Noah's Flood

[Rob Osborn]

8 minutes ago, NeuroTypical said:

Indeed.  I  wish more folks understood this.  Just evidence of varying strength.

 

That said, when you consider Noah's flood, the evidence really ain't that strong.  Folks who believe otherwise, tend to not understand the concept of evidence at all.

 

The debate over interpretation will always cause waves. My interpretation of evidence is strong, your interpretation isnt. Whos right? Well, we will both argue only our own interpretation is what matters. This reminds me of the argument between a Catholic priest and a Mormon bishop on if the LDS church is really a Christian religion or not. 

[Anddenex]

5 hours ago, NeuroTypical said:

Indeed.  I  wish more folks understood this.  Just evidence of varying strength.

 

That said, when you consider Noah's flood, the evidence really ain't that strong.  Folks who believe otherwise, tend to not understand the concept of evidence at all.

 

I am sure this wasn't intentional; however, the irony of this response isn't lost.

1) Rob is given props for understanding the concept of "proof" in science.

2) The last sentence infers that Rob doesn't understand the concept of evidence "at all." First page, Rob stated, " Yes it definitely covered the whole earth. Plenty of evidence also."

I would change the last sentence by adding one word, [scientific] evidence. Evidence does not require the scientific method to be considered as evidence. For example, I would propose the Book of Mormon has plenty of evidence for its authenticity, and yet, there are those who would say as you have said, "That said, when you consider [the Book of Mormon], the evidence really ain't that strong.  Folks who believe otherwise, tend to not understand the concept of evidence at all." This would be incorrect. A person is able to understand the concept of evidence, while rejecting given evidences for or against.

 

 

[Lost Boy]

1 hour ago, Anddenex said:

I am sure this wasn't intentional; however, the irony of this response isn't lost.

1) Rob is given props for understanding the concept of "proof" in science.

2) The last sentence infers that Rob doesn't understand the concept of evidence "at all." First page, Rob stated, " Yes it definitely covered the whole earth. Plenty of evidence also."

I would change the last sentence by adding one word, [scientific] evidence. Evidence does not require the scientific method to be considered as evidence. For example, I would propose the Book of Mormon has plenty of evidence for its authenticity, and yet, there are those who would say as you have said, "That said, when you consider [the Book of Mormon], the evidence really ain't that strong.  Folks who believe otherwise, tend to not understand the concept of evidence at all." This would be incorrect. A person is able to understand the concept of evidence, while rejecting given evidences for or against.

 

 

There are all types of evidence in the world.  If someone claims to have seen someone murder someone else and this person is deemed to be credible, then that is fairly strong evidence.  It certainly isn't proof.  But if the guy told someone else about what he saw and this new person then related the tale, that evidence is weaker.  You have more ambiguity.

When evidence is backed by scientific methods, then it is more likely to be stronger evidence.  The more repeatable something is in a controlled environment, the more likely it will be believed to be true.  I have not seen this type of evidence that supports a global flood.  I have seen a lot of evidence that the Earth is very old, strong scientific evidence.

As for the Book of Mormon being the word of God.   It is evidence, but pretty weak evidence.  It is only through the power of the holy ghost that you can know of its truthfulness.  God is not going to provide the world proof of his existence.  That would remove the requirement to have faith.

[Rob Osborn]

1 minute ago, Lost Boy said:

There are all types of evidence in the world.  If someone claims to have seen someone murder someone else and this person is deemed to be credible, then that is fairly strong evidence.  It certainly isn't proof.  But if the guy told someone else about what he saw and this new person then related the tale, that evidence is weaker.  You have more ambiguity.

When evidence is backed by scientific methods, then it is more likely to be stronger evidence.  The more repeatable something is in a controlled environment, the more likely it will be believed to be true.  I have not seen this type of evidence that supports a global flood.  I have seen a lot of evidence that the Earth is very old, strong scientific evidence.

As for the Book of Mormon being the word of God.   It is evidence, but pretty weak evidence.  It is only through the power of the holy ghost that you can know of its truthfulness.  God is not going to provide the world proof of his existence.  That would remove the requirement to have faith.

There is this interesting thing about the lens one views things through. Depending on what lens one is wearing they can see evidence for anything. My brothers friend is becoming a flat Earth believer. The lens of sight and senses is powerful and exists in all shades and colors.

[JohnsonJones]

7 hours ago, Lost Boy said:

There are all types of evidence in the world.  If someone claims to have seen someone murder someone else and this person is deemed to be credible, then that is fairly strong evidence.  It certainly isn't proof.  But if the guy told someone else about what he saw and this new person then related the tale, that evidence is weaker.  You have more ambiguity.

