Noah's Flood

[MrShorty]

1 hour ago, Lost Boy said:

I will stop trying to use logic with people that want to jam a square peg in a round whole.

Considering how long this debate has been going on in the church without "coming to a unity of faith" on this issue, I'm not sure what else is to be expected from a thread like this. We have been debating these kinds of things since at least the early 20th century, and, it seems to me that we will be debating them until Christ returns to the earth and completely takes over the education (both secular and church) system. The current discussion reminds me of the accounts of the discussions between Henry B. Eyering and Joseph Fielding Smith, where Eyering failed to change then Elder Smith's views on these subjects. (this might be an interesting read: http://signaturebookslibrary.org/the-search-for-harmony/)

I find these to be interesting -- often contentious -- discussions, but it seems that they are also mostly fruitless. Most have their minds made up, and few are persuaded to substantially change their view.

[Guest Scott]

Quote

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.

 

No it doesn't.   It is known that some mountain ranges are older than others.   For example, the Himalaya does not form a continental divide.   Rivers from the Tibetan Plateau cut through the Himalaya.  This is because the Tibetan Plateau and accompanying mountain ranges riding from the central areas are older than the Himalaya.

Water does not flow uphill and yet rivers cut through the Himalaya. The reason for this is because the rivers coming from the Tibetan Plateau existed before the Himalaya did.   Since water does not flow uphill, the Himalaya had to rise at a slow enough rate that the rivers could cut through the mountains at a greater rate than the mountains were rising.    If the mountains rose at a high rate of speed as you are claiming, the rivers would simply be diverted around the mountains, not cut through them. 

Closer to home, the same situation is true in Utah and along the Wasatch Front.    The Uinta Mountains are older than the Wasatch.   This is known because the Provo and Weber Rivers which originate in the Uinta Mountains cut through the Wasatch.   Although geologically a young mountain range, the Wasatch had to rise slow enough that the rivers could cut through the mountain at a faster rate than the mountains were rising.  The Provo and Weber Rivers existed before the Wasatch (otherwise they wouldn't cut all the way through them).   If the Wasatch rose at a high rate of speed as you are claiming, why weren't the rivers forced around them?   Water does not flow uphill.   Or does it in your "visions".

[Rob Osborn]

2 hours ago, Lost Boy said:

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.

The tops the mountains were the newly forming mountains being upthrust. As this upthrust was occuring it appeared as if the waters were being lowered. But they werent, just the perception of such. In Psalms it teaches that after the flood waters came the mountains were created and carried up and the valleys sank (ocean trenches) to create a boundary (a place for the flood waters) for the flood waters to never be able to cover the whole earth again.

 

3 hours ago, Lost Boy said:

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?

Easy. After the flood the continents were created or separated by the waters receding off the uplifting crusts creating elevated areas. Some animals migrated. But most of the unique animals on different continents got there at the time of the confusing of the tongues at the tower of Babel when God caused the people to disperse and separate. We know this because the Brother of Jared was commanded to take his people and separate and take various animals with them into new areas of the land. He scattered all his children into the four corners of the earth at that time. They took various animals with them, thus the unique dispertion.

 

3 hours ago, Lost Boy said:

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.

I dont know how more clear than you can get in describing the mountains being upthrust a great mountain. This isnt no 500 foot mountain spoken of-

10 And the earth was carried up upon the city of Moronihah, that in the place of the city there became a great mountain.( 3Nephi 8:10)

 

[Lost Boy]

8 minutes ago, MrShorty said:

Considering how long this debate has been going on in the church without "coming to a unity of faith" on this issue, I'm not sure what else is to be expected from a thread like this. We have been debating these kinds of things since at least the early 20th century, and, it seems to me that we will be debating them until Christ returns to the earth and completely takes over the education (both secular and church) system. The current discussion reminds me of the accounts of the discussions between Henry B. Eyering and Joseph Fielding Smith, where Eyering failed to change then Elder Smith's views on these subjects. (this might be an interesting read: http://signaturebookslibrary.org/the-search-for-harmony/)

I find these to be interesting -- often contentious -- discussions, but it seems that they are also mostly fruitless. Most have their minds made up, and few are persuaded to substantially change their view.

I completely agree.  I doubt that it really matters whether we believe the bible account to be accurate or not.  Probably not a salvation deal breaker.

[Rob Osborn]

4 minutes ago, Scott said:

 

No it doesn't.   It is known that some mountain ranges are older than others.   For example, the Himalaya does not form a continental divide.   Rivers from the Tibetan Plateau cut through the Himalaya.  This is because the Tibetan Plateau and accompanying mountain ranges riding from the central areas are older than the Himalaya.

