Noah's Flood

[Rob Osborn]

1 hour ago, Traveler said:

 

Will you please provide some (or at least a) example(s) and specifically how you validated that the examples you provide are "true"?

I will give one counter example – in 1946 a shepherd boy discovered a cave with ancient Biblical scrolls.  This and other scientific discoveries of ancient manuscripts in the area have become known as the Dead Sea Scrolls.  The discovery forced the entire religious community (Christian and Jewish) to admit that the Masoretic Text (which was the basis of all modern published versions of the Jewish and Christian Scripture to that date) were among the most inaccurate.  Forcing new versions to be created.  Except for the LDS – A foot note here – the standard LDS scripture include a great deal more than the standard Biblical scriptures.

I would also purport that without the science of translating ancient scriptures – you would not be able to read and Biblical scriptures – which is the only scripture account we have of Noah and the flood.  In short - without science you would be unable to claim scriptures are closer to the truth than science.

 

The Traveler

We have the Pearl of Great Price. Are you saying you dont accept tge PoGP as scripture?

[zil]

2 hours ago, Carborendum said:

1) I've actually done my share of travelling and have seen things out the window as I flew.  

Any sphericalishness you saw was caused by flaws in the airplane's window.  The earth is flat.

2 hours ago, Carborendum said:

2) All the arguments to the contrary have severe flaws of have indeed been proven false by evidence and logic that I understand and accept.

The evidence was faked by illuminati.  Your logic is based on faked evidence and warped airplane windows - it can't be trusted.  (Plus, there's something in the water.)

2 hours ago, Carborendum said:

3) The greater the conspiracy the greater the reason required to keep the public unaware of it.  For lack of motivation for such a consipiracy, I see no reason to believe in such a conspiracy.

It's not a greater conspiracy, more of a lesser one.  Now, please look right here:

[BJ64]

The way I handle things like the flood, evolution, dinosaurs, pre Adamites (evidence of humans predating Adam) and such is that I form my own opinions on what actually happened based on the evidence that I believe to be most correct then I don’t fret over whether or not scripture and science agree. If my personal opinion disagrees with scripture then I keep it to myself and don’t teach it. It does not affect my faith if my scientific beliefs disagree with my religious beliefs. I am able to compartmentalize them and believe in both. Therefore I can believe that Noah built an ark and the entire earth was covered with water and I can believe that a worldwide flood could never happen. The contradiction does not bother me in the least. The fact is we simply don’t know everything and I’m willing to accept that. 

[Lost Boy]

My real beef with the whole Noah story in the bible is that it is very counter to science. 

All miracles in the bible can be explained away by science or by exaggeration.  I am not saying miracles don't exist.  I think they do.  But I think they always occur in a manner that is only faith promoting to the faithful and never in a way that can't be explained by something else. 

And there is good reason for this.  I truly believes God works in a manner that never proves his existence and thus we are forced to believe on him through faith and the power of the Holy Ghost. 

Not a single miracle has been performed in the Latter days that one can point to it and say yep, God is definitely real.  Not even Joseph Smith, perhaps one of the greatest prophets of all time (if you can even rank prophets) didn't perform any miracles that one can say.... "Yep, God definitely exists"

When people speculate that the earth was one flat content before the flood and then it separated, formed mountains, created a fake fossil and geological history, it flies against God and his ways.  There was no way for all species to fit on the ark..  God wouldn't form all the mountains after the flood.  Not that he couldn't, but I really don't think that is the way he works.

It has been shown in scientific studies that prayer has little to no affect on the sick.  And yet we all pray in faith for the healing of the sick.  I truly believe that I have seen miracles in my life.  Yet each and everyone could be explained away.   And to me it is a greater testament to God being able to perform miracles in such a way that they are only truly miracles to the faithful.

And the greatest miracles... ever lasting life, forgiveness, resurrection, etc.  Those are things you are only going to witness on a personal level.

 

 

[Guest]

1 minute ago, Lost Boy said:

My real beef with the whole Noah story in the bible is that it is very counter to science. 

All miracles in the bible can be explained away by science or by exaggeration. 

So, explain how the Kirtland Temple could be engulfed in flames and still be standing the next day.  This was not an exaggeration of a Mormon to build faith.  This was the eye-witness testimony of anti-Mormons who were dumbfounded when they saw the temple still standing the next day.

Explain how seagulls came en masse to engorge themselves on crickets, then regurgitate them into the lake, then fly back to the crops and repeat this same cycle over and over again.

Explain how people can be raised from the dead, healed of affliction, be protected from injury when they should have been killed, and a million other things.

