Noah's Flood

[Rob Osborn]

2 minutes ago, BJ64 said:

Since the flood topic has turned to creation I’d like to know how those who consider the creation account to be precisely as written, how do you account for the physical evidence of such things as dinosaurs and pre humans such as Neanderthals, fossils of all types and petrified forests which would all predate the timeline af the creation of Adam and Eve?

I don't look through secular lenses so for me it's easy to see man and dinosaurs co-existing together.

[BJ64]

11 minutes ago, Rob Osborn said:

I don't look through secular lenses so for me it's easy to see man and dinosaurs co-existing together.

Yes, but only 6000 years ago?

[Rob Osborn]

16 minutes ago, BJ64 said:

Yes, but only 6000 years ago?

Yeah, it's no problem. Modern secularism has created a false history and fantasy. Stories and pictures of history paint a very vivid reality of man living with dinosaurs (called "dragons" in historical times). Secularism though has done a relatively good job of turning real history into myth. Now everyone believes the myth.

[Lost Boy]

30 minutes ago, Anddenex said:

In our life there are two opposing natures, and we are embracing in our every day thoughts, words, and deeds one or the other. These two natures are know by:

1) Spirit, Spiritual minded, the armor of God

2) The Natural man, Carnally minded, and the arm of flesh

The Spirit, spiritually minded, have this to say to us, "Thou hast had signs enough; will ye tempt your God? Will ye say, Show unto me a sign, when ye have the testimony of all these thy brethren, and also all the holy prophets? The scriptures are laid before thee, yea, and all things denote there is a God; yea, even the earth, and all things that are upon the face of it, yea, and its motion, yea, and also all the planets which move in their regular form do witness that there is a Supreme Creator."

The spiritually minded recognize testimony, scriptures, earth and its creation and motion, planets and their creation and motion, all denote (give evidence and proof) to a Supreme Creator (God).

The natural man, the arm of flesh, would like us to disbelieve -- to create doubt -- that these things do not denote and are not evidence or proof that God "really exists."

I am not sure the need to split hairs between "evidence" and "proof" as they are the same in practice. Proof is in the evidence. The spectrum of weak to strong is irrelevant as evidence is evidence. When an Atheist stands before God no amount of argument for "weak evidence" is going to change that this "weak evidence" (at least in their simple minds) was still proof (evidence) that denoted there was/is a God.

Twin flame is similar to the false theory of soul mates. If we have dreams of things already known as "false", well, if you have a dream and believe it to be true -- when we know it is false -- that is personal choice. If I have a dream I am a big fluffy elephant that can fly, am I a big fluffy elephant?

I had a dream that my mother-in-law was a snake, does this prove my mother-in-law was a snake? Creating a scenario that we know isn't true, doesn't negate dreams that are true and that indeed do come to pass and that denote, give evidence and proof, that there is a God. If people want to explain away truth, it is to their detriment.

The fact that a blessing doesn't always heal doesn't negate that a blessing healed. The lack of knowledge of why something does not occur every time, does not deny or negate that it has and does occur and give evidence and proof to God's existence. Because we can not explain why God chooses to move mountains for the Brother of Jared, and not move mountains for the pioneers does not negate or weaken what happened with the Brother of Jared and its evidence of God's existence.

I am sorry, but the arm of flesh is the only nature that would deny these miracles as evidence/proof for God's existence.  All these miracles and every miracle performed by the priesthood are evidence and proof of God's existence.

Actually I will split hairs evidence is not proof. In a court of law any testimony for or against something is evidence. Proof can only be one, not the other.  Either there is proof of something or there is not. There can be evidence for and against. And it is up to the viewer of the evidence to determine what it means. 

As for the twin flame thing, my wife had never even heard of a twin flame before her vision.. How do you explain that? 

Please don't get me wrong. I do believe in miracles. I have witness a number of what I would deem as significant miracles. I believe each and every one were through the power of God, yet I believe each requires faith to recognize it as a miracle. 

How do you know that someone was healed by the power of the Priesthood? If one was healed after receiving a blessing, does that mean they were healed by the power of the Priesthood? Or could it just be that the person was going to be healed anyway? It requires faith to believe in it. As such it is evidence not proof. 

I think God makes us search for much evidence of him for us to be able to understand him. 

