Where are the current ripples from Noah's Flood?

[dlamberth]

I’d actually prefer you didn’t answer for me.

I'm so sorry. I'm just caught up in the conversation as a whole. I'm not at all trying to answer for you. What I was responding to was so completely in left field I couldn't help myself. But also, this is more or less a free form forum. So I didn't realize what I was responding to was for you alone. Going forward I'll try to stay away from anything your involved with.

 

[AV1611VET]

The story is quite interesting with a lot of skepticism and denial at first.

Don't get me wrong.

I will not deny that an asteroid, or meteor, or comet, or whatever it was hit the earth and made a mess.

If science says it happened, then I'll take their word for it.

But what I will deny, is when science says it happened.

 

[Zaha Torte]

Uniformitarianism. Even if we conclude the miraculous nature of the Noahic Flood as described in Genesis, since it acted on the world, the world would have reacted in a way that we know the world would react to a flood.

Why do you assume that the Earth then would react the same as the Earth today?

Why do you assume that the Deluge is comparable to any floods we would know or recognize today?

Now this bit makes no sense to me. Are you saying that we would be damned IF we found evidence of the Flood as described in Genesis?

Any method of discovering the truths of God outside of the witness of the Holy Spirit would most certainly damn all those who are not yet prepared to receive the Word of God.

Even though some people claim that to believe in a 100% literal Bible means believing 100% in the Flood account, and for many people to accept that, they'd require actual evidence.

The witness of the Holy Spirit is a witness surer than sight.

I am confused by your line of reasoning.

I am not surprised by this. Most people do not consider the doctrine when they are not motivated by a sincere search for truth.

 

[Astrid]

I'm so sorry. I'm just caught up in the conversation as a whole. I'm not at all trying to answer for you. What I was responding to was so completely in left field I couldn't help myself. But also, this is more or less a free form forum. So I didn't realize what I was responding to was for you alone. Going forward I'll try to stay away from anything your involved with.

No, it’s just said person’s silly quips that i dont
wish to encourage.

i appreciate your posts and welcome your responses.
FFIG! ( free form is good)

No apology applies!

 

[AV1611VET]

Why do you assume that the Deluge is comparable to any floods we would know or recognize today?

Because that's not an option available for empiricists.

If it can't be appraised, assessed, calibrated, collated, computed, concatenated, evaluated, gauged, quantified, specified, tested and retested, or something they can put down on paper and make stick after 30+ tries, it didn't happen.

Unless -- of course -- it's what they call a "singularity."

But miracles?

Out of the question!

 

[Hans Blaster]

Why do you assume that the Earth then would react the same as the Earth today?

Because physics hasn't changed.

Why do you assume that the Deluge is comparable to any floods we would know or recognize today?

It is true that there are no rains everywhere on the planet for even a moment, let alone days and days in a row.

Any method of discovering the truths of God outside of the witness of the Holy Spirit would most certainly damn all those who are not yet prepared to receive the Word of God.

The witness of the Holy Spirit is a witness surer than sight.

I am not surprised by this. Most people do not consider the doctrine when they are not motivated by a sincere search for truth.

None of this is related to current ripples.

 

[AV1611VET]

No, it’s just said person’s silly quips that i don't wish to encourage.

I don't need encouragement to make silly quips.

If you think I'm bad here, you should see me in real life.

I can barely tie my shoes.

(And I'm not kidding, either.)

 

[AV1611VET]

It is true that there are no rains everywhere on the planet for even a moment, let alone days and days in a row.

God must have promised He wouldn't do it again.

Then sealed that promise with a rainbow.

 

[Zaha Torte]

Because that's not an option available for empiricists.

If it can't be appraised, assessed, calibrated, collated, computed, concatenated, evaluated, gauged, quantified, specified, tested and retested, it didn't happen.

Unless -- of course -- it's what they call a "singularity."

Or something they can put down on paper and make it stick after thirty tries.

But miracles?

Out of the question!

It was a miracle and an act of supreme mercy.

I am a Latter-day Saint - this website does not consider me to be a Christian - and even though my Church does not have official stance about all the facts concerning Noah, the Ark and the Flood (other than they existed, and the events happened) - men I have come to believe were prophets have made some claims about it that I have found to be very interesting.

The Prophet Joseph Smith Jr once compared the Flood to a baptism by immersion for the Earth.

He said that a person - after being baptized by water - is also baptized with fire and the Holy Ghost.

This is not literal fire - but the gift of the Holy Ghost - such as the Apostles experienced on the Day of Pentecost.

He then claimed that the Earth itself would one day be baptized and cleansed in fire - like the Holy Ghost.

A century later - a descendant of his - Joseph F. Smith - also a prophet - was asked about again about this cleansing fire - if it would be literal fire or of a more spiritual nature - like the Holy Ghost.

