ScienceWhopper:Natural History According to Jeffrey Holland

[_Jersey Girl]

Steelhead

And don't tell me that it was a local flood. That is not supported by the narrative

Neither is a global flood. What's your point?

[_SteelHead]

My point is to disallow the "weasel out" option of saying "ah, but the flood was local." The Bible states all life on the face of the Earth, so let the literalists defend it. I'm not defending it, not today.

[_Jersey Girl]

My point is to disallow the "weasel out" option of saying "ah, but the flood was local." The Bible states all life on the face of the Earth, so let the literalists defend it. I'm not defending it, not today.

You couldn't defend it by that statement if you wanted to. The "face of the Earth" has not a damn thing to do with the "globe", SteelHead.

[_DrW]

What does this have to do with the Biblical record?

Well, for one thing, it shows that the Biblical record is nothing but baseless mythology in many ways, including the claimed multi-century lifespans of humans before the "Flood" ( in an era some 4000 years ago).

Specifically, it shows that average life expectancies did not get exceed 30 years from the Upper Paleolithic era (starting some 50,000 years ago) until the classical Roman period starting around 300 BCE.

Claimed human lifespans of hundreds of years are just silly. And please don't try to argue great differences in human genetics from that time to this, or that that the human genome has somehow "degenerated" resulting in shorter lifespans in the last 4000 years or so, because science can blow that claim out of the water as well.

[_SteelHead]

My point is to disallow the "weasel out" option of saying "ah, but the flood was local." The Bible states all life on the face of the Earth, so let the literalists defend it. I'm not defending it, not today.

You couldn't defend it by that statement if you wanted to. The "face of the Earth" has not a damn thing to do with the "globe", SteelHead.

Now correct me if I am wrong (and I may well be) but do "every living substance that I have made will
I destroy from off of the face of the Earth"

and

"And the water prevailed exceedingly upon the earth, and all the high hills, that were under the whole heaven, were covered.

Fifteen cubits upward did the waters prevail; and the mountains were covered."

Not seem pretty ALL inclusive?

[_Jersey Girl]

SH

Now correct me if I am wrong (and I may well be) but do "every living substance that I have made will
I destroy from off of the face of the Earth"

and

"And the water prevailed exceedingly upon the earth, and all the high hills, that were under the whole heaven, were covered.

Fifteen cubits upward did the waters prevail; and the mountains were covered."

Not seem pretty ALL inclusive?

You're wrong.

[_DrW]

SH

Now correct me if I am wrong (and I may well be) but do "every living substance that I have made will
I destroy from off of the face of the Earth"

and

"And the water prevailed exceedingly upon the earth, and all the high hills, that were under the whole heaven, were covered.

Fifteen cubits upward did the waters prevail; and the mountains were covered."

Not seem pretty ALL inclusive?

You're wrong.

Think I'll go make some popcorn.

[_SteelHead]

Ok, then correct my errant thinking. Please elucidate.

And by way of clarification what I am asking is show that the Biblical record speaks of a local flood. I know that geologically there were numerous large flood events at diverse times across the globe.

Shoot and by way of more clarification, if you are arguing for a local flood (in regards to the flood of Noah) and are LDS, then how did Noah get from somewhere in the vicinity of Jackson County Mo. to the middle east?

[_Themis]

You couldn't defend it by that statement if you wanted to. The "face of the Earth" has not a damn thing to do with the "globe", SteelHead.

It does to those who view it literally.

[Guest]

Hoops I'll make your argument for you.

You'll reference:

1 Gen 30 And to every beast of the earth, and to every fowl of the air, and to every thing that creepeth upon the earth, wherein there is life, I have given every green herb for meat: and it was so.

And

Gen 9 3 Every moving thing that liveth shall be meat for you; even as the green herb have I given you all things.


The problem is Genesis 9:3 only speaks to Noah and his progeny. So while we can argue that all animals were vegetarians in Eden

Gen 6 11 The earth also was corrupt before God, and the earth was filled with violence.

12 And God looked upon the earth, and, behold, it was corrupt; for all flesh had corrupted his way upon the earth.

Indicates that animals were performing violence on animals. The Bible does not definitively state that carnivores were not carnivores till after the flood, as it does not clarify when animals made the transition.

Which is neither here nor there when arguing the whole mess in the face of science. Big cats can't survive in the wild on vegetarian diets. There are nutrients that they need that are only found in meat. So either their physiology changed or the composition of plants changed, either way requires divine intervention.

And Gen 1:30 while giving the green herbs to the animals does not specifically proscribe them from eating meat. While in the garden, while there was no death (death being defined as the death of things with blood) this (the consumption of non-living things) makes sense. But, once the fall occurred and death came into the living beings with blood it became possible for the carnivores to be carnivores. So there is no definitive biblical statement that carnivores did not exist until after the flood.