Is science the friend of Mormonism?

[_moksha]

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

Rumor also has it that the Nephites may have use a similar method, but of eastern design in their vessel.

Could this have been the Nephite vessel? It could have landed near both Hill Cumorahs.

[_Doctor Steuss]

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

Ok, I think I just popped a stitch. I was definately not expecting that when I clicked on the link.

Oi vey.

[_silentkid]

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

Quite an assertion. Do you have any evidence, other than the ramblings of an ancient text, that this is true? I'll use your logic in the following example: I assert that the earth is flat. The old testament speaks of the "four corners of the earth". We all know that a sphere has no corners. Therefore the earth is flat. Any statement to the contrary is false.

[_Gazelam]

Well if we're going to toss out the text that we get the very idea of the Flood and Noah from in the first place, that states it was a global flood, then I guess the conversation is over.

[_silentkid]

Well if we're going to toss out the text that we get the very idea of the Flood and Noah from in the first place, that states it was a global flood, then I guess the conversation is over.

If you're going to only rely on the text (which I pointed out above is flawed) and ignore all evidence that is contrary to said text, then yes, the conversation is over.

[_Sethbag]

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?

Back 15 or 20 years ago when I was coming to some conclusions with respect to the Flood and other topics which venture into the realm of science, I decided that I simply did not believe that God was trying to fool us, and that if the evidence in the earth looked like something, then it probably was something, and not God fooling us into believing something that was wrong, or trying our faith, or whatever. So if it looked like there were fossils in the ground showing things had lived and died for millions of years, it probably is because things have been living and dying for millions of years. If it looked like Noah's Flood never happened, for a whole plethora of reasons, then it's probably because Noah's Flood never happened.

The decision not to believe that God was fooling us with any of the evidence in the earth made a lot of things a lot easier to deal with. One argument I came up with then, and I'll repeat it now, though I no longer believe in God, went something like this.

God created this earth. The evidence of the earth is therefore God's evidence. It's there because he put it there, and there's no reason to doubt it. The assumption that the evidence left behind in God's handiwork is somehow deceptive or false implies a motive to deceive us on God's part, and that is not an acceptable conclusion to me.

With this argument, I then decided that there's no natural superiority of "the Word of God as written by men claiming to have spoken for God" over "the evidence of God as manifest by his handiwork itself - the earth", and decided that when scripture disagreed with the evidence in the ground, I was going to go with the evidence in the ground.

[_Gazelam]

When all the books of scripture testify of a global flood, then which of these books of scripture are flawed and lying? The first, and all of the prophets from that time forward just bought into it?

[_Sethbag]

I won't say "lying". That's a loaded term, in this context. But yes, all of the scriptures which talk of a global flood are mistaken.

Gazelam, why will you accept the evidence from God's Word in the scriptures, filtered through the minds and pens of man, as opposed to the evidence of the Earth itself, which you believe is God's own handiwork?

[_silentkid]

When all the books of scripture testify of a global flood, then which of these books of scripture are flawed and lying? The first, and all of the prophets from that time forward just bought into it?

The scriptures are flawed with respect to a global flood, god causing the sun to stand still (instead of the earth), the four corners of the earth, etc. Why can't you accept these things as allegory instead of literal truths?

[_Mr. Coffee]

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

Ok, AM, riddle me this... Where did those hydrocarbons come from? Where did all those oxides come from? Where is the geological evidence of very large parts of the Earth's mass suddenly converting into water?

What I'm saying is that there is still not enough material in terms of raw mass to do what you suggest.

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

Then why post something that stupid in the first place?

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? Shall I go on?

Using the Bible to prove the Bible is called "circular reasoning", halfwit. How about you give something in the way of emphirical evidence and stop puking up the KJV at us.