherine the great]

1 hour ago, Rajah Manchou said:

But Denisovan DNA made it as far east as Melanesia and Australia, so that would suggest they had some decent rafting skills. Although the timing of the arrival of humans in Australmelanesia doesn't help the arguments in the study, it is interesting that very old Australmelanesian DNA has been found in the New World. It does support the argument that homo had the ability to cross large bodies of water. But again, the timing is off and the Pacific is a verrrrrry large body of water.

Denisovans DNA is in modern humans in Oceania, but that doesn't mean that Denisovans themselves traveled there.  It is certainly possible, but more likely that they mated with modern humans in Asia who later populated these areas.  The only place we have found any certifiable remains of Denisovans to date is southern Siberia.  I personally consider Neanderthals and Denisovans and even Heidelbergensis to be human in most meaningful ways.  Their cranial capacities were certainly within the range of modern humans (well, we don't know for sure about Denisovans, but it seems very likely) but different areas of the brain were more developed (occipital) and others less developed than ours.  Our strength is our frontal lobes which allows us to have much more imagination and advanced planning.  Those traits make it much more likely to carry out a transoceanic voyage IMO.  You mention the traces of Australo Melanesian DNA found in a couple of Native American groups.  I have been interested in this for a long time--before autosomal DNA evidence was available.  There are Amerind remains that are very similar to Australian aboriginal peoples and even some ancient cave art in South America that is very reminiscent of aboriginal art.  I think there is a lot of compelling evidence to support a connection there.  This could push back the earliest occupation of the New World but nowhere even close to the range the San Diego crew is proposing.

[Rajah Manchou]

22 minutes ago, katherine the great said:

Denisovans DNA is in modern humans in Oceania, but that doesn't mean that Denisovans themselves traveled there.  It is certainly possible, but more likely that they mated with modern humans in Asia who later populated these areas.  The only place we have found any certifiable remains of Denisovans to date is southern Siberia.

You mention the traces of Australo Melanesian DNA found in a couple of Native American groups.  I have been interested in this for a long time--before autosomal DNA evidence was available.  There are Amerind remains that are very similar to Australian aboriginal peoples and even some ancient cave art in South America that is very reminiscent of aboriginal art.  I think there is a lot of compelling evidence to support a connection there.  This could push back the earliest occupation of the New World but nowhere even close to the range the San Diego crew is proposing.

Interesting. There's also this:

Pacific Islanders Appear to Be Carrying the DNA of an Unknown Human Species

I'm also curious what you opinion is about the recent study arguing that 2% of the Papuan genome points to an earlier migration out of Africa around 120 kya:

"Data in another study reveal remnants of a much earlier exodus from Africa that persist in the genomes of present-day Papuans, biological anthropologist Luca Pagani of the Estonian Biocentre in Tartu and colleagues report. About 2 percent of the genome of Papuans can be traced back to small bands of humans who left Africa 120,000 years ago. “This expansion was successful in leaving descendants today,” Pagani says. But a massive wave of migrants who left Africa after about 75,000 years ago probably overwhelmed that small trickle, swamping out their genetic signature." (source)

That would push the date of a possible human presence in Oceania closer to the California study. But most of the content in these papers goes right over my head, so forgive me if I am misreading.

[clarkgoble]

46 minutes ago, Robert F. Smith said:

As to biblical chronology, bear in mind that like the ten heroes of Old Babylonian tradition, post-Flood biblical characters from Adam to Noah are incredibly long-lived (1000-900 year range).  Early post-Flood have a vastly decreased longevity (600-200 years).  With that in mind, you might also want to consult the summary by David Bokovoy in his Authoring the Old Testament, vol 1, p. 108,

As I said, once you're willing to throw out the chronology between Noah and Abraham, why not just throw out the global flood? It's not at all clear to me why you think "only regional will do." The main argument against a local flood is that it must be global. But you're rejecting global already, so regional doesn't seem to buy you anything at all. More importantly it's not at all clear to me what you need them to be cast so far inland to Iraq by a storm. The text doesn't say anything along those lines, so why this elaborate theory of gigantic ice age hurricanes to explain something not demanded by the text? Why isn't a big hurricane in the Carolonas killing the people around Noah sufficient? Why the necessity of a storm at the landing? Going by Genesis 8 it sounds like the last month it's fairly calm. He sends a dove out, but it returns. But that seems frankly an odd way to know how wide the flood was. But it'd work just as well if he was in some lowland near the coast that took a while to drain - something I remember from my days in Louisiana. 