[Lost Boy]

2 hours ago, Rob Osborn said:

https://goo.gl/images/eKjV9T

 

OK, looks like sedimentary rock that formed over millions of years under heat and pressure. 

[Rob Osborn]

10 minutes ago, Lost Boy said:

OK, looks like sedimentary rock that formed over millions of years under heat and pressure. 

That would typically be the secular answer. In truth though sedimentary rocks cannot form that way. Secular understanding requires advancing and retreating oceans with slow gradual uplift then erosion events that carry debris out to sea. These slow erosion events though do  not carry the substance of material required to make such a vast set of relatively uniform layers. We all know that sedimentary layers are formed under water. We also know the very highest mountain chains around the world contain sea fossils in sedimentary rock at or close to their peaks. We also know that the great mountain chains we're upthrusted from the sea floor. The only thing standing in the way of people believing the flood is the dating process. I thus find it ironic that secular trained geologists readily agree that pretty much all of the topography of the land was at one time or another, under water, they just don't agree it was during  time frames given by the scriptures. 

[Anddenex]

47 minutes ago, Lost Boy said:

Actually I will split hairs evidence is not proof. In a court of law any testimony for or against something is evidence. Proof can only be one, not the other.  Either there is proof of something or there is not. There can be evidence for and against. And it is up to the viewer of the evidence to determine what it means. 

As for the twin flame thing, my wife had never even heard of a twin flame before her vision.. How do you explain that? 

Please don't get me wrong. I do believe in miracles. I have witness a number of what I would deem as significant miracles. I believe each and every one were through the power of God, yet I believe each requires faith to recognize it as a miracle. 

How do you know that someone was healed by the power of the Priesthood? If one was healed after receiving a blessing, does that mean they were healed by the power of the Priesthood? Or could it just be that the person was going to be healed anyway? It requires faith to believe in it. As such it is evidence not proof. 

I think God makes us search for much evidence of him for us to be able to understand him. 

If you want to split hairs then you will split hairs, and still deny what is proof as is given by the evidence. Truly up to you. If you want to deny the evidence as proof, again fully up to you.

Twin flame is a false theory. Doesn't matter if she dreamed it or not. She doesn't have a twin flame, just as people do not have "soul mates." If people want to believe in false theories they have their moral agency to do so.

When we begin with a false premise, "if it requires faith, then it is not proof it is evidence," we have already lost. It is still proof, even if it requires faith.

As to healings, if someone is pronounced dead, after all the doctors could do, and it wasn't until a priesthood blessing was given (or even if a faithful prayer was given) and the person instantly wakes -- that is proof, and it is also evidence it was done by priesthood and God. I am not even sure why any member would seek to deny it, and minimize what it is, but again, each and every member has their moral agency to call black white and white black (doesn't matter the color that is just an easy contrasting comparison), but it doesn't change black is black and white is white.  It doesn't change it is proof and evidence, even if it is by faith we accept it.

 

[Lost Boy]

6 hours ago, Anddenex said:

If you want to split hairs then you will split hairs, and still deny what is proof as is given by the evidence. Truly up to you. If you want to deny the evidence as proof, again fully up to you.

Twin flame is a false theory. Doesn't matter if she dreamed it or not. She doesn't have a twin flame, just as people do not have "soul mates." If people want to believe in false theories they have their moral agency to do so.

When we begin with a false premise, "if it requires faith, then it is not proof it is evidence," we have already lost. It is still proof, even if it requires faith.

As to healings, if someone is pronounced dead, after all the doctors could do, and it wasn't until a priesthood blessing was given (or even if a faithful prayer was given) and the person instantly wakes -- that is proof, and it is also evidence it was done by priesthood and God. I am not even sure why any member would seek to deny it, and minimize what it is, but again, each and every member has their moral agency to call black white and white black (doesn't matter the color that is just an easy contrasting comparison), but it doesn't change black is black and white is white.  It doesn't change it is proof and evidence, even if it is by faith we accept it.

 

Yes, I will deny evidence as proof.

I am not asking about twin flame theory.  I am asking how she had a vision of it without ever knowing about it.

Pronounced dead is not always dead and priesthood blessings are not involved.  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lazarus_syndrome .  It seems to me like it is not proof.  There are plenty of people that came back to life without a priesthood blessing.  Therefore it is not proof.  It is only evidence.   

