LDS Freedom Forum

The idea that we couldn't have 7 billion people on the earth after a flood wiped out everyone except 8 people is also easily disproven:

https://calculator.academy/population-g ... ator/#f1p1

Start with 8 people. But what is the growth rate? well, somewhere between .6% and .97% is probably a good place to start, since that is what the US census shows:
https://www.census.gov/library/stories/ ... -slow.html
But this only goes back to the 1950's. What about before then? If you look at Medieval Europe from about 1000 A.D - 1600 A.D., growth rate ("guesses") are between .1% - .18%:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Medieval_demography .
But modern USA as a whole is generally on the low side of population increase compared to the rest of the world. What to do? Well, figure lots of wars, starvation, disease would tend to tamp down a normal growth rate over millennia, so go with .4% annually to be conservative.

If I plug in .4% annual growth rate, I get world population increase from 8 people over 5,200 years of around 8 billion people (8,286,985,783), and I'm comfortable with that.

larsenb wrote: ↑April 15th, 2021, 2:38 pm Waaay too extreme on that. Most scientists just follow their interests almost totally outside of the influence of politics, etc. Even most corporate scientists are simply focused on discovering what is. I've worked for oil-gas and gold companies where our job was just to find out where the oil/gas/gold was and its setting, and why it could or could not be extracted. No room for personal bias in these kinds of tasks.

Are they getting paid to look for oil, or are they just out there for fun?

Then I rest my case.

mudflap wrote: ↑April 27th, 2021, 8:10 am The idea that we couldn't have 7 billion people on the earth after a flood wiped out everyone except 8 people is also easily disproven:

https://calculator.academy/population-g ... ator/#f1p1

Start with 8 people. But what is the growth rate? well, somewhere between .6% and .97% is probably a good place to start, since that is what the US census shows:
https://www.census.gov/library/stories/ ... -slow.html
But this only goes back to the 1950's. What about before then? If you look at Medieval Europe from about 1000 A.D - 1600 A.D., growth rate ("guesses") are between .1% - .18%:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Medieval_demography .
But modern USA as a whole is generally on the low side of population increase compared to the rest of the world. What to do? Well, figure lots of wars, starvation, disease would tend to tamp down a normal growth rate over millennia, so go with .4% annually to be conservative.

If I plug in .4% annual growth rate, I get world population increase from 8 people over 5,200 years of around 8 billion people (8,286,985,783), and I'm comfortable with that.

Now that's funny. I had always wondered what the math would look like, if it was possible by the math, to have current pop numbers..... That answers that I got no issue with that math either. Certainly in realm of plausibility for me

mudflap wrote: ↑April 27th, 2021, 8:13 am

larsenb wrote: ↑April 15th, 2021, 2:38 pm Waaay too extreme on that. Most scientists just follow their interests almost totally outside of the influence of politics, etc. Even most corporate scientists are simply focused on discovering what is. I've worked for oil-gas and gold companies where our job was just to find out where the oil/gas/gold was and its setting, and why it could or could not be extracted. No room for personal bias in these kinds of tasks.

Are they getting paid to look for oil, or are they just out there for fun?

Then I rest my case.

See if you can detail your case. People normally get paid for what ever they do professionally. So what. And w/oil and gas or mineral exploration and development, proof is in the pudding. They have to be accurate and unbiased, or their employer will find someone who possesses those characteristics.

And with 'purely' academic research, unless the research field intersects greatly w/politics or making a corporate profit, all the researchers have to satisfy are the opinions/findings of their peers.

larsenb wrote: ↑April 27th, 2021, 10:26 am

mudflap wrote: ↑April 27th, 2021, 8:13 am

larsenb wrote: ↑April 15th, 2021, 2:38 pm Waaay too extreme on that. Most scientists just follow their interests almost totally outside of the influence of politics, etc. Even most corporate scientists are simply focused on discovering what is. I've worked for oil-gas and gold companies where our job was just to find out where the oil/gas/gold was and its setting, and why it could or could not be extracted. No room for personal bias in these kinds of tasks.

Are they getting paid to look for oil, or are they just out there for fun?

Then I rest my case.

