What do you think about pre Adamites?


BJ64
 Share

Recommended Posts

16 minutes ago, BJ64 said:

I didn’t attempt to imply that Adam was born to a mortal woman. Why would anyone even think that was the case? Adam was born as an immortal being and as such his parents had to be immortal.

Jesus in the other hand was born of a mortal woman. The “only begotten” by God in such a manner. Jesus was born half immortal and as such could die or not, it was his choice to die as a sacrifice for our sins. 

Adam however was immortal until the fall at which time he became mortal and subject to death. 

I appear to have misread your initial response.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 hours ago, Traveler said:

Beyond carbon dating there are a number of geologic episodes that help to establish time periods:

Cretaceous, Jurassic, Triassic, Mesozoic, Permian, Late Triassic, Late Jurassic, Cenozoic and Paleogene.    These geologic times are well defined, not just by fauna fossilization  but flora fossilization as well.   Besides carbon dating there is strata dating based on the different layers created globally at parallel matching times.   Do you think, from the raw data, that it is possible to conclude that several eras of fauna and flora classifications previously existed globally?  Do you think that geological projections based on current era stratification creation projections are reasonable to establish preceding era stratification creation?  For example, how long would it take to create similar organic strata in the current wettest existing tropical rain forest – then using such projection to measure stratification?

Another example – In Alaska, it is very visible (empirical) to see recent glacial recession and how quickly with ample rain fall various flora can alter an eco-system.  In other words how long before moss and likins growth can produce enough soil for sufficient trees to establish a forest with old growth trees?

It is my impression that your opinion that all such geological stratification that include fauna is possible within the time period that man (Adam) has existed on earth (roughly 6,000) years.  Do you have any reference to justify such rational?

Thanks

 

The Traveler

It's all conjecture, that's my point. There isn't "empirical" evidence to solidify dates as factual.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 hours ago, Anddenex said:

It appears you may have misunderstood Scott's response. The quote mentions Adam being born of a woman.

The title of "only begotten" is that Jesus is the "only begotten" of the Father. Adam was not begotten of the Father. These two ideas do not contradict. Now if Scott's quote said Adam was born of God the Father, then the question makes sense, but he didn't.

 

Luke 3:38 Which was the son of Enos, which was the son of Seth, which was the son of Adam, which was the son of God....

If Adam was born the same way Jesus was, Jesus would not be the "only" begotten.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Searching said:

 

Luke 3:38 Which was the son of Enos, which was the son of Seth, which was the son of Adam, which was the son of God....

If Adam was born the same way Jesus was, Jesus would not be the "only" begotten.  

http://josephsmithfoundation.org/faqs/science/11-adams-father-who-was-the-father-of-adam-do-we-have-a-royal-heritage/

Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 hours ago, Rob Osborn said:

It's all conjecture, that's my point. There isn't "empirical" evidence to solidify dates as factual.

Ah - I see - the old, nothing is real argument - everything is just conjecture.  I would never have thought you to be a nothing is real and truth is relative and conjecture kind of thinker.  Thanks for clarifying.

 

The Traveler

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, Searching said:

 

Luke 3:38 Which was the son of Enos, which was the son of Seth, which was the son of Adam, which was the son of God....

If Adam was born the same way Jesus was, Jesus would not be the "only" begotten.  

Adam was not born the same way as Jesus. Jesus is the offspring of God the Father (immortal) and Mary (mortal). Yes Christ is/was the "only" begotten of the Father. Otherwise Adam would have been able to say "no" unto death, which he could not.

We are all sons and daughters of God.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

According to B.Young, adam and eva came from another world. They were perfect and immortal. They had forgotten everything. After the fruit they became mortal.
Young said there is no other way to give life than natural pregnancy.
adam and eva did not originate on this earth.
life only comes from life.
from clay no life can arise.
that is very clear.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Traveler said:

Ah - I see - the old, nothing is real argument - everything is just conjecture.  I would never have thought you to be a nothing is real and truth is relative and conjecture kind of thinker.  Thanks for clarifying.

