Do you take all the Old Testament stories as literal?

[zil]

14 minutes ago, Traveler said:

there were many creatures in the fossil record that were too big and could not exist on this earth’s gravity.

My dad once theorized that the Lord went out of his way to make it easy for people to rationalize their disbelief.  Wouldn't it be amusing if it turned out that some of our fossils came from bits of busted up other places. (Someone other than me theorized this, I'm just not sure who; think Nibley mentioned it.)

[Guest]

28 minutes ago, zil said:

My dad once theorized that the Lord went out of his way to make it easy for people to rationalize their disbelief.  Wouldn't it be amusing if it turned out that some of our fossils came from bits of busted up other places. (Someone other than me theorized this, I'm just not sure who; think Nibley mentioned it.)

That was Cleon Skousen.  I didn't find his arguments compelling.

Edited December 28, 2016 by Guest

[zil]

7 minutes ago, Carborendum said:

That was Cleon Skousen.  I didn't find his arguments compelling.

Never read him, so I'm pretty sure I heard it elsewhere.  Anywho, I haven't spent any time thinking about this particular topic, but I do think it would seriously be amusing (as in, cause me to laugh) if it turned out that some of our fossils were from some other planet.

[Just_A_Guy]

1 hour ago, zil said:

Just gonna leave this here as a point of interest, since I tripped over it this morning in my scripture study...  Ether 13:2 (emphasis mine):

I thought it was interesting, at least.  One could assume different things from it.

IIRC, Jews understood the creation narrative as meaning that the land basically rose up out of a world that had previously been covered in water.  If the Nephites operated under the same assumption, the statement in Ether might just as easily refer to the creation as to Noah's flood.

[Vort]

1 hour ago, Traveler said:

One scientific problem we have with dinosaurs and other things in the fossil record is that mathematically (isotropic laws of Physics) there were many creatures in the fossil record that were too big and could not exist on this earth’s gravity.

Do you have a reference for this? I am no scientist, but as an amateur enthusiast, I am reasonably familiar with the megafauna in the archaeological record. I know of no such fossil finds. The largest known land animal, Argentinosaurus, was perhaps 100 or so feet long and weighed 150,000-200,000 pounds. We have no land animals of such size today, but there is no reason to believe that such a behemoth could not have existed in earth conditions. Its size and weight are well within what the so-called "square-cube law" would allow. The modern blue whale is perhaps the largest animal ever to live on the earth, approaching 400,000 pounds (among those observed). They obviously exist on the earth.

[Traveler]

 

We are told that G-d is a G-d of truth and light.  I personally believe this means that G-d goes out of his way for that which is truth and light and not necessarily to deceive or give means for disbelief or distortions of truth.   We LDS understand that creation was a process to “organize” matter from matter unorganized – or as the ancient Egyptians expressed as watery abyss “chaos”.  BTW there is scientific evidence for this.

The ancient Book of Enoch – that is quoted in the Bible (Jude) as divine revelation and scripture speaks of matter as eternal and recycled to be made pure in stars.  Scientifically we humans are made mostly of elements that are only known to be created or made in stars.  In particular 2^nd and 3^rd generation stars that are more evolved than our current sun.

The scripture teach us that all things give witness to G-d.  I think we need to be very careful that we do not define or excuse G-d and his work of creation as acts of discerption to lead mankind away from truth. 

 

The Traveler

[zil]

12 minutes ago, Just_A_Guy said:

IIRC, Jews understood the creation narrative as meaning that the land basically rose up out of a world that had previously been covered in water.  If the Nephites operated under the same assumption, the statement in Ether might just as easily refer to the creation as to Noah's flood.

Ether was neither Jew nor Nephite.  So either his people had similar beliefs (e.g. the belief pre-dates them all), or Moroni got in between, or something else.  The footnote makers linked that right back to the flood waters receding - of course, there could be other reasons for doing so.  And I think this (creation waters) is as acceptable as any interpretation.  Just found it interesting when I tripped over it.

[Vort]

1 hour ago, zil said:

Wouldn't it be amusing if it turned out that some of our fossils came from bits of busted up other places.

This is an old idea, and fun to think about. But it does not stand up to even casual scrutiny. The earth's crust is similar to an apple's skin in relative thickness. Since we terrestrial creatures basically have no direct access at all to anything except the crust (and only a tiny percentage of that), we would have to assume that God created the earth by somehow gently overlaying an iron-nickel core and thick basalt mantle with a fragile crust, such that all the fossils remained undisturbed. I do not claim any great understanding of how God accomplished his creation of the earth, but I do not believe it was by magically lifting existing, fossil-filled crust material and gently laying it on top of a core.