See if you can detail your case. People normally get paid for what ever they do professionally. So what. And w/oil and gas or mineral exploration and development, proof is in the pudding. They have to be accurate and unbiased, or their employer will find someone who possesses those characteristics.

And with 'purely' academic research, unless the research field intersects greatly w/politics or making a corporate profit, all the researchers have to satisfy are the opinions/findings of their peers.

well, for one, "everything is political": https://www.quora.com/Where-do-politics ... al?share=1

including oil and gas exploration. Details?

easy: https://www.quora.com/Where-do-politics ... al?share=1

Can you not imagine a situation where a country might lie about it's oil and gas reserves in order to play politics with other countries? I can: either by paying geologists to lie and say they have a lot of reserves (possibly inviting an attack on an unpopular government regime, or probably more hopefully: investment), or paying geologists to lie and say they have none (so they can keep it for themselves for some future date when the price is right).

If you cannot imagine this, you are naïve.

Here's more:

The largest non-state-owned oil company controls only 1.5 percent of the world’s oil reserves

~https://sanangelolive.com/news/business ... s-industry
and

In revising a draft plan for the new assessments, officials played down evidence that the refuge might not have much oil, deleting references to disappointing wells nearby.

They also pushed scientists to provide studies and other information so quickly that some expressed concern over the speed of the process

~https://www.nytimes.com/2019/08/21/us/o ... rctic.html

from the first quote, basically all the oil reserves are owned by government, which are political organizations by nature. The second quote shows that even geologists can be pressured, depending on who's in charge of the gov at the time.

If you can't see how government pressure on scientists can lead to all sorts of questionable data or results, I feel sorry for you.

but scientists would never lie to us

Why do scientists lie? In order of decreasing disingenuousness, the main motives are:

Profit: Sometimes there's money in it -- a lot of money. This may be why, according to Fanelli's report, "surveys conducted among clinical, medical and pharmacological researchers appeared to yield higher rates of misconduct than surveys in other fields" [1].
Laziness and ease of perpetration: It's so much easier to just make up data than to perform all those tedious measurements. And in most cases, no one is going to question you about it.
Career pressure: This is the most common reason. The data isn't going your way and you may fail to get your thesis accepted, or not get tenure, or miss a promotion, or lose your grant or your job.
Pride: Scientists are as hungry for praise and prestige as other mortals. And no one likes to be forced to admit he's wrong. So, when someone contradicts your earlier work, you may be willing to cut a few corners to defend yourself, or to prevent your opponent's paper from being published.
Ideology: Many feel that if a cause is worth dying for, it's worth lying for. As we shall consider below, liberal intellectuals are particularly susceptible to this weakness.

~https://www.americanthinker.com/article ... at_to.html

....so are we back to "not trusting in the arm of flesh" yet?

I mean, I am.

mudflap wrote: ↑April 27th, 2021, 12:43 pm

larsenb wrote: ↑April 27th, 2021, 10:26 am

mudflap wrote: ↑April 27th, 2021, 8:13 am

larsenb wrote: ↑April 15th, 2021, 2:38 pm Waaay too extreme on that. Most scientists just follow their interests almost totally outside of the influence of politics, etc. Even most corporate scientists are simply focused on discovering what is. I've worked for oil-gas and gold companies where our job was just to find out where the oil/gas/gold was and its setting, and why it could or could not be extracted. No room for personal bias in these kinds of tasks.

Are they getting paid to look for oil, or are they just out there for fun?

Then I rest my case.

See if you can detail your case. People normally get paid for what ever they do professionally. So what. And w/oil and gas or mineral exploration and development, proof is in the pudding. They have to be accurate and unbiased, or their employer will find someone who possesses those characteristics.

And with 'purely' academic research, unless the research field intersects greatly w/politics or making a corporate profit, all the researchers have to satisfy are the opinions/findings of their peers.

well, for one, "everything is political": https://www.quora.com/Where-do-politics ... al?share=1

including oil and gas exploration. Details?

easy: https://www.quora.com/Where-do-politics ... al?share=1

Can you not imagine a situation where a country might lie about it's oil and gas reserves in order to play politics with other countries? I can: either by paying geologists to lie and say they have a lot of reserves (possibly inviting an attack on an unpopular government regime, or probably more hopefully: investment), or paying geologists to lie and say they have none (so they can keep it for themselves for some future date when the price is right).