 

The Traveler

That's not what I am saying. I am just stating that opinions as for dates of millions of years ago isn't nor can be empirical.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

17 hours ago, Rob Osborn said:

That's not what I am saying. I am just stating that opinions as for dates of millions of years ago isn't nor can be empirical.

Pleas allow me to probe your answer - Do you believe general relativity is empirical or conjecture opinion.  Do you believe the laws of thermal dynamics are empirical or conjecture opinion?  And one last question - are the promptings of the spirit empirical or conjecture opinion?

 

The Traveler

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Traveler said:

Pleas allow me to probe your answer - Do you believe general relativity is empirical or conjecture opinion.  Do you believe the laws of thermal dynamics are empirical or conjecture opinion?  And one last question - are the promptings of the spirit empirical or conjecture opinion?

 

The Traveler

Fuzzy gray questions. Let me answer this way-

There is empirical evidence that the flow of water causes erosion. Theories as to how fast and how destructive over time are theories based on the empirical fact of erosion.

In the theory of general relativity we know, or can observe the effects of gravity on light. It's an empirical fact that masses effect light and travel. As to how and why? Well, thus why you have the "theory" of general relativity.

Promptings of the spirit cannot be independently observed as of yet to be documented. They are not empirical. Let's say for example a driver has the promptings to suddenly slam on their brakes and in consequence misses running over a child who wandered into the road. The only things empirical here is that the man used his brakes, the child really did wander into the street, etc.

Laws as applied in science such as those in thermodynamics are based off empirical evidence such as- energy is only observed to just transfer from one object or source to another. Energy doesn't spontaneously arise or disappear. This is an observed reality and thus empirical.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

20 hours ago, Rob Osborn said:

Fuzzy gray questions. Let me answer this way-

There is empirical evidence that the flow of water causes erosion. Theories as to how fast and how destructive over time are theories based on the empirical fact of erosion.

In the theory of general relativity we know, or can observe the effects of gravity on light. It's an empirical fact that masses effect light and travel. As to how and why? Well, thus why you have the "theory" of general relativity.

Promptings of the spirit cannot be independently observed as of yet to be documented. They are not empirical. Let's say for example a driver has the promptings to suddenly slam on their brakes and in consequence misses running over a child who wandered into the road. The only things empirical here is that the man used his brakes, the child really did wander into the street, etc.

Laws as applied in science such as those in thermodynamics are based off empirical evidence such as- energy is only observed to just transfer from one object or source to another. Energy doesn't spontaneously arise or disappear. This is an observed reality and thus empirical.

The principles of fluid dynamics is perhaps much more exact than you suggest.  For example cavitation is a product threshold of pressure and fluid speed of motion and can be calculated very preciously.  In a previous post you mentioned your conclusion that the formation of the Grand Canyon could of happened very quickly.  There are at least 4 types of erosion we can empirically identify in the grand canyon - Glacial, cavitation, common fluid flow (river) and wind.  You are spot on about cavitation - most likely that happen in a day or even less.  But the other three require more time - all of which are empirical based on known factors.  Thus empirically we have windows of operation in which each method of erosion could have happened that we can gauge with accuracy when and how things took place.

It is my personal theory that all truth is empirical - including spiritual revelation.  I believe the problem with physical mortality is that we have a very limited scope of tools (senses) we can apply - thus some truths appear to be mystical.   But there is a vast difference between misleading fantasies and mysterious truths.  An example of a mysterious truth is what is called a quantum anomaly - where energy (matter) seems to spontaneously arise or disappear.  Another is called quantum tunneling - this is where energy (matter) moves from one point to another without ever being in between.  In these example there would seem to be some "missing parameter" that in our mortal physical state we do not directly observe (empirical) but can be calculated with 100% accuracy.  I suggest that all revelation from G-d is exact and 100% accurate - but only understood accurately when all the proper parameters are included.   And are only seemingly mystical when something vital to the understanding is missing - not from the empirical evidence but from what an observer is either willing or able to comprehend. 