Explain God, himself.   All these things run counter to science.  They are not just things that are "science beyond our understanding."  They are indeed "counter to all our known science as of today."

I fail to understand why people have to declare again and again that they believe in miracles -- just not BIG miracles.  There are many reasons that can be stated to not believe in the flood.  But when it is clearly stated that this was a miraculous act of God, why does it have to obey any law of science for it to happen?

"Because God uses natural processes to accomplish his designs."  Does that necessarily mean that he is limited by the "natural processes" that we mortals are familiar with?

[zil]

31 minutes ago, Lost Boy said:

My real beef with the whole Noah story in the bible is that it is very counter to science. 

All miracles in the bible can be explained away by science or by exaggeration.

Erm, do you realize you just explained away the flood?

[Lost Boy]

6 minutes ago, Carborendum said:

So, explain how the Kirtland Temple could be engulfed in flames and still be standing the next day.  This was not an exaggeration of a Mormon to build faith.  This was the eye-witness testimony of anti-Mormons who were dumbfounded when they saw the temple still standing the next day.

Explain how seagulls came en masse to engorge themselves on crickets, then regurgitate them into the lake, then fly back to the crops and repeat this same cycle over and over again.

Explain how people can be raised from the dead, healed of affliction, be protected from injury when they should have been killed, and a million other things.

Explain God, himself.   All these things run counter to science.  They are not just things that are "science beyond our understanding."  They are indeed "counter to all our known science as of today."

I fail to understand why people have to declare again and again that they believe in miracles -- just not BIG miracles.  There are many reasons that can be stated to not believe in the flood.  But when it is clearly stated that this was a miraculous act of God, why does it have to obey any law of science for it to happen?

"Because God uses natural processes to accomplish his designs."  Does that necessarily mean that he is limited by the "natural processes" that we mortals are familiar with?

How did the anti-Mormons explain it away?  Surely they did, or else they would have joined.  Optical illusion...  I wasn't there and didn't see what it looked like.

Seagulls...  really?  you can't come up with an explanation?

Well seeing as how you have listed a million other things, I'll respond with a million different ways.  I say they don't run counter to science.  Our understanding of medicine is extremely primitive.  There are very few things doctors know how to cure.  Most things doctors do is treat symptoms.  Healing is mostly done by the body, if at all.

Why do you think I don't believe in big miracles?  I absolutely do.  I just believe that the way they actually occur is never in a manner that can't be explained away by some other means.

Of course he uses processes we aren't familiar with.  But that doesn't mean he uses processes that are extremely different from our understanding of science either.

It isn't that I don't believe he is capable of "Magic" like miracles.  Rather, I think he has things so well laid out in his plan that things that are miracles to us also manifest as a naturally occurring event.  God doesn't need to conjure up a storm, I think the storm was already going to be there from the get go.  It was part of his well laid out plan....  And to me, that is the greater power and miracle.

[Lost Boy]

31 minutes ago, zil said:

Erm, do you realize you just explained away the flood?

I think that is what I was stating... yes, that is what I am doing.  God didn't just get mad at the people and destroy them with a flood.  It was something planned from the foundations of the world and wiped out Noah's world.  It was not something God just magic'ed up on the spot cause he was unhappy.  He created a flood through means that could look natural to an outside observer.  And to me that is the more clever miracle.  God is not going to give you a miracle that gives you proof of his existence. 

[Lost Boy]

Here is something related.....

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1173093/

Why do LDS women who have gotten breast cancer have a lower survivability rate than non-Mormons?  Are the priesthood holders not doing their jobs?

If an LDS woman receives a blessing and survives breast cancer, what is the likelihood of members chalking that up to a miracle?  Yet if a non-LDS woman survives, is it not a miracle?

Wouldn't the LDS woman have just as much chance without the blessing as with?

And if there really is no difference with or without a blessing, why give them?

 

I do not ask these questions because I do not have faith.  I believe I have faith.  I ask them in an attempt to perhaps have a better understanding of God and his plan.  I don't believe God does random.  Everything happens for a purpose and all according to a master plan.

[Rob Osborn]

1 hour ago, Lost Boy said:

My real beef with the whole Noah story in the bible is that it is very counter to science. 

All miracles in the bible can be explained away by science or by exaggeration.  I am not saying miracles don't exist.  I think they do.  But I think they always occur in a manner that is only faith promoting to the faithful and never in a way that can't be explained by something else. 

And there is good reason for this.  I truly believes God works in a manner that never proves his existence and thus we are forced to believe on him through faith and the power of the Holy Ghost. 

