The LDS Church doesn’t emphasize or even talk about Joseph Smith’s King Follett sermon, which he delivered in April, 1844, shortly before his martyrdom. It would have been fascinating if he had lived long enough to elaborate on it. Anyway, one of the most astounding things that JS said was to explain how God came to be God. We are the only religion that I know of that ever even asked such a question, let alone provided an answer to it. The answer–from JS– suggests that the Universe exists primarily as a machine for creating gods–at least the God of this earth. Which suggests that it may be very old indeed, but that does not affect the question of how old our earth is. The question of all dating of our earth depends on whether radio-metric dating of rocks is correct or not, because this is the way fossils are dated by modern science—the age of the rocks they are found in. The UM strongly suggests that there are flaws in radio-metric dating systems. I believe, though, that this comes out in the Age Model, which is part of Volume 2. Frank
This question is for Barry (Dr. Bickmore) or anyone else who can answer it. If the mass of a celestial object is known–by whatever method– does that allow us to compute how much of the object is solid (a presumably denser material) and how much of it is water ( a presumably less dense substance?) For example, the mass of Saturn’s moon Encedalus is stated to be a definitive figure. If the mass figure is correct, does that allow us to determine how much of Endedalus is liquid water and how much of it consists of a rocky core? If it does, I have not seen those two figures stated anywhere. We know factually because we have observed it from the Cassini space ship, that some of the mass of Encedalus is water and that it is escaping from the moon.
My question has relevancy because Barry and others have made anissue of the UM figure for the earth’s mass, which is much lower than the peer reviewed scientific figure. But would the UM figure be more likely to be the correct one if the UM is correct about the amount of water beneath the earth’s crust?
In other words, what comes first–the relative amounts of water and solid in a moon–or planet–as a means of determining mass,or the mass determination as a way of knowing how much of that mass is liquid and how much is solid? If mass can be determined by a mathematical equation on a blackboard, does that then lead us to a determination of the substance of the mass without having to first obsereve it? Frank
Well, Barry, I’m sorry that you don’t want to tell us more about yourself, and neither do you want to address pp. 279-290 of the UM. Given your lenghthy previoius responses I would have thought that would be easy for you. So anyway, we are left to guess. You are evidently a professor of geology at BYU, charged with teaching your students academically produced, peer reviewed geology. You have the latest approved theories and formulae available to you, none of which presumably contain any of the dissentions which one might find in the scientific journals. And certainly none of the competing facts and assertions to be found in the UM. If you have a doctorate after your name, as we must presume that you do, then you wrote an approved dissertation on one very specific field of geology, did you not? Is it wrong for those of us who may choose to debate you to ask what your “claim to fame” is” and why you think you are much smarter than Dean Sesions, the author of the UM, who has devoted the past 27 years of his life researching and writing the UM OUTSIDE the walls of academia, with his financial support coming directly from individuals instead of the monetary “grants” which come to researchers within academia. Theirs has to be “peer reviewed”, the UM can and is being reviewed by people who just want to know what is truth and true and what is only theory.
Some of the UM is theory, granted. The idea that a celestial object, passng close to the earth, was the genesis of the Universal Flood cannot be proven unless/until the object can be identifiedd with the necessary orbit and time period. But you must surely recognise that new information reveals that there are hundreds, if not thousands, of objects beyond Pluto that might qualify. So why is it so far fetched? Say on, Barry, say on! Frank
I was rereading all of the above posts about the alleged flaws in the UM explanation for the Universal Flood, and I noticed that in your first one you referred to one “Will Meservy” as some kind of scientific expert. I am just wondering who this guy is and why we must accept whatever he says as the final word on the subject at hand. I’m under the impression that modern science never actually claims to have the final answers about anything, but is always open to new theories. There is a new one in almost every month’s issue of Scientific American. So why should the readers of this Forum discussion be overawed by Will Meservey? I, at least, have never previously heard of him. I would still prefer to focus on the evidences for the flood in Chapter 8, rather than the mechanism for it. Because what is important for readers of Genesis, and the UM, or any part of the biblical narrative of history, is whether the authors have made up a collection of myths, replete with cast of characters, or whether they are recounting actual events. There is this curious reference to the “fountains of the deep” being “broken up”, which I think even you might agree could refer to a subterranean source for all of that water. Or then again, would you?
Well Barry, you have denied the UM mechanism for a universal flood, and you have denied the source for it (water beneath the crust), so let’s cut to the chase, do you accept any evidence for it at all? Chapter 8 is the most important chapter in Volume 1, and it contains many evidences for the reality of a universal, rather than a localised flood. So I’m going to put the ball in your court. Rather than ask you to comment on this or that evidence as presented in Chapter 8, why don’t you pick out two or three that you disagree with and provide a rationale as to why they COULD NOT be used as such evidence. That should be interesting.
I am not part of the UM team and I am not a scientist I am just a very old man who would like to be able to believe that the human kept record of man and creation is more accurate than the scientific one, which claims that the Flood is a myth. A few years ago a poll indicated that 92% of scientists identified themselves as atheists or agnostics. How could it be otherwise?