It would appear from what Jesus taught - that the greater problem lies with what an individual is willing to comprehend rather than able.  I believe G-d wants all truth to be understood and accepted.  Thus I have come to the conclusion that the primary piece of empirical evidence missing from human understanding is the exact and precise empirical evidence of the Holy Ghost.  But there is one other parameter I have left out - and I believe to speak directly in full context is the essence of casting pearls before swine.  In other words - I should not have to list the full context of parameters and to do so would be counterproductive.  Thus it is "my theory" that the greatest deterrent to truth is not the absences of empirical evidence but the willingness (faith) to seek all parameters and accept it.

 

The Traveler

Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 hours ago, Traveler said:

The principles of fluid dynamics is perhaps much more exact than you suggest.  For example cavitation is a product threshold of pressure and fluid speed of motion and can be calculated very preciously.  In a previous post you mentioned your conclusion that the formation of the Grand Canyon could of happened very quickly.  There are at least 4 types of erosion we can empirically identify in the grand canyon - Glacial, cavitation, common fluid flow (river) and wind.  You are spot on about cavitation - most likely that happen in a day or even less.  But the other three require more time - all of which are empirical based on known factors.  Thus empirically we have windows of operation in which each method of erosion could have happened that we can gauge with accuracy when and how things took place.

It is my personal theory that all truth is empirical - including spiritual revelation.  I believe the problem with physical mortality is that we have a very limited scope of tools (senses) we can apply - thus some truths appear to be mystical.   But there is a vast difference between misleading fantasies and mysterious truths.  An example of a mysterious truth is what is called a quantum anomaly - where energy (matter) seems to spontaneously arise or disappear.  Another is called quantum tunneling - this is where energy (matter) moves from one point to another without ever being in between.  In these example there would seem to be some "missing parameter" that in our mortal physical state we do not directly observe (empirical) but can be calculated with 100% accuracy.  I suggest that all revelation from G-d is exact and 100% accurate - but only understood accurately when all the proper parameters are included.   And are only seemingly mystical when something vital to the understanding is missing - not from the empirical evidence but from what an observer is either willing or able to comprehend. 

It would appear from what Jesus taught - that the greater problem lies with what an individual is willing to comprehend rather than able.  I believe G-d wants all truth to be understood and accepted.  Thus I have come to the conclusion that the primary piece of empirical evidence missing from human understanding is the exact and precise empirical evidence of the Holy Ghost.  But there is one other parameter I have left out - and I believe to speak directly in full context is the essence of casting pearls before swine.  In other words - I should not have to list the full context of parameters and to do so would be counterproductive.  Thus it is "my theory" that the greatest deterrent to truth is not the absences of empirical evidence but the willingness (faith) to seek all parameters and accept it.

 

The Traveler

I love truth, I gravitate to it. I am constantly searching for that which is true and in the process detecting that which is false. Nothing bothers me more than deceptive practices in the fields of gaining and teaching knowledge. It seems that much of secularism is political in nature and deception at its finest. I remember going to the Grand Canyon when I was very young. I remember all the stories told to me how all the visible layers were formed and then how they were eroded away. I grew suspect of those stories over the years. Long story short, regardless of how long it took for layers to form and then later to be eroded away, we have a very deceptive system of teaching that uses political and secular motives rather than truly examining facts.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Rob Osborn said:

I love truth, I gravitate to it. I am constantly searching for that which is true and in the process detecting that which is false. Nothing bothers me more than deceptive practices in the fields of gaining and teaching knowledge. It seems that much of secularism is political in nature and deception at its finest. I remember going to the Grand Canyon when I was very young. I remember all the stories told to me how all the visible layers were formed and then how they were eroded away. I grew suspect of those stories over the years. Long story short, regardless of how long it took for layers to form and then later to be eroded away, we have a very deceptive system of teaching that uses political and secular motives rather than truly examining facts.