If you cannot imagine this, you are naïve.

Here's more:

The largest non-state-owned oil company controls only 1.5 percent of the world’s oil reserves

~https://sanangelolive.com/news/business ... s-industry
and

In revising a draft plan for the new assessments, officials played down evidence that the refuge might not have much oil, deleting references to disappointing wells nearby.

They also pushed scientists to provide studies and other information so quickly that some expressed concern over the speed of the process

~https://www.nytimes.com/2019/08/21/us/o ... rctic.html

from the first quote, basically all the oil reserves are owned by government, which are political organizations by nature. The second quote shows that even geologists can be pressured, depending on who's in charge of the gov at the time.

If you can't see how government pressure on scientists can lead to all sorts of questionable data or results, I feel sorry for you.

but scientists would never lie to us

Why do scientists lie? In order of decreasing disingenuousness, the main motives are:

Profit: Sometimes there's money in it -- a lot of money. This may be why, according to Fanelli's report, "surveys conducted among clinical, medical and pharmacological researchers appeared to yield higher rates of misconduct than surveys in other fields" [1].
Laziness and ease of perpetration: It's so much easier to just make up data than to perform all those tedious measurements. And in most cases, no one is going to question you about it.
Career pressure: This is the most common reason. The data isn't going your way and you may fail to get your thesis accepted, or not get tenure, or miss a promotion, or lose your grant or your job.
Pride: Scientists are as hungry for praise and prestige as other mortals. And no one likes to be forced to admit he's wrong. So, when someone contradicts your earlier work, you may be willing to cut a few corners to defend yourself, or to prevent your opponent's paper from being published.
Ideology: Many feel that if a cause is worth dying for, it's worth lying for. As we shall consider below, liberal intellectuals are particularly susceptible to this weakness.

~https://www.americanthinker.com/article ... at_to.html

....so are we back to "not trusting in the arm of flesh" yet?

I mean, I am.

Strange effort.

You’re welcome to imagine whatever you want to imagine. I’ve already said that trouble can arise when science intersects with politics or is at the service of very corrupt profit centers.

But by far, most science doesn’t suffer from this burden. Even the scientists researching oil and gas or mineral deposits have to be very accurate in their assessments, or they won't last long.

Strange because?

I think it's your turn to provide facts proving that "most science doesn't suffer from this burden" (intersecting with politics). Show me the data proving that "most science" doesn't suffer from links between science and politics, and also provide data proving that "oil and gas researchers are very accurate in their assessments".

Took me 5 minutes to find an article with some actual %:

In general only about 40% of exploration wells find hydrocarbons and only about 30% of exploration wells lead to potentially commercial discoveries. In frontier basins only about 10 to 15% of wells find hydrocarbons with less than 10% being commercial

https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/how-do-g ... -alan-foum

Gah! They are worse than weathermen!

I'm not sure why one would insist on trusting guys who are wrong more than half the time, and sometimes 90% of the time, over a Guy who has fulfilled His Word 100% up to this point? Sure there's things we don't know - yet. But the things we do know - He was right.

mudflap wrote: ↑April 27th, 2021, 10:48 pm Strange because?

I think it's your turn to provide facts proving that "most science doesn't suffer from this burden" (intersecting with politics). Show me the data proving that "most science" doesn't suffer from links between science and politics, and also provide data proving that "oil and gas researchers are very accurate in their assessments".

Took me 5 minutes to find an article with some actual %:

In general only about 40% of exploration wells find hydrocarbons and only about 30% of exploration wells lead to potentially commercial discoveries. In frontier basins only about 10 to 15% of wells find hydrocarbons with less than 10% being commercial

https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/how-do-g ... -alan-foum

Gah! They are worse than weathermen!

I'm not sure why one would insist on trusting guys who are wrong more than half the time, and sometimes 90% of the time, over a Guy who has fulfilled His Word 100% up to this point? Sure there's things we don't know - yet. But the things we do know - He was right.