Edited April 29, 2017 by clarkgoble

[katherine the great]

38 minutes ago, Rajah Manchou said:

Interesting. There's also this:

Pacific Islanders Appear to Be Carrying the DNA of an Unknown Human Species

I'm also curious what you opinion is about the recent study arguing that 2% of the Papuan genome points to an earlier migration out of Africa around 120 kya:

"Data in another study reveal remnants of a much earlier exodus from Africa that persist in the genomes of present-day Papuans, biological anthropologist Luca Pagani of the Estonian Biocentre in Tartu and colleagues report. About 2 percent of the genome of Papuans can be traced back to small bands of humans who left Africa 120,000 years ago. “This expansion was successful in leaving descendants today,” Pagani says. But a massive wave of migrants who left Africa after about 75,000 years ago probably overwhelmed that small trickle, swamping out their genetic signature." (source)

That would push the date of a possible human presence in Oceania closer to the California study. But most of the content in these papers goes right over my head, so forgive me if I am misreading.

Yeah, one of the problems in communicating this type of information to the general public is that the reporter (who is generally not a scientist) doesn't really understand it either and so they report it erroneously.  I'm okay with the idea that modern humans began to leave Africa earlier than 100 kya.  I'm puzzled why some still say 60 kya when we have numerous modern human fossils in the Middle East that date to 100 kya.  Fossils are rare and what are the odds that we would just happen to find the bones of the very first people to leave?  Not likely.  This all occurred during the Pleistocene (Ice Age) so their movements would have been governed by whether or not migrations routes were open during the interglacials or blocked during periods of glaciation. Groups of people became physically isolated from one another during periods of intense glaciation.  This is when we see different human species really become distinct looking (like Neanderthals) because they are breeding only within their groups as natural selection works to preserve the traits that work best in their environment.  After thousands of years of isolation, when the migration routes reopened and people started moving around again, their descendants would come into contact with people who looked and acted very different from them. This happened numerous times during the Pleistocene. We know sometimes we mated with them anyway, hence the Neanderthal and Denisovan and possibly other archaic DNA that was passed down to modern humans.  

I actually don't have a problem believing that Neanderthals or Denisovans could have migrated further east and eventually crossed Beringia.  Neanderthals were perfectly adapted to the cold, much better than modern humans so what they lacked in technology, they could have made up for with sheer brawn and toughness.  My problem is the absolute lack of evidence that I see in this paper.  Some rocks and some cut marks.  I guarantee that no Neanderthal would have just crushed some teeth and sucked a little marrow from those bones.  They needed twice the calories of modern humans just to maintain homeostasis.  There would be a butchery if Neanderthals were anywhere near that animal. Besides that, we have never found any evidence of Neanderthal tools or their physical remains anywhere in the New World.  If we do find those things then those San Diego scientists will be my heroes.  Until then I remain a skeptical curmudgeon.  

[Rajah Manchou]

1 hour ago, katherine the great said:

If we do find those things then those San Diego scientists will be my heroes.  Until then I remain a skeptical curmudgeon.  

Haha, well put. Thanks for sharing your knowledge on the subject here. 

Another thing I am wondering. What are the accepted timeframes of the main branches of humans? I've googled it and it seems all over the place. From what I've read Homo floresiensis was as far back as 800,000, or even 1 million years ago on that small island of Flores. Those numbers seem impossible to me, but even if we bring it down to 100 kya, how could anything survive that long in an isolated and vulnerable environment just barely above sea level? Especially through all those volcanic extinction events like Toba, the Sundaland floods and climate shifts. Those must have been some tough hobbits. 