Not a single miracle has been performed in the Latter days that one can point to it and say yep, God is definitely real.  Not even Joseph Smith, perhaps one of the greatest prophets of all time (if you can even rank prophets) didn't perform any miracles that one can say.... "Yep, God definitely exists"

When people speculate that the earth was one flat content before the flood and then it separated, formed mountains, created a fake fossil and geological history, it flies against God and his ways.  There was no way for all species to fit on the ark..  God wouldn't form all the mountains after the flood.  Not that he couldn't, but I really don't think that is the way he works.

It has been shown in scientific studies that prayer has little to no affect on the sick.  And yet we all pray in faith for the healing of the sick.  I truly believe that I have seen miracles in my life.  Yet each and everyone could be explained away.   And to me it is a greater testament to God being able to perform miracles in such a way that they are only truly miracles to the faithful.

And the greatest miracles... ever lasting life, forgiveness, resurrection, etc.  Those are things you are only going to witness on a personal level.

 

 

Hum...I have been a witness to real blow your mind away miracles that science just has no explanation for. I've received visions and revelation on future events that science couldn't explain. The flood is actually very explainable by science, just not that secular brand in the world. It's proof to me that man truly knows nothing.

[Rob Osborn]

41 minutes ago, Lost Boy said:

I think that is what I was stating... yes, that is what I am doing.  God didn't just get mad at the people and destroy them with a flood.  It was something planned from the foundations of the world and wiped out Noah's world.  It was not something God just magic'ed up on the spot cause he was unhappy.  He created a flood through means that could look natural to an outside observer.  And to me that is the more clever miracle.  God is not going to give you a miracle that gives you proof of his existence. 

Hum...well, it really did happen that way. The testament of the flood is found all throughout the world. In fact, it's the greatest testimony we actually have of God destroying the earth.

[Suzie]

1 hour ago, Rob Osborn said:

 I've received visions and revelation on future events that science couldn't explain.

I assume this is personal revelation about your future life? then do you mind to explain what do you mean by "that science couldn't explain" part?

[Lost Boy]

1 hour ago, Rob Osborn said:

Hum...well, it really did happen that way. The testament of the flood is found all throughout the world. In fact, it's the greatest testimony we actually have of God destroying the earth.

Ok.

[BJ64]

1 hour ago, Lost Boy said:

Why do LDS women who have gotten breast cancer have a lower survivability rate than non-Mormons?  Are the priesthood holders not doing their jobs?

In a Utah cancer study comparing cancer rates of Mormons and non Mormons, Mormon men have lower rates of other cancers but a higher rate of prostate cancer. The study authors had no explanation for this but I think it’s linked to prostate cancer studies which indicate that men who ejaculate more frequently have a lower risk of prostate cancer. 

[Rob Osborn]

29 minutes ago, Suzie said:

I assume this is personal revelation about your future life? then do you mind to explain what do you mean by "that science couldn't explain" part?

Like something simple for instance- I receive a revelation about something going to happen tomorrow and then it happens. Science can't explain it.

[Guest]

3 hours ago, Lost Boy said:

How did the anti-Mormons explain it away?  Surely they did, or else they would have joined.  Optical illusion...  I wasn't there and didn't see what it looked like.

Ok... you're speaking as if you've never heard of this.  Look it up.  It may do you some good.

No, they gave no explanation.  They were just plain amazed and went on hating Mormons anyway.  It may seem completely illogical to you.  And it is.  But that is how it happened.  They never joined because as we say repeatedly, miracles do not convert.  They only confirm already nascent faith to let it blossom into something bigger.  They had no faith at all.  So, miracles did nothing for them.

Quote

Seagulls...  really?  you can't come up with an explanation?

Again, it sounds like you've never heard of this miracle.  You're mocking because you've made the same mistake many others have.  You haven't looked at the details.  I can think of several explanations, if I only had very general descriptions of what happened.  But when you get into the details of the reports, they all fall apart as adequate explanations.

Quote

Well seeing as how you have listed a million other things, I'll respond with a million different ways. 

I at least listed a couple of examples.  But you can't even come up with one plausible one?  Really?

Edited May 11, 2018 by Guest

[Vort]

3 hours ago, Lost Boy said:

Here is something related.....

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1173093/

Why do LDS women who have gotten breast cancer have a lower survivability rate than non-Mormons?  Are the priesthood holders not doing their jobs?

Are you serious?

I am amazed that any educated person would even ask such a question. Do you have any sort of background at all in science, medicine, biology, or statistics?

[Lost Boy]

20 minutes ago, Vort said:

Are you serious?

I am amazed that any educated person would even ask such a question. Do you have any sort of background at all in science, medicine, biology, or statistics?

I am serious and do research and have a decent knowledge of statistics. 

But pretend I am stupid please. Perhaps others don't see what you see. 