Ah...off on a tangent...grim humor at it's worst...

But...but...what if the someone who claims to have seen someone murder someone else was actually the someone who murdered someone else in the first place and was just trying to blame someone for someone else's murder so someone could get off scotch free from being the real someone who murdered someone else!???

 

Edited May 31, 2018 by JohnsonJones

[Guest MormonGator]

11 hours ago, Lost Boy said:

There are all types of evidence in the world.  If someone claims to have seen someone murder someone else and this person is deemed to be credible, then that is fairly strong evidence.  It certainly isn't proof.  But if the guy told someone else about what he saw and this new person then related the tale, that evidence is weaker.  You have more ambiguity.

When evidence is backed by scientific methods, then it is more likely to be stronger evidence.  The more repeatable something is in a controlled environment, the more likely it will be believed to be true.  I have not seen this type of evidence that supports a global flood.  I have seen a lot of evidence that the Earth is very old, strong scientific evidence.

Well said. 

There are few things more disturbing to me than the appalling lack of scientific knowledge in this country. Things like that keep me up at night sometimes. 

[NeuroTypical]

 

13 hours ago, Anddenex said:

I would change the last sentence by adding one word, [scientific] evidence. Evidence does not require the scientific method to be considered as evidence. For example, I would propose the Book of Mormon has plenty of evidence for its authenticity, and yet, there are those who would say as you have said, "That said, when you consider [the Book of Mormon], the evidence really ain't that strong.  Folks who believe otherwise, tend to not understand the concept of evidence at all." This would be incorrect. A person is able to understand the concept of evidence, while rejecting given evidences for or against.

Fair enough.  When you consider scientific and archaeological evidence available supporting the notion of a global flood, the evidence ain't that strong.   And when you consider archaeological evidence supporting BoM historical claims, the evidence really ain't that strong either.    Better?

Evidence is evidence.  Evidence can be of varying strength, subjective or objective, and varying persuasive power.   For example, the spiritual witness I received of the reality and divinity of Jesus Christ was strong undeniable evidence for me.  But since it was so subjective, its persuasive power for others varies from person to person. Not everyone places as much weight on that bit of evidence as I do.

 

 

Edited May 31, 2018 by NeuroTypical

[Vort]

42 minutes ago, NeuroTypical said:

Fair enough.  When you consider scientific and archaeological evidence available supporting the notion of a global flood, the evidence ain't that strong.   And when you consider archaeological evidence supporting BoM historical claims, the evidence really ain't that strong either. Better?

This is true, but there is a huge difference between the two. A worldwide deluge would be expected -- required -- to leave massive and obvious evidence of its existence, even many tens of thousands of years later. A small group of Jews living for less than a thousand years among a much larger native population, never numbering more than a few million, and who died out 1600 years ago in an area where the land swallows up entire civilizations with no trace left behind, would not.

[wenglund]

22 hours ago, Rob Osborn said:

Actually, becoming like Christ embodies all truth and as such requires faith to get there. The flood is a type or representation of faith that if believed brings one closer to Christ.

As I understand things, becoming like Christ is far more about character and behavior than it is about fruitless debates over what may or may not be true. But, you are free to believe otherwise.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[Anddenex]

3 hours ago, NeuroTypical said:

Fair enough.  When you consider scientific and archaeological evidence available supporting the notion of a global flood, the evidence ain't that strong.   And when you consider archaeological evidence supporting BoM historical claims, the evidence really ain't that strong either.    Better?

Evidence is evidence.  Evidence can be of varying strength, subjective or objective, and varying persuasive power.   For example, the spiritual witness I received of the reality and divinity of Jesus Christ was strong undeniable evidence for me.  But since it was so subjective, its persuasive power for others varies from person to person. Not everyone places as much weight on that bit of evidence as I do.

Yes; however, I was more referring to the following sentiment, "Folks who believe otherwise, tend to not understand the concept of evidence at all."

So if someone wants to say (at least according to accepted journals: scientific and archaelogical) the evidence is strong for a global flood. I would say they aren't familiar with the current and accepted studies. This is different than saying a person doesn't understand the concept of evidence because they say there is evidence and plenty of it, just not from accepted journals. Evidence is evidence even if not found in these journals, even if it is considered weak, it is still evidence.

All I know is I am going to have a good laugh when certain people look back (in the next life) and potentially see horses running on the American continent, and when they see Lehi's family leaving Jerusalem despite all the strong evidence against it right now (or better said the lack of supporting evidence therefore it is not true), and how illogical every Mormon is to believe in such a con. (not directing this last sentence toward you, hope that is clear).

