ScienceWhopper:Natural History According to Jeffrey Holland

[Guest]

flood layers...
I live in a valley which collected layers of deposits from large but local ice age floods. Layers result when large amounts of water move from one area to another picking up material and then depositing in a slow down area. Not all flood patterns would have that movement transporting material. The material deposited in my home valley is not fossil rich. sand and gravel.

Most creature that die are not preserved. The conditions for fossils are the exception. Deceased creatures must be buried and that buried layer remain undisturbed while being buried deeper and deeper. I one time flood as in the genesis fiction would leave the flood layer thin muddy and ready to be dispersed rather than be buried and preserved. if a flood has a shore then like the shore of lake Bonneville waves leave a clear excavation. If a flood covered all it would not flow to cut sediment, it would not leave shorelines. it could at least imaginatively leave little trace.

Well it would leave a mark in human history if it happened. Human history as I am aware has no trace of such a huge human event. Instead it flows along without such a thing.

[_huckelberry]

What puzzles me is that you believe that something which could only be attributed to a "miraculous act of God" could ever happen at all.

This question has nothing to do with what I posted about the flood story which I view as folklore retold as a theological parable.

However I do believe that God raised Jesus from the dead. That could only happen or be meaningful as a miraculous act of God so in some cases I find those sorts of events to be believable. I am not aware of any proof beyond question that the event happened. However I cannot see that the very fact that a miracle is required would make its occurance illogical or impossible.

Considering the flood I would make the observation that there is serious evidence against it having occured as a historical event. I do not consider the fact that it would require a miracle to be part of that evidence.

Perhaps focusing a little tighter, my original difficulty with the question was that the question accepted the beginning of the story, a mriculous flood, and then tried to exclude miracles at the end, what manner of events can be considered to resolve the crisis. Logically the same kind of events starting the event could resolve it. that's just natural storytelling.

[Guest]

99.9999% of the terrestrial biomass is 560 billion tons of dead stuff. Surely some of that would have left a remnant. In fact it should have left a very obvious layer.

If you inundate water on hillsides, deserts, and other areas not normally subject to a lot of erosion to the point of creating a global ocean I think you end up with more than a thin muddy layer of sediment. You would have had the major relocation of large quantities of material.

A miracle by definition is illogical or impossible. See: virgin birth.

[_Franktalk]

DrW,

I did recall a speech given by Washington in which he mentions God. Here is a part of it.

"Such being the impressions under which I have, in obedience to the public summons, repaired to the present station, it would be peculiarly improper to omit in this first official act my fervent supplications to that Almighty Being who rules over the universe, who presides in the councils of nations, and whose providential aids can supply every human defect, that His benediction may consecrate to the liberties and happiness of the people of the United States a Government instituted by themselves for these essential purposes, and may enable every instrument employed in its administration to execute with success the functions allotted to his charge. In tendering this homage to the Great Author of every public and private good, I assure myself that it expresses your sentiments not less than my own, nor those of my fellow- citizens at large less than either. No people can be bound to acknowledge and adore the Invisible Hand which conducts the affairs of men more than those of the United States."

http://www.famousquotes.me.uk/speeches/ ... ington.htm

Seems to me that he is saying the country owes God. It seems to me that you are a liberal nut job who is trying to change history with your comments. But then again maybe it is an interpretation problem. Why don't you tell me how this reads as a separation of Church and State?

[_SteelHead]

Topic for a different thread. Start another.

[_Hoops]

A miracle by definition is illogical or impossible. See: virgin birth.

Wrong. By definition it is supernatural.

[_Themis]

I'm still waiting for you to start discussing anything, let lone this.

LOL Because it is so hard to discuss with people like yourself wjho know so little of the sciences is why I haven't said much in this thread. You have to be the one to take the time, which is much more then anyone can do for you in this thread, to learn.

That was pretty much the point, wasn't it?

According to a literal interpretation of the story yes, but then the real point went way over your head. I expect this due to your ignorance.

Species is your construct, not the Bibles. The Bible mentions "kinds" and we don't know how disclusive that is.

Again the point goes way over your head.