[Lost Boy]

1 hour ago, Rob Osborn said:

Like something simple for instance- I receive a revelation about something going to happen tomorrow and then it happens. Science can't explain it.

Sure, I believe you do, but can you prove that you do? Have you ever written these down and shared them with someone before it happens? 

And have you ever been wrong? Or the visions been wrong? 

[Vort]

2 minutes ago, Lost Boy said:

I am serious and do research and have a decent knowledge of statistics. 

But pretend I am stupid please. Perhaps others don't see what you see. 

So did you actually, you know, read the article? Let's start with the jaw-droppingly obvious. The article says:

Quote

 

[T]here was a significant difference in death hazard rates between religiously active LDS and non-LDS. Lower death hazard rates in non-LDS became more pronounced as we conditioned on months already survived from diagnosis. Two possible explanations may help explain this, proximity to last childbirth and diagnosis during the lactation period.

New studies have indicated that a more recent birth prior to the diagnosis of breast cancer is associated with poorer survivability [30-33]. Older studies had failed to show an association, arguing that poorer survivability was coincidental and likely the result of significant delays in diagnosis [34-37]. Religiously active LDS women generally have more children than their non-LDS counterparts. While a greater number of childbirths is not associated with a worse prognosis in breast cancer [32], this higher parity does raise the likelihood that religiously active LDS women will have a more recent birth than non-LDS at the time of breast cancer diagnosis.

A less conclusive, yet possible contributor to poorer survivability among active LDS, is diagnosis during the lactation period. One study noted that breast cancer diagnosed during the lactation period has been associated with poorer survival among women younger than 45 years [35]. This relationship persisted despite adjustment for nodal status, tumor size, and age. A more recent literature review, however, concluded that no epidemiologic evidence exists to indicate that breastfeeding increases the risk of breast cancer recurring or of a second breast cancer developing [41]. It is biologically plausible that breastfeeding may contribute to a reduction in the development and growth risk of breast cancer. Breastfeeding reduces the number of ovulations proportionally to its intensity, and maintaining a lower estrogen level than that observed during the menstrual cycle [42]; it mobilizes endogenous and exogenous carcinogens present in the ductal and lobular epithelial cell environment [43]; and it reduces pH, levels of estrogens, and local carcinogens of the lobules and ducts [44,45]. Due to the limited and conflicting evidence supporting an association between diagnosis during lactation and poorer prognosis of breast cancer, and in light of biological mechanisms during lactation which may actually limit cancer growth, the possibility should not be ruled out that poorer prognosis associated with diagnosis during lactation may actually be attributable to the childbirth which most lactating women would have recently experienced. Further research is needed to clarify this association.

 

Given the above paragraphs -- a part of the very article you cited! -- how do you justify asking such a question?

Other obvious questions:

Did you notice that the LDS breast cancer patients skewed very significantly older than the non-LDS? Fully 40% of the non-LDS cancers were in patients younger than 55, while only about 30% of the LDS patients were younger than 55. In contrast, about 38% of non-LDS cancer patients were 65 or older, while 48% -- nearly half -- of the LDS patients were 65 or older. Yet the Results section curiously (bizarrely) did not include any discussion for the age discrepancy and concomitant survival rate difference. Why didn't you factor this in?

The overall cancer rate among LDS women was significantly lower over all age groups than for non-LDS women -- "significantly" not only in the statistical sense of "it really exists", but in the common usage of "a large, obvious difference". Why no mention in your loaded question of this most obvious of facts, which in fact WAS THE FIRST SENTENCE OF THE RESULTS SECTION?

[Rob Osborn]

43 minutes ago, Lost Boy said:

Sure, I believe you do, but can you prove that you do? Have you ever written these down and shared them with someone before it happens? 

And have you ever been wrong? Or the visions been wrong? 

If you say you believe I do then why do you need proof? That's like saying "I believe you but I don't". Sure, I have been wrong or misinterpreted.

[unixknight]

11 hours ago, BJ64 said:

In a Utah cancer study comparing cancer rates of Mormons and non Mormons, Mormon men have lower rates of other cancers but a higher rate of prostate cancer. The study authors had no explanation for this but I think it’s linked to prostate cancer studies which indicate that men who ejaculate more frequently have a lower risk of prostate cancer. 

It may also be that Mormon men live longer.  Just the other day I learned that prostate cancer is so common that every man would get it eventually if he lives long enough and his body is continuing to produce testosterone.

[Traveler]

19 hours ago, Carborendum said:

1) I've actually done my share of travelling and have seen things out the window as I flew.  

2) All the arguments to the contrary have severe flaws of have indeed been proven false by evidence and logic that I understand and accept.