I am mostly convinced that one of the biggest problems to seeking truth is arriving at a conclusion before concluding the process of discovering possibilities.  I had a problem with cavitation on a hydraulic piston on a robot; then when flying over the Grand Canyon realized that some of the patterns were similar.  But I also noticed that cavitation could not be the only thing going on.  But that was only the beginning of questions rather than an end to answers.  I am convinced that the more someone thinks they know all the answers - the most likely that they did not and are not looking that hard for the truth.

A little example - there are definite "trends" in living things as some kinds of things disappear and new kinds of things appear.  But the differences that are possible if known or possible trends are calculated with probabilities and permutations - it is obvious that something (a critical parameter) is missing concerning evolution and the modern human (and other) species.  It seems the more we learn the more we learn that there are elements missing.  But at the same time - it seems to me that those of religious stripe are less willing to seek out and learn about the missing elements - that they think they have figured out the puzzle and do not care to know what any missing pieces might add for fear that it will interfere with their interpretation of scripture.  And thus it would seem to actually seek truth is a heresy.

 

The Traveler

 

The Traveler

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, Traveler said:

I am mostly convinced that one of the biggest problems to seeking truth is arriving at a conclusion before concluding the process of discovering possibilities.  I had a problem with cavitation on a hydraulic piston on a robot; then when flying over the Grand Canyon realized that some of the patterns were similar.  But I also noticed that cavitation could not be the only thing going on.  But that was only the beginning of questions rather than an end to answers.  I am convinced that the more someone thinks they know all the answers - the most likely that they did not and are not looking that hard for the truth.

A little example - there are definite "trends" in living things as some kinds of things disappear and new kinds of things appear.  But the differences that are possible if known or possible trends are calculated with probabilities and permutations - it is obvious that something (a critical parameter) is missing concerning evolution and the modern human (and other) species.  It seems the more we learn the more we learn that there are elements missing.  But at the same time - it seems to me that those of religious stripe are less willing to seek out and learn about the missing elements - that they think they have figured out the puzzle and do not care to know what any missing pieces might add for fear that it will interfere with their interpretation of scripture.  And thus it would seem to actually seek truth is a heresy.

 

The Traveler

 

The Traveler

Another facet of secularism is a seemingly brainwashing that occurs in that it teaches those who are of a religious conviction won't find the truth. I believe that's what you are saying. The reality though is just the opposite. People of a highly religious conviction have access to truths the secular world laugh and mock at. Back to the Grand Canyon where all the strata is exposed, we can literally see tens of thousands of square miles of sedimentary layers. Secularism teaches these were uniformly laid in rather slow stages of deposit in a constantly encroaching and retreating shallow sea. The problem with this theory is that nowhere on Earth where shallow seas exist do we see evidence of this magnitude. They don't want to discuss it either. They refuse to acknowledge other possibilities that are more probable. Why? Because it may lead to discrediting their paradigm. Now, like I said before, regardless of how long or quick those layers really formed, it doesn't matter. What does matter is that we look at things as they really are, not through the secularists political protocol of advancing their private agendas.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Rob Osborn said:

Another facet of secularism is a seemingly brainwashing that occurs in that it teaches those who are of a religious conviction won't find the truth. I believe that's what you are saying. The reality though is just the opposite. People of a highly religious conviction have access to truths the secular world laugh and mock at. Back to the Grand Canyon where all the strata is exposed, we can literally see tens of thousands of square miles of sedimentary layers. Secularism teaches these were uniformly laid in rather slow stages of deposit in a constantly encroaching and retreating shallow sea. The problem with this theory is that nowhere on Earth where shallow seas exist do we see evidence of this magnitude. They don't want to discuss it either. They refuse to acknowledge other possibilities that are more probable. Why? Because it may lead to discrediting their paradigm. Now, like I said before, regardless of how long or quick those layers really formed, it doesn't matter. What does matter is that we look at things as they really are, not through the secularists political protocol of advancing their private agendas.