[Traveler]

9 minutes ago, Vort said:

Do you have a reference for this? I am no scientist, but as an amateur enthusiast, I am reasonably familiar with the megafauna in the archaeological record. I know of no such fossil finds. The largest known land animal, Argentinosaurus, was perhaps 100 or so feet long and weighed 150,000-200,000 pounds. We have no land animals of such size today, but there is no reason to believe that such a behemoth could not have existed in earth conditions. Its size and weight are well within what the so-called "square-cube law" would allow. The modern blue whale is perhaps the largest animal ever to live on the earth, approaching 400,000 pounds (among those observed). They obviously exist on the earth.

Yes – I would refer you to the book “Dinosaurs Heresies” by Robert T. Bakker.  This is the doctor that is modeled in the Jurassic Park movies as the world’s leading expert in dinosaurs.  BTW – the problem is not with size but size on land.  Initially it was believed that dinosaurs lived in swamps and were supported mostly by water but as Dr. Robert points out – we know from the fossil record that some of the large dinosaurs existed in semi desert conditions.

 

The Traveler

[zil]

4 minutes ago, Traveler said:

and not necessarily to deceive or give means for disbelief or distortions of truth .... I think we need to be very careful that we do not define or excuse G-d and his work of creation as acts of discerption to lead mankind away from truth. 

There's a difference between deceiving and making it easy for people to rationalize their disbelief.  I mean, if God wanted, he could have made certain truths we have in the restored church a lot more obvious for everyone - he could have clarified a lot of things in the Bible that now confuse sectarians, etc. etc. That God chose not to preserve or clarify doctrine throughout the various dispensations, but rather to let them be distorted, restored, lost, over and over again is telling.

Perhaps instead of "make it easy" I should have said "leave it easy", or perhaps "God didn't make it easy for those who want to disbelieve to be convinced otherwise."  Perhaps I just should have said, "God ensured that faith would be required rather than providing overwhelming proof."

However you want to phrase it, those who wish to disbelieve have no shortage of ways to rationalize their disbelief and find fault with believers.

[Traveler]

As a side note – concerning no death before the fall.  From a scientific examination even fruit that is picked and eaten (from any tree in Eden excluding the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil) of necessity would result in something that was living – becoming dead.  There are too many problems when we try to explain the revelations of G-d with the scaffolding of modern language and science.

 

The Traveler

[Vort]

3 minutes ago, Traveler said:

Yes – I would refer you to the book “Dinosaurs Heresies” by Robert T. Bakker.

Bakker is a rock star in the dinosaur world. This is the big kahuna who got behind the idea that dinosaurs were endothermic (warm-blooded). I am familiar with the book you cite, though I don't claim to have read it thoroughly. I do not remember anything about dinosaurs being "too big for earth gravity" or anything even approaching that idea. Can you cite some actual passage that makes this claim?

5 minutes ago, Traveler said:

BTW – the problem is not with size but size on land.  Initially it was believed that dinosaurs lived in swamps and were supported mostly by water but as Dr. Robert points out – we know from the fossil record that some of the large dinosaurs existed in semi desert conditions.

True enough about the huge sauropods living wholly out of the water and not permanently submerged. But they certainly were not too large to function in earth's gravity. At least, I know of no papers that demonstrate any such thing.

[Vort]

2 minutes ago, Traveler said:

There are too many problems when we try to explain the revelations of G-d with the scaffolding of modern language and science.

This bears repeating, and should be kept in mind by both scientists and religionists.

[Rob Osborn]

1 hour ago, Traveler said:

 

Actually what we have is not really utterances of Satan but what comes to us as revelation from G-d – that cannot lie.  In essence what we have is an excuse or justification Satan makes to G-d – now you have introduced the theatrical problem that it is possible to lie to G-d when being judged of him.  I am not sure what is more against scripture - what you are saying is the fault of my argument or the essence of yours????

 

The Traveler

 

Addition – there is another problem – Genesis speaks of the creation of the Heavens (plural) and the earth (singular).  So the question is what “is the heavens” and what “is the earth”?  One scientific problem we have with dinosaurs and other things in the fossil record is that mathematically (isotropic laws of Physics) there were many creatures in the fossil record that were too big and could not exist on this earth’s gravity.

Too big for earths gravity? I have never heard that before. Elephants are the same size as a lot of dinosaurs. What about that?

[zil]

16 minutes ago, Vort said:

This is an old idea, and fun to think about. But it does not stand up to even casual scrutiny.

Oh sure, just ruin my future amusement.    And I was so looking forward to it.  I guess I'll have to find something else to look forward to.

[Guest]

27 minutes ago, Vort said:

I am no scientist...

And I'm no engineer.

[Guest]

7 minutes ago, zil said:

Oh sure, just ruin my future amusement.    And I was so looking forward to it.  I guess I'll have to find something else to look forward to.

Hey with all those fountain pens...Think of them as continually pouring out blessings from the fountain of all righteousness.

Edited December 28, 2016 by Guest

[zil]

1 minute ago, Carborendum said:

Hey with all those fountain pens...