What I believe you are misinterpreting here is what I am saying.  I am not here denouncing priesthood power.  I believe miracles are worked through priesthood power.  And the guy coming back alive after a blessing probably was due to the blessing.  but miracles seem to always be a manner that is left open for the viewer to decide if it was a miracle or not.  Just because a doctor pronounced him dead, does not necessarily mean he is dead.  Now give a guy with a severed head a priesthood blessing and watch him come back to life....  now that would be proof.  There is not history of something like that happening.  Physically impossible for it to happen naturally.  

I know of no miracles in the modern day that don't require faith to accept as miracles.  They are evidence, not proof.  But if you want to view them as proof, I can't stop you.  

Proof - the cogency of evidence that compels acceptance by the mind of a truth or a fact.

In all cases, the mind is not compelled to accept the miracle as truth or fact.  Only by faith and the spirit does one know for sure.

 

[Lost Boy]

7 hours ago, Rob Osborn said:

That would typically be the secular answer. In truth though sedimentary rocks cannot form that way. Secular understanding requires advancing and retreating oceans with slow gradual uplift then erosion events that carry debris out to sea. These slow erosion events though do  not carry the substance of material required to make such a vast set of relatively uniform layers. We all know that sedimentary layers are formed under water. We also know the very highest mountain chains around the world contain sea fossils in sedimentary rock at or close to their peaks. We also know that the great mountain chains we're upthrusted from the sea floor. The only thing standing in the way of people believing the flood is the dating process. I thus find it ironic that secular trained geologists readily agree that pretty much all of the topography of the land was at one time or another, under water, they just don't agree it was during  time frames given by the scriptures. 

I am sorry, but a global flood does not explain sedimentary layers.  Not even close.  A global flood would explain one layer, not multiple layers.  Nor does the flood explain mountains.  Science has much more sound explanations for mountains and sediment layers, fossils on the top of mountains, etc.  Plate tectonics explain this quite well.  Take mount Everest....  It grows at 4 mm/year.  given a million years, that is 4000 m.   The Earth is estimated to be 4.5 billion years old.  a million years is nothing in a 4.5 billion year old history.

And just for your info, under water is not the only place where sedimentary layers form.  They form on land as well.

I am not saying the flood didn't happen.  I don't know.  But the evidence you provided does not further a flood story.

So according to the flood story, the mountains were there before the flood waters abated.  Where did the water come from to rain deep enough to cover the mountains?  And then where did it go?  Did God just poof the water here and then poofed it away?  The average ocean depth is 12,000 ft.  Mount arrat is 16,000 ft.  So for the that mountain to be covered in water would require there to be over 2 times as much water on the planet as there is today.  Where did it come from and where did it go?  Perhaps you believe in Hollow Earth.  I mean that is just as plausible.  Also, the bible describes the water drying up.   How do you dry up 16,000 ft of water in less than a year?   For it to rain 16,000 ft of water in 40 days, it would have had to rain 3 inches of rain a minute over the entire planet.    Here is the fastest recorded rain falls..  https://www.wunderground.com/blog/weatherhistorian/what-is-the-most-rain-to-ever-fall-in-one-minute-or-one-hour.html   Those were highly localized and only lasted a short time and no where near 3 inches per minute.

So essentially to believe the biblical flood you have to set aside all logic, and all understanding of man.  The evidence is not there.  God would have had to do the flood and then erased all traces of it.  Seems like a lot of work to go through to get rid of all the bad people.

[Anddenex]

46 minutes ago, Lost Boy said:

Yes, I will deny evidence as proof.

I am not asking about twin flame theory.  I am asking how she had a vision of it without ever knowing about it.

Pronounced dead is not always dead and priesthood blessings are not involved.  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lazarus_syndrome .  It seems to me like it is not proof.  There are plenty of people that came back to life without a priesthood blessing.  Therefore it is not proof.  It is only evidence.   

What I believe you are misinterpreting here is what I am saying.  I am not here denouncing priesthood power.  I believe miracles are worked through priesthood power.  And the guy coming back alive after a blessing probably was due to the blessing.  but miracles seem to always be a manner that is left open for the viewer to decide if it was a miracle or not.  Just because a doctor pronounced him dead, does not necessarily mean he is dead.  Now give a guy with a severed head a priesthood blessing and watch him come back to life....  now that would be proof.  There is not history of something like that happening.  Physically impossible for it to happen naturally.  