All exploration for oil/gas and mineral resources is a gamble. Geologists give their best assessments, then management decides to spend the money and take the risk on the assessment. So what you've quoted says nothing about the accuracy of the information supplied or the integrity of those supplying it. Many, many factors go into the assessment.

You're the one making the outrageous claims that only a handful of scientists can be trusted; or words to that effect. So, you're the one that needs to come up with the proof. I've worked in exploration/research geology for both oil and gas and minerals, and in government, and worked with a lot of people in the same businesses and pursuits. This, coupled with my experience working with research professors from 5 different academic institutions, and having had two PhD research scientists in my close family, makes your claims come across as full of pink ink.

Of course, you're welcome to your opinions . . . .

Dave62 wrote: ↑March 23rd, 2021, 7:05 am Scientists of the world: Universal flood? Impossible!

God: Hold my beer!

If 'scientists' say something like this, they really mean that in all of their consideration of geological/geophysical investigations and studies, they can't think of a mechanism that could have accomplished this. Another way of putting it, is that, presently, the hypothesis is out of the realm of science:

Exactly who wrote this? I mean these are post-Babylonian captivity writings. Only one from space could verify the statements of the breadth and depth, Noah couldn't, it doesn't say "god said", it claims everyone else what dead. So, where did these details come from?

17 For forty days the flood kept coming on the earth, and as the waters increased they lifted the ark high above the earth. 18 The waters rose and increased greatly on the earth, and the ark floated on the surface of the water. 19 They rose greatly on the earth, and all the high mountains under the entire heavens were covered. 20 The waters rose and covered the mountains to a depth of more than fifteen cubits.[g][h] 21 Every living thing that moved on land perished—birds, livestock, wild animals, all the creatures that swarm over the earth, and all mankind. 22 Everything on dry land that had the breath of life in its nostrils died. 23 Every living thing on the face of the earth was wiped out; people and animals and the creatures that move along the ground and the birds were wiped from the earth. Only Noah was left, and those with him in the ark.

The Earth & basically everything else, run in cosmic cycles. There have been many floods which have been forgotten about. Sad thing is that you do not have access or "remembrance" of these. Yet they are recorded & will eventually brought forth so mankind upon this planet will realize just how long you have been "playing" here.

I see the Noah flood occurring about 28,000 BC/BCE. It as what one might refer to as a grand one, as it notes that even the greet deep or fountains were brought forth (waters from in the Earth. I would assume that a pole shift of severe magnitude took place.

As Adam & kin were stationed here in the Americas, when Noah & his crew left here, they finally settled on the other side in the Middle or Near East. The portions found of Noah's ark just before the Bolshevik revolution, reveals just how big the ark might have been. And some of the bars & cages could hold animals 10 times the size of elephants. For a description of the inside of the portion found, see Charles Berlitz's pocket PB chapter 10 pp.190-195. You can tell that the technology used was not old school, but highly advanced (like Atlantean). From an aerial view report in 1916- "As log as a city block, and would compare very favorably in size to the modern battleships of today." Some lumbers were two feet thick.

Coming closer to our time, more floods occurred, as pole shifts run in cycles- About a millennium after the Great Pyramid was built (about 10,390 BC/BCE) which would be about 9500 to 9000 BC/BCE. The one following that was to occur about 4500 years after that so about 5000 BC/BCE to 4500 BC/BCE.

Your next pole shift will occur in 2029 AD/CE (the possibilities of the comet's impact is 2026 or 2029, which triggers the next cycle). And even though it will be by fire (volcanic fire), there will still be great floods, perhaps not as great as Noah's, but it sets mankind back (or forward) depending if some are ready to rise above the current events.

Nostradamus also speaks of that day in the future, as to the changes in the Spring & then the earth stopping. Elsewhere, the warnings are that winds will be up to 200 MPH when the Earth has stopped. But eventually they subside as the Earth begins rotation once again.