But that's what I'm wondering. If floresiensis and javanensis were able to thrive in a maritime environment prone to flooding like that for hundreds of thousands of years (if these numbers are even accurate) wouldn't there be some chance that some floated or coasted to California? Over hundreds of thousands of years it seems like there would be an increased probability of freak storms or currents sweeping a few hobbits away to San Diego where they didn't survive long enough to leave much of a trace. 

I now have this image in my head of an Indonesian hobbit gang mauling a mastodon along Route 54.

Edited April 29, 2017 by Rajah Manchou

[katherine the great]

23 minutes ago, Rajah Manchou said:

Haha, well put. Thanks for sharing your knowledge on the subject here. 

Another thing I am wondering. What are the accepted timeframes of the main branches of humans? I've googled it and it seems all over the place. From what I've read Homo floresiensis was as far back as 800,000, or even 1 million years ago on that small island of Flores. How is that even possible on those isolated and vulnerable specks of land? How could anything survive that long in an environment just barely above sea level? Especially through all those volcanic extinction events like Toba, the Sundaland floods and also several climate shifts. Those must have been some tough hobbits. 

But that's what I'm wondering. If floresiensis and javanensis were able to thrive in a maritime environment prone to flooding like that for hundreds of thousands of years (if these numbers are even accurate) wouldn't there be some chance that some floated or coasted to California? 1 million years is a very long time and it seems like the probability of freak storms or currents could sweep a few hobbits away to San Diego where they didn't survive long enough to leave much of a trace. 

I now have this image in my head of an Indonesian hobbit gang mauling a mastodon along Route 54.

Floresiensis is the most mysterious of all the hominins to date.  The most recent methods give a date of around 60,000 years ago for the small population of them that we have found.  They hunted Komodo dragon and miniature elephants on Flores.  They were so tiny that I doubt they could even have lifted those big rocks at the mastodon site in San Diego.   This chart you posted is simply one many possible relationship charts that try to present a possible scenario for hominin evolution.  They are all based on the limited knowledge that we have from a scanty fossil record and are far from conclusive.

[Rajah Manchou]

9 minutes ago, katherine the great said:

Floresiensis is the most mysterious of all the hominins to date. 

Mysterious and charming.

[CV75]

6 hours ago, Rajah Manchou said:

Haha, well put. Thanks for sharing your knowledge on the subject here. 

Another thing I am wondering. What are the accepted timeframes of the main branches of humans? I've googled it and it seems all over the place. From what I've read Homo floresiensis was as far back as 800,000, or even 1 million years ago on that small island of Flores. Those numbers seem impossible to me, but even if we bring it down to 100 kya, how could anything survive that long in an isolated and vulnerable environment just barely above sea level? Especially through all those volcanic extinction events like Toba, the Sundaland floods and climate shifts. Those must have been some tough hobbits. 

But that's what I'm wondering. If floresiensis and javanensis were able to thrive in a maritime environment prone to flooding like that for hundreds of thousands of years (if these numbers are even accurate) wouldn't there be some chance that some floated or coasted to California? Over hundreds of thousands of years it seems like there would be an increased probability of freak storms or currents sweeping a few hobbits away to San Diego where they didn't survive long enough to leave much of a trace. 

I now have this image in my head of an Indonesian hobbit gang mauling a mastodon along Route 54.

I would suggest that each of the junctures numbered 1-11 represent a “dispensation” where Adam returned from his translated condition to attempt a new generation (we identify them as species or sub-species) of covenant people. Dispensation #11 includes us and other periods of “sapienesque” peoples that Adam generated prior to our current 7,000 year phase.

In an earlier post I suggested they were “failed” because they did not usher in the Lord’s coming or second coming, or even more biased on my part, because they do not look like what I conceptualize Adam to have looked like. But that is just my bias; that may not have been their role, and ours is only closest to the wrapping up of things. Whatever Adam looked like, Jesus is of the “Homo sapiens” generation.