I know of no miracles in the modern day that don't require faith to accept as miracles.  They are evidence, not proof.  But if you want to view them as proof, I can't stop you.  

Proof - the cogency of evidence that compels acceptance by the mind of a truth or a fact.

In all cases, the mind is not compelled to accept the miracle as truth or fact.  Only by faith and the spirit does one know for sure.

Are you sure she had a dream about "twin flame" or was it something similar, similar enough, that it is being interpreted as such? As twin flame is a false theory, then the interpretation is incorrect of the dream. Similar to self-fulfilling prophecies, because I appear to have all the symptoms of "x" I must therefore have "x" when the truth is that you don't.

If you think these actions are not truth or fact, then your mind denies fact and truth. No matter how you want to explain it away, it still doesn't change what happened and the cause behind it. If you can decide to accept or reject something this does not change what it was/is. Even proof people reject, and are able to reject "compelling" evidence. Proof does not all of a sudden commit a person to not use their agency to accept or reject. You seem to be applying a definition to "proof" that is not a definition of proof, and you appear to be applying a definition to evidence that is not a definition of evidence. Similar to how some people use the word "fact."

When Christ, through touch or by word of mouth, allowed the blind to see, the deaf to hear, and the lame to walk (all of which are compelling evidences -- proof) they still had a choice -- and their choice "It was the devil." Proof still requires faith to accept what you experience as fact and truth. If not, Christ would have never been put to the cross for all Jews would have believed who he was. Proof maybe compelling but still can be rejected.

I am not misinterpreting anything, I am seeing it for what is being said. You are happy with denying proof, because the "proof" isn't compelling enough for you, and that is fine. You have "choice" and "faith" to deny proof. Our faith is not extinguished when proof is given. We still very much, like Laman and Lemuel, can deny the angel bearing witness, and exercise our faith in false premises that deny the proof before our eyes.

 

 

[Lost Boy]

13 minutes ago, Anddenex said:

Are you sure she had a dream about "twin flame" or was it something similar, similar enough, that it is being interpreted as such? As twin flame is a false theory, then the interpretation is incorrect of the dream. Similar to self-fulfilling prophecies, because I appear to have all the symptoms of "x" I must therefore have "x" when the truth is that you don't.

If you think these actions are not truth or fact, then your mind denies fact and truth. No matter how you want to explain it away, it still doesn't change what happened and the cause behind it. If you can decide to accept or reject something this does not change what it was/is. Even proof people reject, and are able to reject "compelling" evidence. Proof does not all of a sudden commit a person to not use their agency to accept or reject. You seem to be applying a definition to "proof" that is not a definition of proof, and you appear to be applying a definition to evidence that is not a definition of evidence. Similar to how some people use the word "fact."

When Christ, through touch or by word of mouth, allowed the blind to see, the deaf to hear, and the lame to walk (all of which are compelling evidences -- proof) they still had a choice -- and their choice "It was the devil." Proof still requires faith to accept what you experience as fact and truth. If not, Christ would have never been put to the cross for all Jews would have believed who he was. Proof maybe compelling but still can be rejected.

I am not misinterpreting anything, I am seeing it for what is being said. You are happy with denying proof, because the "proof" isn't compelling enough for you, and that is fine. You have "choice" and "faith" to deny proof. Our faith is not extinguished when proof is given. We still very much, like Laman and Lemuel, can deny the angel bearing witness, and exercise our faith in false premises that deny the proof before our eyes.

 

 

In her vision she heard the words "Twin Soul"  she had never heard this before.  So afterwards she googled it.  So I don't think it was a self-fulfilling prophecy.

As for proof...  if it isn't compelling enough for the masses to believe, then I would submit it is not compelling enough to be proof.  This has nothing to do with whether I believe the miracle or not.

[Rob Osborn]

6 minutes ago, Lost Boy said:

I am sorry, but a global flood does not explain sedimentary layers.  Not even close.  A global flood would explain one layer, not multiple layers.  Nor does the flood explain mountains.  Science has much more sound explanations for mountains and sediment layers, fossils on the top of mountains, etc.  Plate tectonics explain this quite well.  Take mount Everest....  It grows at 4 mm/year.  given a million years, that is 4000 m.   The Earth is estimated to be 4.5 billion years old.  a million years is nothing in a 4.5 billion year old history.