Water does not flow uphill and yet rivers cut through the Himalaya. The reason for this is because the rivers coming from the Tibetan Plateau existed before the Himalaya did.   Since water does not flow uphill, the Himalaya had to rise at a slow enough rate that the rivers could cut through the mountains at a greater rate than the mountains were rising.    If the mountains rose at a high rate of speed as you are claiming, the rivers would simply be diverted around the mountains, not cut through them. 

Closer to home, the same situation is true in Utah and along the Wasatch Front.    The Uinta Mountains are older than the Wasatch.   This is known because the Provo and Weber Rivers which originate in the Uinta Mountains cut through the Wasatch.   Although geologically a young mountain range, the Wasatch had to rise slow enough that the rivers could cut through the mountain at a faster rate than the mountains were rising.  The Provo and Weber Rivers existed before the Wasatch (otherwise they wouldn't cut all the way through them).   If the Wasatch rose at a high rate of speed as you are claiming, why weren't the rivers forced around them?   Water does not flow uphill.   Or does it in your "visions".

Please dont mock me and I will answer. Otherwise have a nice day.

[Guest Scott]

Quote

4 minutes ago, Rob Osborn said:

Please dont mock me and I will answer. Otherwise have a nice day.

There was no mocking.   Just answer the question.

[Lost Boy]

3 minutes ago, Rob Osborn said:

The tops the mountains were the newly forming mountains being upthrust. As this upthrust was occuring it appeared as if the waters were being lowered. But they werent, just the perception of such. In Psalms it teaches that after the flood waters came the mountains were created and carried up and the valleys sank (ocean trenches) to create a boundary (a place for the flood waters) for the flood waters to never be able to cover the whole earth again.

 

Easy. After the flood the continents were created or separated by the waters receding off the uplifting crusts creating elevated areas. Some animals migrated. But most of the unique animals on different continents got there at the time of the confusing of the tongues at the tower of Babel when God caused the people to disperse and separate. We know this because the Brother of Jared was commanded to take his people and separate and take various animals with them into new areas of the land. He scattered all his children into the four corners of the earth at that time. They took various animals with them, thus the unique dispertion.

 

I dont know how more clear than you can get in describing the mountains being upthrust a great mountain. This isnt no 500 foot mountain spoken of-

10 And the earth was carried up upon the city of Moronihah, that in the place of the city there became a great mountain.( 3Nephi 8:10)

 

I am glad you have found a way to explain it to yourself.  It doesn't make any sense to me, but in the end I doubt that it matters that much.

[Rob Osborn]

3 hours 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. 

A few things- truth exists, you cant change that. Science is a branch of study to try to explain what we observe.  Scientific conclusions can be either true or false. The only way to determine truth is through direct observation. Scientists did not observe the flood, they did not observe the conditions surrounding tge flood. Therefore they arent in a position to verify truth. Science as it deals with the past, before it was directly observable, is highly built on conjecture. Just so people know...

[Rob Osborn]

3 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...

Its all about correctly using science not the misuse of it.

[Guest Scott]

Quote

. Science as it deals with the past, before it was directly observable, is highly built on conjecture.

Then answer the question above.   The fact that water flows downhill is directly observable.  

Here is the question.   Answer it.
 

Quote

 

Water does not flow uphill and yet rivers cut through the Himalaya. The reason for this is because the rivers coming from the Tibetan Plateau existed before the Himalaya did.   Since water does not flow uphill, the Himalaya had to rise at a slow enough rate that the rivers could cut through the mountains at a greater rate than the mountains were rising.    If the mountains rose at a high rate of speed as you are claiming, the rivers would simply be diverted around the mountains, not cut through them. 

Closer to home, the same situation is true in Utah and along the Wasatch Front.    The Uinta Mountains are older than the Wasatch.   This is known because the Provo and Weber Rivers which originate in the Uinta Mountains cut through the Wasatch.   Although geologically a young mountain range, the Wasatch had to rise slow enough that the rivers could cut through the mountain at a faster rate than the mountains were rising.  The Provo and Weber Rivers existed before the Wasatch (otherwise they wouldn't cut all the way through them).   If the Wasatch rose at a high rate of speed as you are claiming, why weren't the rivers forced around them?   Water does not flow uphill.  

 

 

 

[Guest MormonGator]

4 minutes ago, Rob Osborn said:

A few things- truth exists, you cant change that.

Oh, we agree on that, that's for sure. 