3) The greater the conspiracy the greater the reason required to keep the public unaware of it.  For lack of motivation for such a consipiracy, I see no reason to believe in such a conspiracy.

No.  Not really.  There is a very simple way of doing this same thing without understanding squares and roots.  You just measure it.  I've done it myself.

Again, I'm asking for evidence.  But you all but admit there was no evidence.

So, how are we even 1% sure?  by what reasoning, evidence, knowledge, understanding?

You're setting yourself up as a demagogue on this topic.  I'm sorry, but you have not enough ethos to do so.  Certainly not on this topic.  But then after setting yourself up, you swipe your own knees out when you say the following:

I'm sure I could.  But to go through such efforts, I would have to have a motive to do so.  So far, what you've given is enough to make me run the other way.

Do you have any idea how insulting you're being?  After all these years on this forum and you honestly believe I just accept everything anyone tells me?  Why do you think I'm even questioning what you're saying?  I'm trying to give you a chance to convince me that things I've learned are wrong because I recognize that I can ALWAYS use correction.  But by opening myself up to you, you choose to insult me.

While I do have some problems with what you've written from time to time, overall, I've had a good deal of respect for how you've thought things through, and your unusual perspective on things that provide valuable insights.  But sometimes when you're that far out there, it is not the time to insult someone for shedding some doubt on your words.  It is time to actually, you know, provide some actual evidence that might convince people of the truth.

 

If one does much research they will discover the experts – reference a source.  This is done in foot notes.  Then if one checks the footnotes they will discover that the experts do the very same thing – they reference other “experts” and in other expert’s footnotes, they give sources.  As the footnotes and sources are continued – at least in my experience – we begin to discover that the sources (experts) are circular.    Robert T. Bakker also points out this very problem in his book “The Dinosaur Heresies” in highlighting why dinosaurs were (and still by some) believed to be cold blooded for so many years despite evidence to the contrary.

I mentioned that the ancient Egyptians were expert mathematicians.  We know this because of the ratios showing up in their architecture – such as base size to height ratio of pyramids, width, depth and height ratios in temples and sizing ratios in mosaics.   We also know that the ancient Egyptians were obsessed with ratios – especially concerning the creation of earth.  Since you want references here are a few (but if you check them out you will find the references circular):

The Way to Eternity: Egyptian Myth – Alan Lothian Fleming

Creation Myths of the World – David Adams Leeming

The Complete Gods and Goddesses of Ancient Egypt – Richard H. Wilkinson.

 

Now you can assume that each building was an experiment in building – but to my knowledge there is no evidence of failed experiments that would be necessary for the various sizes that existed in their architecture.  We also know that the ancient Egyptians believed that their civilization was the center of knowledge and light from G-d to the peoples of earth.  I have lost the article – written over 40 years ago but it was discovered that concentric circles in a mosaic representation the earth, moon and sun were amazingly accurate ratio representing of the curvatures earth, moon and sun.  BTW – I personally validated the math in the article that was very extensive.

We can logically assume (Occam’s razor) that the ancient Egyptians were proficient in mathematics – rather than lots of lucky coincidences.   Interestingly few Egyptologists (none that I have discovered) know enough mathematics to understand sizing ratios in mosaics are directly proportional to Fibonacci progressions. 

 

The Traveler

Edited May 11, 2018 by Traveler

[Traveler]

18 hours ago, Rob Osborn said:

We have the Pearl of Great Price. Are you saying you dont accept tge PoGP as scripture?

 

I believe scripture can be misinterpreted and misrepresented.   For example, I am quite sure that in all of scripture depicting creation (including the Pearl of Great Price) days 3 and 4 are backwards and should be the other way around.  So, I will ask you for your opinion (with the obvious that this is a “trick” question that will demonstrate your personal research and ability to “pay attention”) – Do you believe that there were plants producing fruit and seeds on earth before there was a sun in the sky that still exist in our day?  I have a follow up question if you believe the scriptures are correct and inviolate concerning this matter.

 

The Traveler

[warnerfranklin]

I don’t know whether or not the entire earth was covered, but consider the following:

1) Most ancient cultures have a universal flood myth

2) There are many archeological sites (settlements) that have been found that are now under dozens to hundreds of feet under water. 

3) Geological evidence points to a meteor or comet strike to the northern ice cap about 10000-12000 BC that resulted in a mass melt off by of the northern ice cap that resulted in sea levels rising 100-200 feet in a matter of weeks.

4) Given most of humanity has always lived near the sea shore one can imagine what kind of devastation this sudden rise in sea levels would cause and why it would be part of collective consciousness.