And just for your info, under water is not the only place where sedimentary layers form.  They form on land as well.

I am not saying the flood didn't happen.  I don't know.  But the evidence you provided does not further a flood story.

So according to the flood story, the mountains were there before the flood waters abated.  Where did the water come from to rain deep enough to cover the mountains?  And then where did it go?  Did God just poof the water here and then poofed it away?  The average ocean depth is 12,000 ft.  Mount arrat is 16,000 ft.  So for the that mountain to be covered in water would require there to be over 2 times as much water on the planet as there is today.  Where did it come from and where did it go?  Perhaps you believe in Hollow Earth.  I mean that is just as plausible.  Also, the bible describes the water drying up.   How do you dry up 16,000 ft of water in less than a year?   For it to rain 16,000 ft of water in 40 days, it would have had to rain 3 inches of rain a minute over the entire planet.    Here is the fastest recorded rain falls..  https://www.wunderground.com/blog/weatherhistorian/what-is-the-most-rain-to-ever-fall-in-one-minute-or-one-hour.html   Those were highly localized and only lasted a short time and no where near 3 inches per minute.

So essentially to believe the biblical flood you have to set aside all logic, and all understanding of man.  The evidence is not there.  God would have had to do the flood and then erased all traces of it.  Seems like a lot of work to go through to get rid of all the bad people.

Your answer shows the weakness of human logic. Have you ever performed your own sedimentary experiment? Go and get ten different kinds of material- dirt, rock, shells, etc, and crush it all up into a fine mixture. Place it in a big glass jar, add water and shake it all up. As the sediments fall and deposit they will form layers, one on top of another.

The mountain chains we have today did not exist during the flood. During the flood the topography of the earth that then existed was destroyed. The fallacy is believing the flood waters had to cover a Mt. Everest. Those chains of mountains did not exist then.

During the flood the ocean floor was pretty much even and layers of sedimentary we're formed. Then, nearing the end of the flood the ocean floor in some areas were upthrusted tens of thousands of feet while in other areas great trenches we're formed still under water. This explains it. Like I said before, geologists do not debate that all of the great mountain chains we're once part of the ocean floor and we're then later upthrusted tens of thousands of feet. What they do debate is when that event happened and how long it took. Science though really has no proof for the when or length of time. It's all conjecture at that point. I thus find it quite telling that in the Book of Mormon at Christ's crucifixion that in the Americas great mountains we're upthrusted practically overnight while in other areas entire lands were buried by earth and others were sunk in the depths of the ocean. Science of course says that is impossible. So, either the Book of Mormon is a fraud, or, geologists really have no idea on how fast geologic events happen. My opinion and belief is that geologists really have no clue on most of what they think they understand.

 

[Lost Boy]

6 minutes ago, Rob Osborn said:

Your answer shows the weakness of human logic. Have you ever performed your own sedimentary experiment? Go and get ten different kinds of material- dirt, rock, shells, etc, and crush it all up into a fine mixture. Place it in a big glass jar, add water and shake it all up. As the sediments fall and deposit they will form layers, one on top of another.

The mountain chains we have today did not exist during the flood. During the flood the topography of the earth that then existed was destroyed. The fallacy is believing the flood waters had to cover a Mt. Everest. Those chains of mountains did not exist then.

During the flood the ocean floor was pretty much even and layers of sedimentary we're formed. Then, nearing the end of the flood the ocean floor in some areas were upthrusted tens of thousands of feet while in other areas great trenches we're formed still under water. This explains it. Like I said before, geologists do not debate that all of the great mountain chains we're once part of the ocean floor and we're then later upthrusted tens of thousands of feet. What they do debate is when that event happened and how long it took. Science though really has no proof for the when or length of time. It's all conjecture at that point. I thus find it quite telling that in the Book of Mormon at Christ's crucifixion that in the Americas great mountains we're upthrusted practically overnight while in other areas entire lands were buried by earth and others were sunk in the depths of the ocean. Science of course says that is impossible. So, either the Book of Mormon is a fraud, or, geologists really have no idea on how fast geologic events happen. My opinion and belief is that geologists really have no clue on most of what they think they understand.

 

Perhaps you need to go back and read the story.  It says that the tops of the mountains became visible.  That means the mountains existed before the flood water poofed away.  This means the water had to be at least 16,000 ft deeper than it is now. The bible states that the water covered the high hills.   