Part of my military service was with army intelligence.  My unit was involved in what is called "counter intelligence" which is another term for propaganda or if you will - brain washing.  Perhaps some day we can drill down into greater detail but there are two very effective methods of counter intelligence.  One is playing on fear.  Specifically fear based in unknowns or ignorance.  Perhaps the greatest fear of the unknown in human experience is death and what lies beyond.  This fear of the unknown in death is greatly exploited by the religious community.  You and I both are aware of how Satan has utilized the fear of death to corrupt religion and bring about apostasy.  

The second very effective method is to exploit desires.  Again I do not think we need to debate this method in great detail because we are both aware how Hollywood exploits - especially sexual desires to "brain wash" and change minds.  But I would touch on another desire that corrupts both the scientific and the devout religious minds.  This is the desire of fame and recognition.  I personally believe this to be a greater means of counter intelligence (brain washing) than sexual desires - mostly because of guilt involved in sexual exploitation.   Back to the desire of fame and recognition.  Perhaps the most exploited counter intelligence notion in human history is that of religious salvation - especially that in believing something one has greater advantage than by accomplishing or doing something.  This is one point that greatly separates the religious and scientific community.  It is the primary reason I am concerned when someone says something like, "Is this necessary for my salvation?"  Or when someone touts religious notions (scripture) in an effort to prove scientific (secular) notions.  I see it as similar to someone saying " since I believe in G-d then 4 + 4 must = 10.  and if you disagree then G-d will punish (damn) you when you die"

In short - from what I understand of G-d and religion - I believe G-d to be more tolerant of opinions and more forgiving of deeds.  That is with one caveat that I will call love and charity.  It has been my experience that religious thinkers are less tolerant of secular science than science is tolerant of religious ideas.  Historically, different opinions in religion have been denounced as heresy with serious imposed reactions - that I see clearly as unloving and without charity.   There are many examples.  Science is somewhat different from traditional religion.  In science the traditional ideas are often rejected over time with new updated ideas and notions - but not so; especially with traditional religious notions.

Paramount to Judeo-Christian theology is the concept of "line upon line upon line and precept upon precept upon precept".  But this concept of evolution and learning is absent in most modern religious thinkers - but is prevalent in science.  We are living in a time of greatly increased information.  With greater knowledge should come greater understanding.  I see this evolution in Science and in the theology of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints - but not so much anywhere else.

 

The Traveler

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Traveler said:

Part of my military service was with army intelligence.  My unit was involved in what is called "counter intelligence" which is another term for propaganda or if you will - brain washing.  Perhaps some day we can drill down into greater detail but there are two very effective methods of counter intelligence.  One is playing on fear.  Specifically fear based in unknowns or ignorance.  Perhaps the greatest fear of the unknown in human experience is death and what lies beyond.  This fear of the unknown in death is greatly exploited by the religious community.  You and I both are aware of how Satan has utilized the fear of death to corrupt religion and bring about apostasy.  

The second very effective method is to exploit desires.  Again I do not think we need to debate this method in great detail because we are both aware how Hollywood exploits - especially sexual desires to "brain wash" and change minds.  But I would touch on another desire that corrupts both the scientific and the devout religious minds.  This is the desire of fame and recognition.  I personally believe this to be a greater means of counter intelligence (brain washing) than sexual desires - mostly because of guilt involved in sexual exploitation.   Back to the desire of fame and recognition.  Perhaps the most exploited counter intelligence notion in human history is that of religious salvation - especially that in believing something one has greater advantage than by accomplishing or doing something.  This is one point that greatly separates the religious and scientific community.  It is the primary reason I am concerned when someone says something like, "Is this necessary for my salvation?"  Or when someone touts religious notions (scripture) in an effort to prove scientific (secular) notions.  I see it as similar to someone saying " since I believe in G-d then 4 + 4 must = 10.  and if you disagree then G-d will punish (damn) you when you die"

In short - from what I understand of G-d and religion - I believe G-d to be more tolerant of opinions and more forgiving of deeds.  That is with one caveat that I will call love and charity.  It has been my experience that religious thinkers are less tolerant of secular science than science is tolerant of religious ideas.  Historically, different opinions in religion have been denounced as heresy with serious imposed reactions - that I see clearly as unloving and without charity.   There are many examples.  Science is somewhat different from traditional religion.  In science the traditional ideas are often rejected over time with new updated ideas and notions - but not so; especially with traditional religious notions.