[california boy]

21 hours ago, rongo said:

I know that some (by no means the majority of active members. Not even close) are comfortable believing that the Flood was a myth, and that it is unimportant if it didn't really happen. But, the spinning and contorting with various local flood theories is akin to horses/tapirs, to me. 

There are really good reasons why absolutely everything that has ever appeared in Church magazines and in talks by the Brethren is in complete agreement with a global flood, and why a Gospel Topics essay "nuancing" the Flood is extremely unlikely. Some have to do with the scriptures. Others have to do with putting the genie back into the bottle if you open that floodgate. 

I know that literal interpretation of scriptures really bothers some people in the Church, but the alternative sucks the vitality out of Mormonism and the Restoration. Once we start, as a church, trying to reconcile current science with the scriptures by jettisoning literal belief, we can turn the lights off and go home. The Flood is one front, literal historical figures and people, places, and events are another. The Resurrection is the biggest of all.

I think the genie is already out of the bottle.  This is why the fastest growing religion is no religion.  For too many people religion no longer makes any logical sense in so many areas.  Spinning and contorting does not increase credibility, it only weakens it and makes it appear to be more false.  It is similar to the whole Zeus based religion.  At some point, it just didn't make any sense.  That does not mean that millions of people didn't firmly believe in it and arrange their lives around those beliefs.    I honestly have no idea how religion will hold up as more and more comes to light that completely contradicts what has been taught for centuries and more specifically since 1830.  

[Robert F. Smith]

15 hours ago, clarkgoble said:

As I said, once you're willing to throw out the chronology between Noah and Abraham, why not just throw out the global flood?

I did not "throw out" the chronology from Noah to Abraham, but I taught you that it could be a very long period, based on sexagesimal base numbering, and that scholars have discovered that such a correlation is spot on.  Did you even bother to consider that, clark?

15 hours ago, clarkgoble said:

It's not at all clear to me why you think "only regional will do." The main argument against a local flood is that it must be global. But you're rejecting global already, so regional doesn't seem to buy you anything at all. More importantly it's not at all clear to me what you need them to be cast so far inland to Iraq by a storm. The text doesn't say anything along those lines, so why this elaborate theory of gigantic ice age hurricanes to explain something not demanded by the text? Why isn't a big hurricane in the Carolonas killing the people around Noah sufficient? Why the necessity of a storm at the landing? Going by Genesis 8 it sounds like the last month it's fairly calm. He sends a dove out, but it returns. But that seems frankly an odd way to know how wide the flood was. But it'd work just as well if he was in some lowland near the coast that took a while to drain - something I remember from my days in Louisiana. 

Well, maybe the local yokels in Podunk, Iowa, think in such terms, instead of large regional flooding.  The instances I cited are not local and no one calls them that.  They were huge, regional debacles.  When a local dam collapses, you get a local flood.  When Lake Bonneville collapsed, it was a regional debacle:  At its peak it discharged around 15 million cubic feet per second, and it continued to flood the Snake River and Columbia River for a full year.  The  worst Missoula Flood was 30 times that great.  Backflooding was also involved.  http://imnh.isu.edu/digitalatlas/hydr/lkbflood/lbf.htm .

A global flood, such as fundamentalists see as true, is not required by the biblical text.  It is illogical, and the Hebrew text does not require it at all.  A huge storm and ocean surge are adequate to explain the lift of a large boat, and its ocean drift for months.  I did not argue for a storm at the very end.  That the storm finally ends is not odd, and that the boat comes to rest as the water subsides is not illogical at all.  You even seem to have some experience with that notion from your time in Louisiana.  Does that scenario really boggle the mind?

[rongo]

1 hour ago, Robert F. Smith said:

Well, maybe the local yokels in Podunk, Iowa, think in such terms, instead of large regional flooding.  The instances I cited are not local and no one calls them that.  They were huge, regional debacles.  When a local dam collapses, you get a local flood.  When Lake Bonneville collapsed, it was a regional debacle:  At its peak it discharged around 15 million cubic feet per second, and it continued to flood the Snake River and Columbia River for a full year.  The  worst Missoula Flood was 30 times that great.  Backflooding was also involved.  http://imnh.isu.edu/digitalatlas/hydr/lkbflood/lbf.htm .