Snip from page 1 of this thread:
++++++++++++++++++++++
Re: Was the flood a global/universal flood?
Post by bbrown » March 19th, 2021, 9:29 pm

I read a book on this a month or two ago. One of the most plausible theories I’ve seen. The idea being that the earths magnetic field holds the crust in a relatively static position on the molten iron mantle. Over time It builds up ice on the poles and causes an imbalance. When the earth/sun/solar system passes through a reversed or weak galactic magnet line the earths field collapses. The polar weight shifts to the equator in a matter of 4-8 hours, at the speed of the earth (which is a few thousand miles per hour). Antarctica moves to the equator? Florida moves to the North Pole etc. with this cataclysm comes 1000+ mph winds, the oceans cover the entire face of the land as it moves under it, wooly mammoths are flash frozen with perfectly preserved grass in his stomach, (something we cannot even try to accomplish now) tropical plants are preserved under the ice in Antarctica, etc, etc. More than 99% of all terrestrial life is wiped out. There is evidence of several such floods, on a fairly regular (in geologic terms) basis. There is evidence of many civilizations far more advanced than us who very suddenly and completely vanished leaving only a few shards of evidence that they even existed.
++++++++++++++++++++++

Question, what was the name of the book?

Actually when the comet impacts us in 2029 (but I'll also allow 2026 in there), it creates or sets off the Earth to stop spinning for up to three days. When it cranks back up, it will tilt. From our driver's seat here below, that will look like the stars are falling. But, while the Earth is stopped, winds can run up to 200 MPH. It is not the end of the world, it will just feel like it. However, the debris put in the atmosphere will rotate mainly around the northern hemisphere, because that is the where the impact will be. This shift will not be a 180 or even a 90. Interestingly, the impact is in the Aegean Sea off Greece & Turkey. And it ties in with mythology in two specifics- Hermes & Iris, as well as Perseus & Andromedus. Perseus rescues the bound Andromeda from the Aegean Sea. Down the road, they die & become a dual star. Which brings us to the next cycle we are to enter- our next pole star once the Earth's tilt occurs, is actually the dual pole stars of Persus & Andromeda. Our universe runs like clockwork.

Also, the Comet's impact is referenced as "... destroyed by a stone (comet) unmade by human hands ..." in Daniel, because on its approach to impact, it burns Rome.

I suggest Moira Timms' book- 'Beyond Prophecies and Predictions: Everyone's Guide to the Coming Changes' 1996 PB or the Pkt. PB 1994, either way, the pages are the same. See the cyclical clock/wheel of our different pole stars on p.49. The story of Perseus & Andromeda are found on pp.55-59. The stone prophecy is touched upon on pp.211-212.

Talk about strange. Saturday, while either writing or pulling research data, I bumped into the story of Solon & the Egyptian priest talking about the flood & floods. It had a portion italicized it, so it had to have been in a book or online, as I just use text for data storage. I thought it would be good to post it. I even breezed over all 5 pages of this thread & did not find it. I can still see the image of the text with italicized portion near the center of it. Oh well.

Lynn wrote: ↑December 3rd, 2023, 7:42 pm Talk about strange. Saturday, while either writing or pulling research data, I bumped into the story of Solon & the Egyptian priest talking about the flood & floods. It had a portion italicized it, so it had to have been in a book or online, as I just use text for data storage. I thought it would be good to post it. I even breezed over all 5 pages of this thread & did not find it. I can still see the image of the text with italicized portion near the center of it. Oh well.

Herodotus in his histories talks about the information he derived from, I think, Egyptian priests, to the effect that the Nile River Valley was under water in earlier times, very much in keeping with what JS reported about it in Abraham 1:23-24:

Abraham 1: 23 The land of Egypt being first discovered by a woman, who was the daughter of Ham, and the daughter of Egyptus, which in the Chaldean signifies Egypt, which signifies that which is forbidden; 1:24: When this woman discovered the land it was under water, who afterward settled her sons in it; and thus, from Ham, sprang that race which preserved the curse in the land.

From a geological/sedimentalogical point of view, this makes perfect sense, because the Nile River Valley would have been cut much deeper during the glacial epics, especially during the last one, when the ocean was 300 ft shallower during the height of the glaciation. Post Pleistocene, the ocean would have flooded up the Nile Valley filling in this deep cut, and overtime the lower reaches of the Nile would slowly fill with sediment with the delta deposits slowly moving toward the Mediterranian coast line.

Herodotus was a very good sedimentologist from several of his passages describing such things, to include his description of the Danube, etc.