Paramount to Judeo-Christian theology is the concept of "line upon line upon line and precept upon precept upon precept".  But this concept of evolution and learning is absent in most modern religious thinkers - but is prevalent in science.  We are living in a time of greatly increased information.  With greater knowledge should come greater understanding.  I see this evolution in Science and in the theology of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints - but not so much anywhere else.

 

The Traveler

Secularism isnt tolerant to religious ideas at all, especially if it involves discussion on origins and our divinity. Secularism wants to dumb us down, relegate us with animals, and mute any voice that speaks up against secularism. Institutions such as the NCSE were purposefully put in place to silence religious ideas on the public stage. Science as defined by scholars and supported by them has increasingly become more secular. It creeps into all institutions. All truth should lead to God. Science is increasingly against tge concept of God and divine purpose. Thats reality.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Rob Osborn said:

Secularism isnt tolerant to religious ideas at all, especially if it involves discussion on origins and our divinity. Secularism wants to dumb us down, relegate us with animals, and mute any voice that speaks up against secularism. Institutions such as the NCSE were purposefully put in place to silence religious ideas on the public stage. Science as defined by scholars and supported by them has increasingly become more secular. It creeps into all institutions. All truth should lead to God. Science is increasingly against tge concept of God and divine purpose. Thats reality.

This has not been my experience.  I would say the large majority of atheists I have encountered did not start out trying to disprove G-d but in discovery or principles were denounced by the religious community and told that their discoveries would mean that there is no G-d especially by the young earth religious community.  I once had a public debate with Chris Allen (the president of the Utah chapter of Atheists) concerning the existence of G-d.  After exchanging various arguments I ask him to describe the attributes of the G-d in which he could not believe.  It took a while to put this point across - but once Chris described the G-d in which he does not believe - I conceded the argument - My response was that I could not possibly believe in such a being either.

In general there seems to be an idea that we ascribe to G-d that which we (mankind) cannot understand or explain with current evidences.  Most religious arguments I have encountered about G-d and creation amount to -- no one can explain this or how it happened so without other explanation it proves that G-d did it - since whatever exist; without any other reasonable explanation.  So then some scientist comes up with an reasonable explanation based in solid principles of physics - the religious community gets all upset thinking that to understand something based in natural observable principle means there is no G-d doing it all by divine un-explainable magic.  For this reason many (most in my experience) in the scientific community - rather than argue with ignorance - just declare themselves atheists and forgo explaining things that are consistently denied in ignorance or partial ignorance.  

I have always believed that the more truth someone understand - the more they will understand G-d because I believe G-d is a G-d of truth.  But I would also add that there is no truth that can exist that will be understood unless manifested by the Holy Ghost.

 

The Traveler

Link to comment
Share on other sites

45 minutes ago, Traveler said:

This has not been my experience.  I would say the large majority of atheists I have encountered did not start out trying to disprove G-d but in discovery or principles were denounced by the religious community and told that their discoveries would mean that there is no G-d especially by the young earth religious community.  I once had a public debate with Chris Allen (the president of the Utah chapter of Atheists) concerning the existence of G-d.  After exchanging various arguments I ask him to describe the attributes of the G-d in which he could not believe.  It took a while to put this point across - but once Chris described the G-d in which he does not believe - I conceded the argument - My response was that I could not possibly believe in such a being either.