A global flood, such as fundamentalists see as true, is not required by the biblical text.  It is illogical, and the Hebrew text does not require it at all.  A huge storm and ocean surge are adequate to explain the lift of a large boat, and its ocean drift for months.  I did not argue for a storm at the very end.  That the storm finally ends is not odd, and that the boat comes to rest as the water subsides is not illogical at all.  You even seem to have some experience with that notion from your time in Louisiana.  Does that scenario really boggle the mind?

You can add the Brethren to the local yokels in Podunk, Iowa. 

I think you're overlooking the doctrinal aspect of the earth's baptism by water, and later by fire. Or, is the world being destroyed by fire also illogical. 

Why do you think the only treatments from the Brethren (including modern times) are solely in the global flood camp? 

When can we expect a gospel topics essay "nuancing" the Flood into a local/regional flood?

[CV75]

15 minutes ago, rongo said:

You can add the Brethren to the local yokels in Podunk, Iowa. 

I think you're overlooking the doctrinal aspect of the earth's baptism by water, and later by fire. Or, is the world being destroyed by fire also illogical. 

Why do you think the only treatments from the Brethren (including modern times) are solely in the global flood camp? 

When can we expect a gospel topics essay "nuancing" the Flood into a local/regional flood?

This is why I maintain that since everything in the Gospel plan for this dispensation is rolling forth as though there had been a global flood, we needn't debate whether the scriptural testimony is factual -- there is so much more to what is being said, and the significance so much more meaningful, than that. God is no less powerful or miraculous, so for the covenant's sake let's go with the grandeur of a global flood. It still doesn't compare with what God can do. For most who are fact-dependent, they will accept that for all eternal intents and purposes there was one.

Edited April 29, 2017 by CV75

[Robert F. Smith]

1 hour ago, rongo said:

You can add the Brethren to the local yokels in Podunk, Iowa. 

I think you're overlooking the doctrinal aspect of the earth's baptism by water, and later by fire. Or, is the world being destroyed by fire also illogical. 

Why do you think the only treatments from the Brethren (including modern times) are solely in the global flood camp? 

When can we expect a gospel topics essay "nuancing" the Flood into a local/regional flood?

Well, we don't have such a Gospel Topics Essay, and are not likely to in the near term.  What is true is that many people read the English text and imagine a worldwide Flood in which the mountains are all under water.  The text says no such thing.  It is a traditional assumption, kind of like the non-biblical belief in three wise men, young earth creation, etc.  There are many such assumptions, but they are not biblical.  And they even tend to give religion a bad name.

Of course there is the symbolic nature of the Flood as a baptism of the Earth, just as the Exodus includes the symbolic baptism of the Children of Israel as they cross the Red Sea dryshod.  In neither case is it necessary for anyone to get wet -- including the mountains -- even though these are biblical beliefs (1 Cor 10:2, 1 Pt 3:20-21).  Literalists can't understand the nuances of symbolism and liturgy.   They are blind to the figurative and the allegorical. They live in an either-or world.

[PeterPear]

8 hours ago, Robert F. Smith said:

I did not "throw out" the chronology from Noah to Abraham, but I taught you that it could be a very long period, based on sexagesimal base numbering, and that scholars have discovered that such a correlation is spot on.  Did you even bother to consider that, clark?

Well, maybe the local yokels in Podunk, Iowa, think in such terms, instead of large regional flooding.  The instances I cited are not local and no one calls them that.  They were huge, regional debacles.  When a local dam collapses, you get a local flood.  When Lake Bonneville collapsed, it was a regional debacle:  At its peak it discharged around 15 million cubic feet per second, and it continued to flood the Snake River and Columbia River for a full year.  The  worst Missoula Flood was 30 times that great.  Backflooding was also involved.  http://imnh.isu.edu/digitalatlas/hydr/lkbflood/lbf.htm .