[unixknight]

16 hours ago, Lost Boy said:

There are all types of evidence in the world.  If someone claims to have seen someone murder someone else and this person is deemed to be credible, then that is fairly strong evidence.  It certainly isn't proof.

Not picking on your post here, just using it as an example to illustrate something that has been bugging me in the thread.

The word 'proof' has no meaning outside mathematics.  Science does not deal in proof.  It deals in evidence.  One can't prove the Earth is either round or flat, or whether the Flood was historical or not.  All we have is evidence of varying strength.

/gripe

 

 

[Lost Boy]

1 minute ago, unixknight said:

Not picking on your post here, just using it as an example to illustrate something that has been bugging me in the thread.

The word 'proof' has no meaning outside mathematics.  Science does not deal in proof.  It deals in evidence.  One can't prove the Earth is either round or flat, or whether the Flood was historical or not.  All we have is evidence of varying strength.

/gripe

 

 

Outside mathematics....  how about 190 proof alcohol....  

But to your point, yeah...  everything submitted to a court of law is viewed as evidence, not proof.  Things of spiritual nature generally have pretty weak evidence.  Thus many people dismiss them.  How many dismiss the Book of Mormon?  

[unixknight]

3 minutes ago, Lost Boy said:

Outside mathematics....  how about 190 proof alcohol....  

Touche'

[Lost Boy]

17 hours ago, Rob Osborn said:

There is this interesting thing about the lens one views things through. Depending on what lens one is wearing they can see evidence for anything. My brothers friend is becoming a flat Earth believer. The lens of sight and senses is powerful and exists in all shades and colors.

Sure, you can get a lens to distort light to see what you want to see, but the lenses that are most sought after are the ones thought to have the least amount of distortion.  Lenses that present what you see as close to reality as possible.

Becoming a flat Earther is akin to putting the lens cap on the lens and looking through.

God wants us to be spiritual... have faith, etc.  But he also, wants us to learn about the world around us.  I can't for a second fathom a God that would create Dinosaur bones to let us believe the Earth is ancient and then tell us that it is only 12,000 years old or whatever some Christians believe.   The Earth is ancient.  And most likely there was no global flood.

[Rob Osborn]

28 minutes ago, Lost Boy said:

Sure, you can get a lens to distort light to see what you want to see, but the lenses that are most sought after are the ones thought to have the least amount of distortion.  Lenses that present what you see as close to reality as possible.

Becoming a flat Earther is akin to putting the lens cap on the lens and looking through.

God wants us to be spiritual... have faith, etc.  But he also, wants us to learn about the world around us.  I can't for a second fathom a God that would create Dinosaur bones to let us believe the Earth is ancient and then tell us that it is only 12,000 years old or whatever some Christians believe.   The Earth is ancient.  And most likely there was no global flood.

You see, from my POV, it's you that have the lens cap on trying to see through. This is precisely what I'm talking about.

[Rob Osborn]

4 hours ago, wenglund said:

As I understand things, becoming like Christ is far more about character and behavior than it is about fruitless debates over what may or may not be true. But, you are free to believe otherwise.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

It is about character, faith and belief. Believing the scriptures reuires an element of faith that is needed in becoming like Christ. 

[Anddenex]

40 minutes ago, Lost Boy said:

I can't for a second fathom a God ....

I now wonder why any member of the Church would provide this statement in front of anything pertaining to who God is:

1) I can't fathom a God who would cause innocent children to be taken from this earth .... but he did (Passover)

2) I can't fathom a God who would allow his children to believe lies.... but he does

3) I can't fathom a God that would even send a local (or even global) flood killing all but 8 people...but he did

4) I can't fathom a God that commanded the total genocide of a nation (including its animals)...but he did

5) I can't fathom a God who would assign anyone to a state of outer darkness...yet he does (albeit it is their choice, but still a loving God would never allow someone to stay in outer darkness for eternity),...and yet he (being a loving God) does

6) I can't fathom a God who would allow so much evil in this life...and yet he does

7) I can't fathom a God who would allow people to experience "gender identity" crisis, and would not allow them the opportunity to love who they feel they love (and not have it be sin)...but he does.

So many people are kept from increased spiritual knowledge and truth because of what they can't fathom (not allowing themselves to see through spiritual eyes), rather than accepting what actually is. The Atheist (possibly not all) can't fathom a God who would punish for eternity. They can't fathom a God that doesn't intervene in every trauma of life, and if he could and doesn't, and there is a God then he isn't worth their worship. Others can't fathom a God who would provide more scripture.