How does this conflict with the Biblical record?

It conflicts with a literal view of a global flood. If that's is not your view then you are not really that literal in your views of the Bible.

Ignorance is ok, but I think willful ignorance is not.

What level of repopulation are you looking for?

I suggest doing some study about it. Then you might actually realize the problem.

Yes, of course, they don't believe as you so they must be ignorant - even the scientists.

Not at all, but their ignorance is shown by their lack of knowledge when you start talking to them about it. There are many topics they would have more knowledge then me and I would be more ignorant then they on that topic.

It's not. It's neither. I couldn't possibly care less what you think.

So?

You mean you're smarter than you're own parents? And siblings? Wow! You hit the genetic lottery didn't you?

Again, not at all. I am more knowledgeable then they on this, but they are more knowledgeable in other areas. I don't think they are stupid, just ignorant. Being ignorant is is ok, but being willfully ignorant is not.

Smarter, genetically superior, and magnaminous. How do you stand yourself? Could you erect a statue of yourself somewhere so we can all fawn over your greatness?

I suppose saying false things about me is all you can really being to the discussion. Is it a wonder why I and many others don't want to say much when you know they are not interested in learning about it anyway.

[_SteelHead]

Miracle
Noun: An event that appears inexplicable by the laws of nature (hence illogical) and so is held to be supernatural in origin or an act of God (hence impossible for man to perform without divine intervention).

Edits mine.

[Guest]

Seems to me that he is saying the country owes God. It seems to me that you are a liberal nut job who is trying to change history with your comments. But then again maybe it is an interpretation problem. Why don't you tell me how this reads as a separation of Church and State?

Franktalk,

Rather than focus on a single and isolated statement by a one of the Founding Fathers, perhaps we should look at what they actually wrote into the Constitution regarding Church and State. Then we can look at current law as it interprets the constitution. And finally, we could look at the individual personal religious views of the Founding Fathers in case you still don't get it.

The Establishment Clause of the First Amendment prohibits the establishment of a State Religion. The framers of the Constitution had seen and understood what state or state sanctioned religions had done in Europe and wanted no part of it.

Thomas Jefferson was especially dismayed by the corrosive effects of the Catholic Church in France and was determined that Church and State would be separated in the US.

The "Separation of Church and State" is clearly framed in the Constitution, the same one that religionist right wingers claim that nobody understands but them.

As interpreted today, churches can lose their tax exempt status if they participate in any meaningful way in politics. Many believe, for example, that the LDS Church deserved to lose its tax exempt status under this provision due to its criminal involvement in the Prop 8 campaign in California.

Let's look at the religious beliefs of the seven men who are considered the Founding Fathers of the US, and who agreed that Church and State should be kept separate.

Benjamin Franklin was a deist (publicly declared himself a deist in 1771)

Alexander Hamilton was pretty much indifferent to organized religion, making jokes about God at times in public and engaging in "opportunistic religion" when needed.

Thomas Jefferson, of course, was a well known deist, and was quite anti-Catholic.

George Washington was also a deist. He went to Church occasionally but would routinely leave the service before communion.

John Adams was a deist.

John Jay was Anglican and believed that Christians should rule America. That is probably why few people remember John Jay as one of the Founding Fathers.

James Madison helped disestablish the Church of England in the US. He also opposed religious taxes and strongly promoted religious freedom.

In case you don't catch the significance here for the Mormon Church.

Deists typically reject supernatural events such as prophecy and miracles, tending to assert that a god (or "the Supreme Architect") does not alter the universe by (regularly or ever) intervening in the affairs of human life. This idea is also known as the Clockwork universe theory, in which a god designs and builds the universe, but steps aside to let it run on its own. Deists believe in the existence of a god without any reliance on revealed religion, religious authority or holy books. Two main forms of deism currently exist: classical deism and modern deism.

[_Hoops]

Miracle
Noun: An event that appears inexplicable by the laws of nature (hence illogical) and so is held to be supernatural in origin or an act of God (hence impossible for man to perform without divine intervention).

Edits mine.

(hence: not illogical, supernatural.)

(agreed)