In general there seems to be an idea that we ascribe to G-d that which we (mankind) cannot understand or explain with current evidences.  Most religious arguments I have encountered about G-d and creation amount to -- no one can explain this or how it happened so without other explanation it proves that G-d did it - since whatever exist; without any other reasonable explanation.  So then some scientist comes up with an reasonable explanation based in solid principles of physics - the religious community gets all upset thinking that to understand something based in natural observable principle means there is no G-d doing it all by divine un-explainable magic.  For this reason many (most in my experience) in the scientific community - rather than argue with ignorance - just declare themselves atheists and forgo explaining things that are consistently denied in ignorance or partial ignorance.  

I have always believed that the more truth someone understand - the more they will understand G-d because I believe G-d is a G-d of truth.  But I would also add that there is no truth that can exist that will be understood unless manifested by the Holy Ghost.

 

The Traveler

Perhaps some religionists chalk up unknowns to God just does it. Where the rubber meets the road is that for folks like myself, things like the Grand Canyon as explained by secularism just doesn't make sense. It's as if they just make these things up, quickly move to the next theory and hope no one seriously uses their brain to figure out how utterly ridiculous their stories are. Catastrophism theory perfectly explains things like the Grand Canyon. But, the scientific community for the most part don't want to hear it. Why? Because the Bible may actually be right, and they can't live with that reality. They have their god, the very face of atheism, they don't want Him, the true God in any of their work. Why, because atheism is the new god of their worship and it's paycheck is the honor and pride of man. It's the honest truth.

Edited by Rob Osborn
Link to comment
Share on other sites

52 minutes ago, Rob Osborn said:

Perhaps some religionists chalk up unknowns to God just does it. Where the rubber meets the road is that for folks like myself, things like the Grand Canyon as explained by secularism just doesn't make sense. It's as if they just make these things up, quickly move to the next theory and hope no one seriously uses their brain to figure out how utterly ridiculous their stories are. Catastrophism theory perfectly explains things like the Grand Canyon. But, the scientific community for the most part don't want to hear it. Why? Because the Bible may actually be right, and they can't live with that reality. They have their god, the very face of atheism, they don't want Him, the true God in any of their work. Why, because atheism is the new god of their worship and it's paycheck is the honor and pride of man. It's the honest truth.

What Catastrophic event do you think formed the Grand Canyon with vastly meandering turns in solid rock (which contain fossils of once living creatures over 1,000 feet deep - and when are you sure such an event took place (based on what geological clock - or Biblical records of demonstrable events)?

 

The Traveler

Edited by Traveler
Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, Traveler said:

What Catastrophic event do you think formed the Grand Canyon with vastly meandering turns in solid rock (which contain fossils of once living creatures over 1,000 feet deep - and when are you sure such an event took place (based on what geological clock - or Biblical records of demonstrable events)?

 

The Traveler

First, the layers exposed are rather interesting. We see a glimpse of many layers, some hundreds of feet deep. What's astounding is that these same layers span vast parts of the continent. In natural circumstances such as annual uniform erosion events carrying sedimentary out to sea we see small un uniform layers. But, in the GC that's not what we see at all.what we see is evidence of large and vast sedimentary deposits that certainly must have layed down rather quickly. Otherwise, you don't get the rather generally uniform layers that span thousands, even tens upon tens of thousands of square miles. But, the real problem here is that the deposits themselves had to come from a rather single source otherwise it just mixes all up and you don't get uniform thick layers. That's problematic in the uniformatarian model because you are talking about a mountain, or uplift source so large and vast it's rather unfathomable.  You are talking billions upon billions, even hundreds of billions of square yards of uniform sediment. Where did it come from? Even a single set of mountains eroding cannot even compare to a single percent of what a single layer of sandstone sediment amounts to. In fact, we know from experiment, even simple elementary science, that layers such as we see in the GC only lay down in flood events. A glass jar with different sefiments all shooken up with water and then as the sefiments fall and settle it makes rather uniform thick layers. This is more akin to what we see in the GC.