 

[Traveler]

3 minutes ago, Vort said:

Bakker is a rock star in the dinosaur world. This is the big kahuna who got behind the idea that dinosaurs were endothermic (warm-blooded). I am familiar with the book you cite, though I don't claim to have read it thoroughly. I do not remember anything about dinosaurs being "too big for earth gravity" or anything even approaching that idea. Can you cite some actual passage that makes this claim?

True enough about the huge sauropods living wholly out of the water and not permanently submerged. But they certainly were not too large to function in earth's gravity. At least, I know of no papers that demonstrate any such thing.

I cannot give you the page - someone else has my book.  But the problem is not just dinosaurs but insects and plant life as well.

You can do the math yourself - as a body doubles in size it weight increases in volume which is cubed but the stress structure to support the increase is an area (squared).  This is why the radius foot and leg of a horse is structurally different than an elephant that is roughly twice the size of a horse.  I believe the largest size a land animal can exist in our earth’s gravity according to physics is the size of a mastodon.  There is a reason that the elephant is the largest land animal in our era.  The problem is doubling size (horse to elephant) is a problem that can be overcome with structural redesign but increasing by a factor of 4 to 6 or even 8 to that of an elephant causes design changes that is not explained by the fossil record.

But there are also fossil records of flying insects with wing spans of over 3 feet.  There is a sizing problem for insect size and weight ratio with air density that limits evolutionary size to much less than what we see in the age of dinosaurs.

 

The Traveler

[Traveler]

21 minutes ago, Vort said:

This bears repeating, and should be kept in mind by both scientists and religionists.

There is a big problem because we live in a modern era of scientifc scaffolding and it is hard and almost even impossible for modern man to think outside the literal box from which we view and understand our empirical universe.  I like to think I am very cleaver and can pull it off - but often I ealize I push this envolope - perhaps too far.  But then I realize that many of my critics do not realize the literal problem.  You are an exception so I pay particular attention to your comments - even when not directly intended for me.

 

The Traveler

[Guest]

15 minutes ago, Traveler said:

I cannot give you the page - someone else has my book.  But the problem is not just dinosaurs but insects and plant life as well.

You can do the math yourself - as a body doubles in size it weight increases in volume which is cubed but the stress structure to support the increase is an area (squared).  This is why the radius foot and leg of a horse is structurally different than an elephant that is roughly twice the size of a horse.  I believe the largest size a land animal can exist in our earth’s gravity according to physics is the size of a mastodon.  There is a reason that the elephant is the largest land animal in our era.  The problem is doubling size (horse to elephant) is a problem that can be overcome with structural redesign but increasing by a factor of 4 to 6 or even 8 to that of an elephant causes design changes that is not explained by the fossil record.

But there are also fossil records of flying insects with wing spans of over 3 feet.  There is a sizing problem for insect size and weight ratio with air density that limits evolutionary size to much less than what we see in the age of dinosaurs.

The elephant is roughly 1.5 to 2 times the height of a horse.  They weigh about 12 to 15 times as much as a horse.  So, you're description doesn't take into account the additional bulk beyond it's nominal dimensions.

Further, the elephant's foot is largely fleshy.  That is, as it lifts its foot, the radius shrinks.  As it steps down, the flesh fills in with semi-rigid tissues distributing its weight over a much larger area that wouldn't show up in a fossil very easily.

The bones can withstand MUCH more force than what we normally place on our bones as long as there is sufficient muscle and other soft tissue reinforcing it.

I don't see any strength in this argument that they were too big for earth's gravity. So, what was the logic behind figuring the mastodon was the limiting size?

Edited December 28, 2016 by Guest

[zil]

12 minutes ago, Traveler said:

You can do the math yourself - as a body doubles in size it weight increases in volume which is cubed but the stress structure to support the increase is an area (squared).  This is why the radius foot and leg of a horse is structurally different than an elephant that is roughly twice the size of a horse.  I believe the largest size a land animal can exist in our earth’s gravity according to physics is the size of a mastodon.  There is a reason that the elephant is the largest land animal in our era.  The problem is doubling size (horse to elephant) is a problem that can be overcome with structural redesign but increasing by a factor of 4 to 6 or even 8 to that of an elephant causes design changes that is not explained by the fossil record.

 

3 minutes ago, Carborendum said:

I don't see any strength in this argument that they were too big for earth's gravity.

I made a diagram to help explain this for those of us who aren't scientifically inclined:

[Vort]

55 minutes ago, Carborendum said:

And I'm no engineer.

And @Eowyn is no man.

[Vort]

40 minutes ago, zil said:

 

I made a diagram to help explain this for those of us who aren't scientifically inclined:

 

[zil]

11 minutes ago, Vort said:

 

OK, get me some rust-colored ink or maybe some rusty-colored ink, and I'll try to draw your rusty bathtub planet...