A global flood, such as fundamentalists see as true, is not required by the biblical text.  It is illogical, and the Hebrew text does not require it at all.  A huge storm and ocean surge are adequate to explain the lift of a large boat, and its ocean drift for months.  I did not argue for a storm at the very end.  That the storm finally ends is not odd, and that the boat comes to rest as the water subsides is not illogical at all.  You even seem to have some experience with that notion from your time in Louisiana.  Does that scenario really boggle the mind?

"A global flood, such as fundamentalists see as true, is not required by the biblical text.  It is illogical, and the Hebrew text does not require it at all."

IT IS ILLOGICAL!

Where have I heard that before? Oh yeah, from The Book of Mormon:

-------------

15 Nevertheless, the people began to harden their hearts, all save it were the most believing part of them, both of the Nephites and also of the Lamanites, and began to depend upon their own strength and upon their own wisdom, saying:

16 Some things they may have guessed right, among so many; but behold, we know that all these great and marvelous works cannot come to pass, of which has been spoken.

17 And they began to reason and to contend among themselves...

--------------

 

[PeterPear]

On 4/28/2017 at 7:49 PM, clarkgoble said:

Yes. There would be no rapid water born mud in the model of a global flood...

Oh surely! Because it rained for forty days and forty nights. But you forgot about the fountains of the deep breaking open which of course wouldn't produce any "rapid water."

-------

9 There went in two and two unto Noah into the ark, the male and the female, as God had commanded Noah.

10 And it came to pass after seven days, that the waters of the flood were upon the earth.

11 ¶ In the six hundredth year of Noah’s life, in the second month, the seventeenth day of the month, the same day were all the fountains of the great deep broken up, and the windows of heaven were opened.

12 And the rain was upon the earth forty days and forty nights.

--------

[PeterPear]

On 4/28/2017 at 11:39 PM, katherine the great said:

Yeah, one of the problems in communicating this type of information to the general public is that the reporter (who is generally not a scientist) doesn't really understand it either and so they report it erroneously.  I'm okay with the idea that modern humans began to leave Africa earlier than 100 kya.  I'm puzzled why some still say 60 kya when we have numerous modern human fossils in the Middle East that date to 100 kya.  Fossils are rare and what are the odds that we would just happen to find the bones of the very first people to leave?  Not likely.  This all occurred during the Pleistocene (Ice Age) so their movements would have been governed by whether or not migrations routes were open during the interglacials or blocked during periods of glaciation. Groups of people became physically isolated from one another during periods of intense glaciation.  This is when we see different human species really become distinct looking (like Neanderthals) because they are breeding only within their groups as natural selection works to preserve the traits that work best in their environment.  After thousands of years of isolation, when the migration routes reopened and people started moving around again, their descendants would come into contact with people who looked and acted very different from them. This happened numerous times during the Pleistocene. We know sometimes we mated with them anyway, hence the Neanderthal and Denisovan and possibly other archaic DNA that was passed down to modern humans.  

I actually don't have a problem believing that Neanderthals or Denisovans could have migrated further east and eventually crossed Beringia.  Neanderthals were perfectly adapted to the cold, much better than modern humans so what they lacked in technology, they could have made up for with sheer brawn and toughness.  My problem is the absolute lack of evidence that I see in this paper.  Some rocks and some cut marks.  I guarantee that no Neanderthal would have just crushed some teeth and sucked a little marrow from those bones.  They needed twice the calories of modern humans just to maintain homeostasis.  There would be a butchery if Neanderthals were anywhere near that animal. Besides that, we have never found any evidence of Neanderthal tools or their physical remains anywhere in the New World.  If we do find those things then those San Diego scientists will be my heroes.  Until then I remain a skeptical curmudgeon.  

