Is science the friend of Mormonism?

[_asbestosman]

Did you completely fail basic high school level science? I'll say this again. NOT ENOUGH WATER ON THE PLANET EARTH TO SUBMERGE ALL THE FRIGGIN LAND!

You know, if God can turn water into wine and a woman into a pillar of salt, then I don't see why He couldn't take the hydrogen and oxygen found in various compounds on the earth (hydrogen from various hydrocarbons (like oils or sugars) and oxygen from various oxides (like rust) and turn them into water to flood the earth. After He was done borrowing that, he could always put them back. Furthermore, God probably understand nuclear physics too and could easily change atoms from one element to another. I mean if He built the sun and the stars, He probably knows how to build oxygen out of other elements.

Plenty of water.

(And no, I don't really believe it worked that way, but I suppose it could have)

[_Sethbag]

Abman, may as well just suggest that the Flood really happened, but God changed everything to make it look like it didn't really happen.

There's no proof that that didn't happen. Just like there's no proof there isn't a teapot orbiting the Sun, as mentioned by Dawkins.

Of course, this same explanation, God changing the evidence, would have to be invoked to explain why the ice sheets of Antarctica and Greenland show annual layers of ice going back hundreds of thousands of years, undisturbed as they must be if they'd actually been flooded 5000 years ago as described in the Bible.

And God would also have had to have altered the face of the earth so that it doesn't bear record of such a global, catastrophic flood having happened. And why the Australian Aborigines appear to have existed for over 40,000 years, right up to their European discovery a few hundred years ago, or why human societies or proto-societies all over the world can be traced back far further than the Biblical Flood timeline. And on, and on, and on.

Guys, give it up. The global Flood simply didn't happen. However you have to modify your faith to deal with that fact, you'd better get started working it out, because that's just the way it is.

[_Dr. Shades]

There is absolutely no evidence, besides your interpretation of an ancient text, that a worldwide flood occurred. In fact, most Mormons with whom I have discussed this, accept it as a localized event.

The "localized flood" is an Internet Mormon response befraught with its own set of problems. For example:

• If the flood was only local, Noah wouldn't have built an ark. He would've simply walked uphill.
• If the flood was only local, Noah wouldn't have gathered up any animals.
• If the flood was only local, then when God put a rainbow in the sky as a token of his promise, then what, exactly, had God just promised to never do again?
• If the flood was only local, then so much for the LDS teaching that the flood was a baptism of the earth by immersion--unless the true form of baptism is only sprinkling.

[_silentkid]

There is absolutely no evidence, besides your interpretation of an ancient text, that a worldwide flood occurred. In fact, most Mormons with whom I have discussed this, accept it as a localized event.

The "localized flood" is an Internet Mormon response befraught with its own set of problems. For example:

• If the flood was only local, Noah wouldn't have built an ark. He would've simply walked uphill.
• If the flood was only local, Noah wouldn't have gathered up any animals.
• If the flood was only local, then when God put a rainbow in the sky as a token of his promise, then what, exactly, had God just promised to never do again?
• If the flood was only local, then so much for the LDS teaching that the flood was a baptism of the earth by immersion--unless the true form of baptism is only sprinkling.

I understand the problems with the localized flood theory from the LDS perspective. I don't think it is reasonable for the same reasons you noted. I wasn't trying to argue for the localized flood theory, I was trying to explain to Gaz that his literal interpretation of Bible events is unreasonable, even in the eyes of many LDS.

[_Doctor Steuss]

The "localized flood" is an Internet Mormon response befraught with its own set of problems.
For example:[*]If the flood was only local, Noah wouldn't have built an ark. He would've simply walked uphill.

Unless he needed to get from Adam-omni-ahma (or whatever the crap it's called) to the "Old World."

[*]If the flood was only local, Noah wouldn't have gathered up any animals.

Maybe, maybe not. G-d is always asking His prophets to do kooky things (like sacrifice their son, wander in the wilderness forever, walk around a city a bunch of times and then blow a trumpet).

[*]If the flood was only local, then when God put a rainbow in the sky as a token of his promise, then what, exactly, had God just promised to never do again?

The promise doesn't make sense in a Global flood context either. He promised not to destroy all flesh again... but He didn't destroy all flesh in the first place. Also, I really doubt that light never passed through water vapor to produce a rainbow before this time.

[*]If the flood was only local, then so much for the LDS teaching that the flood was a baptism of the earth by immersion--unless the true form of baptism is only sprinkling.

Maybe the priesthood witness dude didn't see the "toes" of the earth poking out of the water, and so gave the a-ok anyway.

[_Gazelam]

So in Matthew 24:36-39 Jesus is testifying of a metaphor? In 1st Peter 3:20, hes just testifying of a old wives tale to make his point, right? Shall I go on?

The Flood of Noah was global. Period. Any statement to the contrary is false.

[_Doctor Steuss]

So in Matthew 24:36-39 Jesus is testifying of a metaphor? In 1st Peter 3:20, he's just testifying of a old wives tale to make his point, right?

He seemed to be fond of parables... so why not?

Shall I go on?

If you want. I don't want to break you off if you're on a roll.

The Flood of Noah was global. Period. Any statement to the contrary is false.

Very well. Noah put two of every kind of animal (which I think would need to be species not just kind... unless you think evolution works faster than evolutionists say it does), except for clean animals, which he put 7 of, and food and fodder for all of these animals (an elephant alone eats over 100 pounds of food a day), all in a boat that had the floor space of approximately 21 basketball courts (if one uses a rounded up Roman cubit [which is generous given that the Roman cubit wasn't utilized until the Second Temple period]). All of these animals then dispersed to all of the islands, continents, etc. in a fairly short amount of time (unless you think that Pangaea existed only 6000 years ago).

All things possible with G-d I suppose...

[_moksha]

Did you completely fail basic high school level science? I'll say this again. NOT ENOUGH WATER ON THE PLANET EARTH TO SUBMERGE ALL THE FRIGGIN LAND!

You know, if God can turn water into wine and a woman into a pillar of salt, then I don't see why He couldn't take the hydrogen and oxygen found in various compounds on the earth (hydrogen from various hydrocarbons (like oils or sugars) and oxygen from various oxides (like rust) and turn them into water to flood the earth. After He was done borrowing that, he could always put them back. Furthermore, God probably understand nuclear physics too and could easily change atoms from one element to another. I mean if He built the sun and the stars, He probably knows how to build oxygen out of other elements.

Plenty of water.

(And no, I don't really believe it worked that way, but I suppose it could have)

With such possible explanations, it would perhaps be more faith affirming to those with less fantasy capacity to consider the Genesis story as an allegory.

[_asbestosman]

And God would also have had to have altered the face of the earth so that it doesn't bear record of such a global, catastrophic flood having happened. And why the Australian Aborigines appear to have existed for over 40,000 years, right up to their European discovery a few hundred years ago, or why human societies or proto-societies all over the world can be traced back far further than the Biblical Flood timeline. And on, and on, and on.

What evidence is there that they existed 40,000 years? If it's DNA, I'm sure God can manipulate that too. Or maybe, just maybe, God separated them from us just like He did the city of Enoch. The extra years could be found with some relativity time effects.


Now as to why God might be so tricky with evidence, I do not know. Is God trying to trick us, or are we looking at this under faulty assumptions about how God accomplish His purposes?

[_asbestosman]

and food and fodder for all of these animals (an elephant alone eats over 100 pounds of food a day),

I heard that God put a deep sleep on the animals -- that they were hibernating and therefore didn't require as much food as normal. I also heard that Noah used babies so as to conserve room.


There are also rumors that he patterned the ark after the TARDIS.