So where did the water come from and where did it go?  Where did all of the animals that didn't fit on the ark come from?  How do you explain animals unique to certain continents such as Australia?  Were they on the ark?  If so, how did they get to Australia?  If not, did God just poof them there after the flood?

As for the Book of Mormon, it is not clear where these mountains are at, nor how high the mountains were.  The Book of Mormon account is more believable as it is not requiring to poofing of non-existent material (water).  And there is precedence for earthquakes changing the structure of the land.

[Anddenex]

21 minutes ago, Lost Boy said:

In her vision she heard the words "Twin Soul"  she had never heard this before.  So afterwards she googled it.  So I don't think it was a self-fulfilling prophecy.

As for proof...  if it isn't compelling enough for the masses to believe, then I would submit it is not compelling enough to be proof.  This has nothing to do with whether I believe the miracle or not.

Proof does not require "the masses" for it to be submitted as proof. Proof is proof, or the proof is not proof. Proof doesn't even require "one" individual to accept it in order for it to be proof. Similar to someone who rights in a journal, and a thousand years later a person finds this journal. The journal is proof that this person existed. The journal is evidence this person existed. If everyone alive denies or is not compelled to believe the journal is real, this does not change what the journal actual is - proof and evidence of this person's existence.

What you are describing with "twin soul" and "twin flame" surely appears similar to self-fulfilling prophecy, especially if we are only taking one definition possibility from Google.

[Guest MormonGator]

53 minutes ago, Lost Boy said:

So essentially to believe the biblical flood you have to set aside all logic, and all understanding of man.  The evidence is not there.  God would have had to do the flood and then erased all traces of it.  Seems like a lot of work to go through to get rid of all the bad people.

I hear what you are saying my friend.  

To me the global flood is a matter of faith. No, you can't prove it geologically, and those who try lack the scientific knowledge to be taken seriously outside their own circle. To me, that doesn't mean it didn't happen, it just means that science doesn't back them up. We are confronted every day with people who don't share our opinions on things, and trying to convince them, especially on matters of faith, is fruitless. It's not really worth debating, in my view. 

[Lost Boy]

1 minute ago, MormonGator said:

I hear what you are saying my friend.  

To me the global flood is a matter of faith. No, you can't prove it geologically, and those who try lack the scientific knowledge to be taken seriously outside their own circle. To me, that doesn't mean it didn't happen, it just means that science doesn't back them up. We are confronted every day with people who don't share our opinions on things, and trying to convince them, especially on matters of faith, is fruitless. It's not really worth debating, in my view. 

I am not saying it didn't happen.  Just saying there is no evidence of it.  This is one of the few things that i don't have a testimony of.   If others do, then I can't dispute that.  What I will dispute is the physical evidence.

[Guest MormonGator]

1 minute ago, Lost Boy said:

I am not saying it didn't happen.  Just saying there is no evidence of it.  This is one of the few things that i don't have a testimony of.   If others do, then I can't dispute that.  What I will dispute is the physical evidence.

Right, I agree with you. I'm just reminding you that there are people in the world who don't care/ don't understand science, and telling them that there is no physical evidence to support a flood is as useless as arguing about how many angels dance on the head of a pin. 

Science is black and white, but that doesn't mean everyone understands it. 

[Lost Boy]

1 minute ago, MormonGator said:

Right, I agree with you. I'm just reminding you that there are people in the world who don't care/ don't understand science, and telling them that there is no physical evidence to support a flood is as useless as arguing about how many angels dance on the head of a pin. 

Science is black and white, but that doesn't mean everyone understands it. 

Gotcha.   I do find it interesting how people try to deny the scientific evidence against a flood and then try to find a scientific way of proving it...

[Anddenex]

1 hour ago, Lost Boy said:

So essentially to believe the biblical flood you have to set aside all logic, and all understanding of man.  The evidence is not there.  God would have had to do the flood and then erased all traces of it.  Seems like a lot of work to go through to get rid of all the bad people.

Let's begin with the last statement. I am always truly amazed when members make such comments regarding "logic" when they themselves do not have all the facts, but have a very limited knowledge regarding actual events. They are also judging past events according to our current knowledge, which is limited, which makes the comment illogical and irrational itself.

First, you are making an assumptions on what the tallest mountain was according to our day.