Then Katherine the Great returns with her theory that Adam was a monkey's uncle, because that's a Mormon's Dialogue that ignores the Feb 2002 Ensign magazine. LOL.

https://www.lds.org/ensign/2002/02/the-origin-of-man?lang=eng

 

[cinepro]

On 4/28/2017 at 8:07 PM, clarkgoble said:

The Encyclopedia of Mormonism, while not formally done by the church, was closely edited by the First Presidency. The entry for the flood primarily quotes Widstoe who says:

Note that Widstoe points to a spectator view of the flood ("experiences of the writer") and that this would entail the author not knowing what was going on elsewhere. Widstoe is usually pointed to by advocates of a local flood, as is Joseph's comments about Noah living in the Carolinas. Admittedly though it's a very late third hand account. An 1891 entry in Charles Lowell Walker's diary that Dimick B. Huntinton heard in Nauvoo Joseph say the ark was built in South Carolina. So it's not much to build a theology on but is still interesting as a possibility due to hurricanes.

I think FAIR's point is simply that even a literalistic reading of Genesis 7 can imply a local flood. The reason most treat the flood as global is because that's the way culturally the text was read. So it's unsurprising it's treated as the way it should be read.

The Encyclopedia of Mormonism was not "closely edited by the First Presidency".  That sounds like some sort of half-baked attempt to make it into a new "Mormon Doctrine", which is what Church leaders feared would happen at the time it came out.  Which is why they included this in the preface:

Quote

Lest the role of the Encyclopedia be given more weight than it deserves, the editors make it clear that those who have written and edited have only tried to explain their understanding of Church history, doctrines, and procedures; their statements and opinions remain their own. The Encyclopedia of Mormonism is a joint product of Brigham Young University and Macmillan Publishing Company, and its contents do not necessarily represent the official position of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. In no sense does the Encyclopedia have the force and authority of scripture.

http://eom.byu.edu/index.php/Preface

As for Widtsoe and the flood, he believed in a global flood and that quote is him trying to reconcile how the flood could still be "global" while not necessarily covering the tallest mountains with 40 feet of water.  If a regional flood was a tenable option, it's probably safe to assume Widtsoe would have simply said "the flood might have been regional" and answered the question.

[clarkgoble]

2 hours ago, cinepro said:

The Encyclopedia of Mormonism was not "closely edited by the First Presidency".  That sounds like some sort of half-baked attempt to make it into a new "Mormon Doctrine", which is what Church leaders feared would happen at the time it came out.  Which is why they included this in the preface:

Sorry I probably should have been clearer - the science related topics. I heard this directly from Brian Evenson while he was writing the evolution entry. Pres. Hinkley and his counselors went over the entries carefully to get a minimal doctrine. Hinkley made him edit it several times. The parts not tied to science I've not a clue on. Several of the entries weren't written by Mormons. The point of the book was a counterweight to Mormon Doctrine which many at the time felt had too much play and was being treated as the last word in official doctrine. Evenson was also assigned to compile and write the evolution packet handed out at BYU at that time.

Quote

As for Widtsoe and the flood, he believed in a global flood and that quote is him trying to reconcile how the flood could still be "global" while not necessarily covering the tallest mountains with 40 feet of water.  If a regional flood was a tenable option, it's probably safe to assume Widtsoe would have simply said "the flood might have been regional" and answered the question.

Widstoe felt moisture in the air was sufficient to count. So rain and snow were fine. That's not a global flood even if he calls it that. Also the main point was his emphasis on an observer model and that outside of what Noah personally saw he knew nothing about. Widstoe was explicit we don't know either.

[clarkgoble]

13 hours ago, PeterPear said:

Oh surely! Because it rained for forty days and forty nights. But you forgot about the fountains of the deep breaking open which of course wouldn't produce any "rapid water."

Note that the cosmological model they had was that there was large waters over the earth and under the earth and the earth was a disk, not s sphere. So I'd be careful on the waters under the earth since we know there are no waters there (beyond those trapped within rock geologically and not free water) In any case if the water was coming from beneath so much would be coming in order to flood the earth with several miles of water within 40 days that that would have to be extremely rapid too.