[Lost Boy]

11 minutes ago, Scott said:

 

No it doesn't.   It is known that some mountain ranges are older than others.   For example, the Himalaya does not form a continental divide.   Rivers from the Tibetan Plateau cut through the Himalaya.  This is because the Tibetan Plateau and accompanying mountain ranges riding from the central areas are older than the Himalaya.

Water does not flow uphill and yet rivers cut through the Himalaya. The reason for this is because the rivers coming from the Tibetan Plateau existed before the Himalaya did.   Since water does not flow uphill, the Himalaya had to rise at a slow enough rate that the rivers could cut through the mountains at a greater rate than the mountains were rising.    If the mountains rose at a high rate of speed as you are claiming, the rivers would simply be diverted around the mountains, not cut through them. 

Closer to home, the same situation is true in Utah and along the Wasatch Front.    The Uinta Mountains are older than the Wasatch.   This is known because the Provo and Weber Rivers which originate in the Uinta Mountains cut through the Wasatch.   Although geologically a young mountain range, the Wasatch had to rise slow enough that the rivers could cut through the mountain at a faster rate than the mountains were rising.  The Provo and Weber Rivers existed before the Wasatch (otherwise they wouldn't cut all the way through them).   If the Wasatch rose at a high rate of speed as you are claiming, why weren't the rivers forced around them?   Water does not flow uphill.   Or does it in your "visions".

That last bit was a bit mean,  but I am glad I am not alone in marrying today's science with the flood.

[Rob Osborn]

2 hours ago, Traveler said:

 

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

We have no less than 4 accounts of the creation- Genesis, Moses, Abraham, and the temple. They all differ slightly. Abraham is probably the most correct as it states on the 6 previous days that they created the heavens and earth and then prepared it to bring forth life, not that they actually did. Genesis 2, Moses 3, & the D&C 77 all make the claim that in fact the actual placement of life was on the seventh day, not the sixth. D&C 77

12 Q. What are we to understand by the sounding of the trumpets, mentioned in the 8th chapter of Revelation?A. We are to understand that as God made the world in six days, and on the seventh day he finished his work, and sanctified it, and also formed man out of the dust of the earth, even so, in the beginning of the seventh thousand years will the Lord God sanctify the earth, and complete the salvation of man, and judgeall things, and shall redeem all things, except that which he hath not put into his power, when he shall have sealed all things, unto the end of all things; and the sounding of the trumpets of the seven angels are the preparing and finishing of his work, in the beginning of the seventh thousand years—the preparing of the way before the time of his coming.

The pattern here is that God sanctifies the earth then places man on it. So too in the beginning of the millennium- God will sanctify it then complete man.

[Rob Osborn]

17 minutes ago, Scott said:

 

You mocked me making light of my personal revelations. Im just not up for debating people who do that, it ends up getting me in trouble.

[Rob Osborn]

18 minutes ago, Lost Boy said:

I am glad you have found a way to explain it to yourself.  It doesn't make any sense to me, but in the end I doubt that it matters that much.

Try googling it, theres actually a large body of people, including scientists who believe in catastrophism and flood geology.

[Lost Boy]

Just now, Rob Osborn said:

Try googling it, theres actually a large body of people, including scientists who believe in catastrophism and flood geology.

Yes, I know there is a large body of people that believe it including some that refer to themselves as "scientists"   I have read some sites regarding this and I feel like I am checking my brain at the door when I visit those sites.  Same feeling I have when visiting websites regarding 9/11 conspiracy theories, moon landing hoax theories, etc.

There are also many that believe in hollow Earth and Flat Earth.  There were also a lot of people that voted for Trump or Hillary..   Doesn't make either of them right as well.  Two idiots are not smarter than one idiot (I am not calling you an idiot). 

Many want to see the scriptures as the perfect word of God.  I don't know if it is to my credit or detriment, but I don't.  I view them as books that need to be studies and prayed about and are mostly right.  It is easier to just turn a blind eye to science and believe everything.  I can't do that.

[Guest MormonGator]

6 minutes ago, Lost Boy said:

Yes, I know there is a large body of people that believe it including some that refer to themselves as "scientists"   I have read some sites regarding this and I feel like I am checking my brain at the door when I visit those sites.  Same feeling I have when visiting websites regarding 9/11 conspiracy theories, moon landing hoax theories, etc.

There are also many that believe in hollow Earth and Flat Earth.  There were also a lot of people that voted for Trump or Hillary..   Doesn't make either of them right as well.  Two idiots are not smarter than one idiot (I am not calling you an idiot). 

Many want to see the scriptures as the perfect word of God.  I don't know if it is to my credit or detriment, but I don't.  I view them as books that need to be studies and prayed about and are mostly right.  It is easier to just turn a blind eye to science and believe everything.  I can't do that.