Second, you are making an assumption that during the year of the earth being under the water that there were not changes to the earth that could have easily have happened.

Third, you continue to make assumptions regarding water, water depth, how much rain could fall (by present statistics), and where all the water would go, and regarding how fast water recedes given areas.

Fourth, you are making assumptions or removing them, that God is able to command and the elements obey. If God commands the elements to recede faster than their normal course they will recede faster.

If you want to believe it didn't happen, that is fine, just stop pretending what is logical and what is not logical by applying present statistics thinking they add up to what the earth was like then. The reality, you don't have all the facts to make a statement that someone would need to set aside "all logic" and all "understanding" of man.

[Lost Boy]

2 minutes ago, Anddenex said:

Let's begin with the last statement. I am always truly amazed when members make such comments regarding "logic" when they themselves do not have all the facts, but have a very limited knowledge regarding actual events. They are also judging past events according to our current knowledge, which is limited, which makes the comment illogical and irrational itself.

First, you are making an assumptions on what the tallest mountain was according to our day.

Second, you are making an assumption that during the year of the earth being under the water that there were not changes to the earth that could have easily have happened.

Third, you continue to make assumptions regarding water, water depth, how much rain could fall (by present statistics), and where all the water would go, and regarding how fast water recedes given areas.

Fourth, you are making assumptions or removing them, that God is able to command and the elements obey. If God commands the elements to recede faster than their normal course they will recede faster.

If you want to believe it didn't happen, that is fine, just stop pretending what is logical and what is not logical by applying present statistics thinking they add up to what the earth was like then. The reality, you don't have all the facts to make a statement that someone would need to set aside "all logic" and all "understanding" of man.

I will stop trying to use logic with people that want to jam a square peg in a round whole.  I am not saying the flood didn't happen, but there is definitely no scientific evidence for it.  And if you want to create things in your mind to help you believe the flood, then fine.  To me, if it happened, God did it and then erased all evidence of it.  To me that is the most plausible way of it happening.

And as the assumption....  The assumption is that the water was at least as deep as Ararat (16,000ft) as the bible said this was the first mountain peak to poke out of the water.  But if you want to think there were massive continental shifts of thousands of miles in the course of 10 months, that is certainly your prerogative.   The next question would be why do all of the rearranging in the first place?  Did God screw up how he wanted the Earth to look when he made it for Adam?  Why not make it essentially like it is today?

Where did kangaroos come from?  were they on the ark?  How did they get to Australia?  Why didn't any hang around the middle east?

[Traveler]

12 hours ago, Rob Osborn said:

There was one single period where the actual physical life forms were placed or formed on the earth and that was the seventh day. The previous day's were days of creation of the earth and stars and chemical processes and preparing the earth to support life. Until the earth was sanctified (set apart for holy use) it was not inhabited by physical life forms. The setting apart of the earth by the Gods on the beginning of the seventh day was for the purpose of the placing of holiness on to the earth. That holiness is life. It is thus why it isexplained that up until this point no actual physical life is found on the earth, God had not even caused it to rain yet.

 

This is not at all what I expected.  I am not so interested in your conclusions as I am how and why you have arrived at your conclusions.  I would be most interested in any empirical evidence you have as well as “spiritual” revelations (insights into scripture) and why you are inclined to hold to (what appears to me to be unique) interpretations of select scripture passages.  How do you interpret Genesis Chapter 1 – especially verse 24 (also parallel to Moses 2:24) that seems to directly contradict your conclusion?

BTW some believe that it never rained on earth until the days of Noah.  Is this in line with your thinking?  Was Noah part of the 7th day?

 

The Traveler

[Traveler]

17 hours ago, Carborendum said:

All of us would.  But what raw data is there from 2500 years ago?  All we have is information from other "experts".

We have a great deal of empirical archeological evidence from which experts do research.  For example, there was a manuscript among the Dead Sea Scrolls the carbon dates to very close to 2500 years ago that contradicts what experts have been telling us about the Bible for over 1500 years – Specifically why the Book of Enoch was not included in the Bible.  I have a copy of that manuscript with a side by side translation of the originally discovered manuscript.   I must rely on the translation being accurate but I can take my copy to someone (anyone) that reads ancient Hebrew to validate the translation.  I can use it do draw my own conclusions.