He claimed that the Earth's baptism by fire would not be of literal fire - just like how its water baptism was not by literal water.

No more has really been said about the Flood event by leaders of my Church - outside that it happened as recorded.

 

[Zaha Torte]

Because physics hasn't changed.

The Earth fell from Her paradisaical glory after Man partook of the Fruit and left the Garden.

The mortal Earth we know today was not how She was in the beginning - and the changes for Her - as well as for Adam and Eve - were gradual - even if they were of a different scale.

It is true that there are no rains everywhere on the planet for even a moment, let alone days and days in a row.

You believe that the Biblical narrative claims that it rained everywhere on Earth at the same moment? Why?

None of this is related to current ripples.

Yet it was all relevant to the question that was asked of me.

You realize that I am having a conversation with this other CF member - right?

 

[AV1611VET]

It was a miracle and an act of supreme mercy.

Indeed it was.

I am a Latter-day Saint - this website does not consider me to be a Christian - and even though my Church does not have official stance about all the facts concerning Noah, the Ark and the Flood (other than they existed, and the events happened) - men I have come to believe were prophets have made some claims about it that I have found to be very interesting.

Please understand that I don't subscribe to Mormon theology.

Suffice it to say though, that we're on the same page here as to the Flood being a miracle; as opposed to it being a natural event.

 

[Zaha Torte]

Indeed it was.



Please understand that I don't subscribe to Mormon theology.

Suffice it to say though, that we're on the same page here as to the Flood being a miracle; as opposed to it being a natural event.

Good.

And not to be "that guy" - but we prefer to be called Latter-day Saints.

If you ever wish to ask me any question about my faith - or at least share how we disagree - drop me a message anytime.

 

[AV1611VET]

Good.

And not to be "that guy" - but we prefer to be called Latter-day Saints.

If you ever wish to ask me any question about my faith - or at least share how we disagree - drop me a message anytime.

Will do.

And thanks for the heads up on the name preference!

 

[Hans Blaster]

The Earth fell from Her paradisaical glory after Man partook of the Fruit and left the Garden.

What? How does that change physics? (We have measurements from the distant Universe that indicate that physics hasn't changed from object that existed billions of years ago.)

The mortal Earth we know today was not how She was in the beginning - and the changes for Her - as well as for Adam and Eve - were gradual - even if they were of a different scale.

I'm not sure why you are talking about the "Garden". Your claim the Earth might have reacted differently in "the flood", but "the flood" was hundreds of years after "the fall", not before it. Even if physics changed with "the fall", that would not make it different than now in the time of "the flood".

 

[common prophets]

Except that we kind of have to when certain people say that Noah's flood WAS a truly global flood and they insist there's evidence for it.

I have not seen any credible evidence other than the biblical references about a global flood. So, if we read the Bible carefully, there is no global flood. All it says is that the flood waters were as far as one can see. So, this can be a local flood.

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

Why do you assume that the Earth then would react the same as the Earth today?

There's no reason not to.

Why do you assume that the Deluge is comparable to any floods we would know or recognize today?

Because it would be a flood but one writ large.

Any method of discovering the truths of God outside of the witness of the Holy Spirit would most certainly damn all those who are not yet prepared to receive the Word of God.

Why?

The witness of the Holy Spirit is a witness surer than sight.

Probably so, but the usage of the Bible to talk about Earth's history is very suspect and poorly done all around.

am not surprised by this. Most people do not consider the doctrine when they are not motivated by a sincere search for truth.

And that makes no sense again. Is it wrong to study the Earth, God's own creation, to try and find a closer understanding of God? Does the Earth not proclaim the glory of God?

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

I have not seen any credible evidence other than the biblical references about a global flood. So, if we read the Bible carefully, there is no global flood. All it says is that the flood waters were as far as one can see. So, this can be a local flood.

And again, there are people who claim that the Bible DOES describe a global flood and thus they try and prove it through very poor science.

 

[KevinT]

Chicxulub hit the earth 65 million years ago. Whole mountain ranges have eroded since than. How would anyone expect current ripples to have not eroded as well?

Yes! That is exactly my point. The OP was "how can there have been a flood when we don't see ripples?" My point is that yes, there was a worldwide flood -- albeit long long ago. It's just the timing of the Noah flood story that doesn't match. It is NOT whether or not a flood occurred.

KT

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

Yes! That is exactly my point. The OP was "how can there have been a flood when we don't see ripples?" My point is that yes, there was a worldwide flood -- albeit long long ago. It's just the timing of the Noah flood story that doesn't match. It is NOT whether or not a flood occurred.

KT

Except the historicity doesn't match at all. How could people in the Bronze Age know and write about a flood that occurred 60-odd millions of years before they were around?

 

[KevinT]

The description in Genesis does not match a meteor impact.

Can you expand on this more? I'd like to see the problems with my Chicxulub = Noah's flood theory.

KT