The erosion of the GC probably, or more than likely, happened mostly rather quickly at some time in the past. Large and vast waters and lakes were released as rapid uplift of the land was happening that carved out the GC in a series of catastrophic events. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 hours ago, Rob Osborn said:

First, the layers exposed are rather interesting. We see a glimpse of many layers, some hundreds of feet deep. What's astounding is that these same layers span vast parts of the continent. In natural circumstances such as annual uniform erosion events carrying sedimentary out to sea we see small un uniform layers. But, in the GC that's not what we see at all.what we see is evidence of large and vast sedimentary deposits that certainly must have layed down rather quickly. Otherwise, you don't get the rather generally uniform layers that span thousands, even tens upon tens of thousands of square miles. But, the real problem here is that the deposits themselves had to come from a rather single source otherwise it just mixes all up and you don't get uniform thick layers. That's problematic in the uniformatarian model because you are talking about a mountain, or uplift source so large and vast it's rather unfathomable.  You are talking billions upon billions, even hundreds of billions of square yards of uniform sediment. Where did it come from? Even a single set of mountains eroding cannot even compare to a single percent of what a single layer of sandstone sediment amounts to. In fact, we know from experiment, even simple elementary science, that layers such as we see in the GC only lay down in flood events. A glass jar with different sefiments all shooken up with water and then as the sefiments fall and settle it makes rather uniform thick layers. This is more akin to what we see in the GC.

The erosion of the GC probably, or more than likely, happened mostly rather quickly at some time in the past. Large and vast waters and lakes were released as rapid uplift of the land was happening that carved out the GC in a series of catastrophic events. 

 

Interestingly I was involved in a 4 wheel expedition into the GC following the old Mormon pioneer trail that connected Mesa Arizona to the Saint George Temple.  Mixed among the rock is very dark black rock.  This dark rock is volcanic.  We know where these came from because there is a reason they are called volcanic.  They only come from volcanos.  There is some lava flows but mostly the volcanic rock is scattered in bolder form.  We also know that a great deal of the volcanic rock has been eroded from rain runoff.  This accounts for the black streaks on the canyon walls.   

There is a difference between mountain building from continental drift (collision) and volcanic eruption.   Continental drift (fault lines) are very common in Southern Utah – but the volcanic activity appears to be very old in comparison.  There also appears to have been an ancient lake – called lake Bonneville – likely responsible for the old deep water sediments. 

In my previous post I mentioned cavitation.   Cavitation is by definition quick and could only come from the draining of an inland sea like Bonneville.    But not from upwelling of land mass.  The reason is because the water would move off in relatively straight lines.  However, if a lake was drained from the bottom then cavitation occurs causing circular patters ripped from solid rock.  This has been seen when dams have opened up from the bottom.  This also causes “U” patterns rather than “V” patters that are formed by river flow.  Glacial flow acts more like a river and is famous for creating fjords – not quite what we see wondering around in the GC.  

I can agree that the GC was shaped very quickly and perhaps not so long ago (within 20,000 years) – but the rock from which the GC was carved – I am hard pressed with the idea that the very different kinds and types of rock were created all at the same time less than 10,000 years ago.

 

The Traveler

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...

Doctrine and Coventants 77:6  Q. What are we to understand by the book which John saw, which was sealed on the back with seven seals?

 A. We are to understand that it contains the revealed will, mysteries, and the works of God; the hidden things of his economy concerning this earth during the seven thousand years of its continuance, or its temporal existence.

7  Q. What are we to understand by the seven seals with which it was sealed?

A.      We are to understand that the first seal contains the things of the first thousand years, and the second also of the second thousand years, and so on until the seventh.

 

These verses don’t directly address the question of whether or not there were pre-Adamites, but it does suggest to me that if there were, God wasn’t terribly interested in them, or if He was, then He doesn’t seem to have any much will and mysteries and hidden things concerning them. They seem to be treated in an entirely different way from the post Adamites.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
 Share