Often when I read a book or article – I will contact the author with my questions concerning their conclusions – much as I do on the forum.  If they reference other experts rather than raw data – I discount their expertise as well as their sources.  It is interesting (especially on the internet) how seldom raw data is encountered. 

Though this is not the Book of Enoch – you may find this link interesting:

http://www.sacred-texts.com/bib/lbob/lbob09.htm

 

The Traveler

[Anddenex]

3 minutes ago, Lost Boy said:

I will stop trying to use logic with people that want to jam a square peg in a round whole.  I am not saying the flood didn't happen, but there is definitely no scientific evidence for it.  And if you want to create things in your mind to help you believe the flood, then fine.  To me, if it happened, God did it and then erased all evidence of it.  To me that is the most plausible way of it happening.

And as the assumption....  The assumption is that the water was at least as deep as Ararat (16,000ft) as the bible said this was the first mountain peak to poke out of the water.  But if you want to think there were massive continental shifts of thousands of miles in the course of 10 months, that is certainly your prerogative.   The next question would be why do all of the rearranging in the first place?  Did God screw up how he wanted the Earth to look when he made it for Adam?  Why not make it essentially like it is today?

Where did kangaroos come from?  were they on the ark?  How did they get to Australia?  Why didn't any hang around the middle east?

I will stop trying to use logic with people that want to jam a square peg in a round whole. (I love the irony in this statement)

When you make the following statement, "So essentially to believe the biblical flood you have to set aside all logic, and all understanding of man," you are indeed specifying the flood did not happen. There is a difference between the following statement, "I do not know if the flood happened or not, but I believe it didn't" and your statement regarding logic.

True, if God can change the earth in "one day" just think of what he can do in 10 months! Yes it is my prerogative to accept that God is able to command and the elements obey. It is my prerogative to accept that people continue to make assumptions, then call it logical, while not having all the facts. The problem is your assumptions. There was Pangea, and then there was continental drift. Why didn't God just start out with separate continents instead of Pangea? Doesn't matter. Did God screw up? No. Why make Pangea, and then separate continents? Don't know. 

Why does God have to fit your world view in that he either "screwed up with Adam" or that he made it the way it is today. Well, we know the Nephite civilization isn't the same geography as it was during Nephi's time. So did he screw up with the Nephites? Why not make it essentially the same? Why change anything at all? Why even have a flood in the first place. None of these questions are beneficial or prove anything, but that you simply do not know, and do not have enough facts to call anything logical or illogical or beyond all human understanding; however, I redact my last part, God indeed does things that are beyond "all" current human understanding which the natural man calls "illogical."

 

 

[Lost Boy]

52 minutes ago, Anddenex said:

I will stop trying to use logic with people that want to jam a square peg in a round whole. (I love the irony in this statement)

When you make the following statement, "So essentially to believe the biblical flood you have to set aside all logic, and all understanding of man," you are indeed specifying the flood did not happen. There is a difference between the following statement, "I do not know if the flood happened or not, but I believe it didn't" and your statement regarding logic.

True, if God can change the earth in "one day" just think of what he can do in 10 months! Yes it is my prerogative to accept that God is able to command and the elements obey. It is my prerogative to accept that people continue to make assumptions, then call it logical, while not having all the facts. The problem is your assumptions. There was Pangea, and then there was continental drift. Why didn't God just start out with separate continents instead of Pangea? Doesn't matter. Did God screw up? No. Why make Pangea, and then separate continents? Don't know. 

Why does God have to fit your world view in that he either "screwed up with Adam" or that he made it the way it is today. Well, we know the Nephite civilization isn't the same geography as it was during Nephi's time. So did he screw up with the Nephites? Why not make it essentially the same? Why change anything at all? Why even have a flood in the first place. None of these questions are beneficial or prove anything, but that you simply do not know, and do not have enough facts to call anything logical or illogical or beyond all human understanding; however, I redact my last part, God indeed does things that are beyond "all" current human understanding which the natural man calls "illogical."

 

 

Ok

[Guest MormonGator]

2 hours ago, Lost Boy said:

Gotcha.   I do find it interesting how people try to deny the scientific evidence against a flood and then try to find a scientific way of proving it...

I agree totally. 

It used to frustrate me more as a younger man. People who didn't believe in evolution, climate change, gravity, etc. Now I just let it go. Life is too short to deal with people like that. Take comfort in the fact that they have zero influence outside their very small circle.