There actually aren't many scientists who support a global flood. Those who do are in the small, small, small, small minority. Maybe 1-2% of scientists. If you tried to prove scientifically that there was a global flood 99% of colleges, museums, other scientists, etc would listen politely, nod, pat you on the head, than send you on your way. 
 

Edited May 14, 2018 by MormonGator

[Lost Boy]

13 minutes ago, MormonGator said:

There actually aren't many scientists who support a global flood. Those who do are in the small, small, small, small minority. Maybe 1-2% of scientists. If you tried to prove scientifically that there was a global flood 99% of colleges, museums, other scientists, etc would listen politely, nod, pat you on the head, than send you on your way. 
 

I would hope that there are fewer than 1%.  And my guess would be that they work for evangelical colleges.  I am hoping BYU does not employ them.

[Guest MormonGator]

Just now, Lost Boy said:

I would hope that there are fewer than 1%.  And my guess would be that they work for evangelical colleges.  I am hoping BYU does not employ them.

Agree. 

Simply put, the real scientists and professors are too busy doing real research to deal with this.

It's like asking a doctor researching cancer cures why she doesn't spend her time studying the latest snake oil claims. She's too busy, too important, her time is too valuable to waste and she knows it.  

[Traveler]

32 minutes ago, Rob Osborn said:

We have no less than 4 accounts of the creation- Genesis, Moses, Abraham, and the temple. They all differ slightly. Abraham is probably the most correct as it states on the 6 previous days that they created the heavens and earth and then prepared it to bring forth life, not that they actually did. Genesis 2, Moses 3, & the D&C 77 all make the claim that in fact the actual placement of life was on the seventh day, not the sixth. D&C 77

12 Q. What are we to understand by the sounding of the trumpets, mentioned in the 8th chapter of Revelation?A. We are to understand that as God made the world in six days, and on the seventh day he finished his work, and sanctified it, and also formed man out of the dust of the earth, even so, in the beginning of the seventh thousand years will the Lord God sanctify the earth, and complete the salvation of man, and judgeall things, and shall redeem all things, except that which he hath not put into his power, when he shall have sealed all things, unto the end of all things; and the sounding of the trumpets of the seven angels are the preparing and finishing of his work, in the beginning of the seventh thousand years—the preparing of the way before the time of his coming.

The pattern here is that God sanctifies the earth then places man on it. So too in the beginning of the millennium- God will sanctify it then complete man.

 

A couple of things - First it is my personal belief that the greatest understandings of the plan of salvation will be given to the saints through the process of current revelation and according to covenants provided at the temples of G-d through the ordinances of the priesthood. 

Second - I hope you realize the necessity of multiple witnesses as promised by G-d (for those that seek him and his witness of his work – See Genesis 41:32) so that grammatical misdirection will not mislead disciples seeking understanding.  Do you ever seek empirical evidence in such endeavors of learning?

 

The Traveler

[person0]

5 minutes ago, Lost Boy said:

I would hope that there are fewer than 1%.  And my guess would be that they work for evangelical colleges.  I am hoping BYU does not employ them.

There are no scientists attempting this at BYU, but there are plenty of professors who do believe and who have believed in a global flood.  Here is a lengthy article from one former professor.

[Lost Boy]

9 minutes ago, person0 said:

There are no scientists attempting this at BYU, but there are plenty of professors who do believe and who have believed in a global flood.  Here is a lengthy article from one former professor.

Interesting.  I admit I skimmed it a bit, but didn't see any geologists mentioned there.  Was there a flood?  Many of our former religious leaders thought so?  Were they right?  I don't know.  One thing is for certain, the physical evidence is not there.  One other thing.  The leaders did not really seem to care to venture out on how the flood occurred.

[person0]

16 minutes ago, Lost Boy said:

One thing is for certain, the physical evidence is not there.

Why does that matter?

[Guest MormonGator]

10 minutes ago, person0 said:

Why does that matter?

I once dated Jennifer Lopez. Sure, I have no evidence for it. But I guess that doesn't matter. Do you believe me?  

Edited May 14, 2018 by MormonGator

[Lost Boy]

15 minutes ago, person0 said:

Why does that matter?

I tend to find God's miracles are generally through acts of nature, not that that lessens the power of the miracle, but typically through some natural occurrence.   If the flood were some natural occurrence, then there would be some left over evidence.  But there isn't.  There is evidence of local floods, but not of a global flood.

In the end  though, I doubt that one's salvation will hinge on the belief in the flood.