God is all powerful. All his works are unknown, mysteries.  Yes, he could have everyone believe the earth is ancient, and yet the earth not be ancient, or better said, he could "allow" people to believe anything they want to believe and then reveal the truth at some later date.

Our God allowed his apostles to believe a false doctrine, until they asked the question to Jesus (paraphrased), "Who sinned that this man was born blind"? He allowed his children to believe the earth was the center of the universe, and yet some knew the truth that the earth revolved around the sun.

He has allowed his children to believe in false Gods, and somehow you can't fathom him allowing people to believe the earth is ancient while the earth is young? Our God is very much allowing of what people believe and accept. He doesn't inhibit our moral agency to accept truth or error. He doesn't control the human mind. God will allow you to believe any assumption you want, this is part of our moral agency.

[Guest MormonGator]

 

1 hour ago, Lost Boy said:

God wants us to be spiritual... have faith, etc.  But he also, wants us to learn about the world around us.  I can't for a second fathom a God that would create Dinosaur bones to let us believe the Earth is ancient and then tell us that it is only 12,000 years old or whatever some Christians believe.   The Earth is ancient.  And most likely there was no global flood.

Amen. And learning about the world around us is threatening and scary to some people, because they think it'll challenge and effect their faith. That's sad, but there will always be people like that.  You need to learn to accept it and move on. 

 

[unixknight]

This whole thing is a result of the poisonous notion that spirituality and science must be at odds.  It's a garbage narrative that's been sold to us for centuries and it seems to be on an uptick lately as pop culture embraces its icons who are more than happy to attack religion for the spectacle, such as Bill Nye and Neil Degrasse Tyson.  I used to be a fan of both of those guys before they started looking to pick up cred by mocking religion especially Christianity.

If you find the evidence for a young Earth to be compelling, then by all means believe it.  If you find the evidence of a 5B year old Earth more compelling, believe that.  Flat Earth?  Fine.  Spherical (sorta) Earth?  Cheers.  I don't care. 

What we need right now is more courses in critical thinking in our schools.  The rest will attend to itself.  Our kids are being indoctrinated, not educated.

Edited May 31, 2018 by unixknight

[Grunt]

34 minutes ago, MormonGator said:

 

Amen. And learning about the world around us is threatening and scary to some people, because they think it'll challenge and effect their faith. That's sad, but there will always be people like that.  You need to learn to accept it and move on. 

 

And there are some things the church tells us are true, yet people still argue until they're blue in the face that they aren't.

[Guest MormonGator]

16 minutes ago, Grunt said:

And there are some things the church tells us are true, yet people still argue until they're blue in the face that they aren't.

Does the church have a teaching on Noah's flood? 

[Grunt]

17 minutes ago, MormonGator said:

Does the church have a teaching on Noah's flood? 

https://www.lds.org/ensign/1998/01/the-flood-and-the-tower-of-babel?lang=eng

Quote

There is a third group of people—those who accept the literal message of the Bible regarding Noah, the ark, and the Deluge. Latter-day Saints belong to this group. In spite of the world’s arguments against the historicity of the Flood, and despite the supposed lack of geologic evidence, we Latter-day Saints believe that Noah was an actual man, a prophet of God, who preached repentance and raised a voice of warning, built an ark, gathered his family and a host of animals onto the ark, and floated safely away as waters covered the entire earth. We are assured that these events actually occurred by the multiple testimonies of God’s prophets.

 

Here's one.

[Anddenex]

17 minutes ago, MormonGator said:

Does the church have a teaching on Noah's flood? 

Yes, when an individual Church member wants to study more about the flood and Noah this is what the Church teaches. (Source) The doctrine is that a flood happened. The interpretation of the flood and its outcome is provided from an authentic source.

"During Noah’s time the earth was completely covered with water." That is the current teaching of the Church. (emphasis added)

Members though, as you already know MG, are able to believe or reject what they want. God will totally allow them to believe anything and everything they want. We do however, as members, need to specify what is taught.

Fortunately for you, your family would have been fine during a flood, as you are part of the oldest living species on earth, except you guys are a lot smaller than you used to be

 

[Guest MormonGator]

3 minutes ago, Grunt said:

https://www.lds.org/ensign/1998/01/the-flood-and-the-tower-of-babel?lang=eng

Here's one.

Still not sure it's official teaching, but I guess I have to resign because alas, I don't really believe in a literal flood.

 

[Guest MormonGator]

1 minute ago, Anddenex said:

as you are part of the oldest living species on earth,

We're also the smartest and best looking.