Sorry Barry, but at age 87, and suffering from back ache, one thing I can’t do is swing heavy weights around my head. I will have to back out of that experiment.
The mechanism of the Flood presented in the UM seems to me to be as plausible as any of the various theories about the formation of the earth, the moon, and the origin of the earth’s oceans. These are all fundamental scientific questions, and over the history of science there have been many THEORIES presented for all three: The ruling ones now are 1) accretion for the earth’s formation, 2) a large impactor on the earth for the formation of the moon, and some combination of water in the original rocks, plus bombardments by comets and/or asteroiods for the origin of the oceans. But there are problems with all of these THEORIES, so they are not universally held and are in constant flux, and they are–and will always remain, theoretical. No humans were around to observe them at the time any of them allegedly appeared. The same is true for the mechanism of the Flood–if it was caused by the near passage of anothe celestial object, either no one observed it or no one recorded it. But plenty of people experienced the flood itself, and some form of it has been recorded in the history of almost every ancient people. We call it the human history of the earthy. So were these all just local or was it world wide? The UM argues that it was world wide, and suggest a plausible mechanism for it. The mechanism has to provide for some other source than rainfall or ocean water. And so it does–the argument that the earth is a hydroplanet, so that most of the water for the flood came from under the crust . An enormous quantity of verifiable evidence is provided for that in the hydroplanet chapter, and an enormous amount of physical evidences are provided for the reality of a flood that covered the earth by miles and not just feet, in the universal flood chapter. Scientists such as yourself may disagree with that evidence, but so do you with the larger questions which I cited at the beginning of this piece. An ever changing “consensus” proves nothing. Scientific truth is not a matter of majority opinion. The UM repeatedly asks and attempts to answer “fundamental questions.” In Every field of science! It does not claim infallibility. No one can do that. But it does open up entirely new fields of debate, inquiry and study: “Millenial Science!”
Well,Barry, I’m retired and although you may think that I have so much time on my hands that the subject of glass ought to induce me “to put forth a little effort and look up a few books in a university library to find out who’s telling the truth” I choose to spend my time more productively than that. But in deference to you I did spend some time googling the subject of glass coming out of a melt. The most succinct result of my efforts were these quotes: “In nature,glasses are formed when sand/or rocks, often high in silica, are heated to high temperatures and then cooled rapidly.”
“Glass is created when molten material cools so rapidly that there is not enough time for crystaline structures to form.”
So apparently it all depends on how rapidly the molten material cools as to whether there is a crystalline nature to the resulting volcanic glass. Does that resolve the differences between you and Sessions on the subject? And if it does not, should it make any difference to me or anyone else as far as the UM is concerned? Why must I spend hours in some university libary consulting a variety of books, as opposed to just accepting the above definitions and focusing on more important subjects such as evidences for the Flood? I don’t know about Widstoe, but I do know that Nibley was as wrong anybody else when he apparently bought into the idea that Central America was the geographic location for the Book of Mormon. If he had lived long enough he would know that modern evidence,such as DNA connections with American indians,and the Hopewell Mound builders, supports the United States as the geographic center.
Next time, Barry, I will take you up on your offer to debate specific evidences for the Flood, as presented in the UM. That should be fun–for me at least, as a non scientist who is not checked out on the various mathematical formulae that you so love to reference.
I’m not a scientist, Barry, so I will leave that response to others better equipped to respond than I. I am fascinated by your comment “I don’t think much of the evidences presented in chapter 8.” First time I have seen anything but a total denial from you about any subject in the UM. Are you perhaps wavering a bit?Personally, I found the 100 or so evidences for the flood to be easy to understand by a layman and to be overwhelmingly in favor of the flood. So I am extrmely interested to see how you will manage to demolish them all, because isn’t that the job you have assigned yourself?. Why wait till later? They are at the heart of the UM. If you are worth your salt as a geologist, and given that “peer reviewed” science categorically denies all evidence for a universal, same time flood, and you are apparantly the only current geologist attacking the UM in detail–generalized denunciations don’t count–isn’t it your responsibility to disabuse us laymen of the evidence in favor of it?
Then we can see how the UM team responds to you about flood evidences..
Say on, Barry, say on! Let’s get to the guts of the UM.
So let’s be clear, Barry,
Are you denying that a a universal flood ever occurred in the history of the earth, i.e. are you disputing all of the EVIDENCES for it as laid out in chapter 8 of the UM, or are you disputing only the MECHANISM for the flood? Please spell that out for us.
I’m glad to see that there is at least a first discussion going on about the Flood. The mathematics of the earth’s mass are interesting, but they are not at the heart of the UM. Chapter 8, the Universal Flood is. I find the arguments for it to be very persuasive. Let’s hear from those who think otherwise. I’d like in particular to hear from some who think it COULD NOT have happened, given the widespread accounts of local floods and the universal evidence of marine fossils on every continent. How does science prove its negative opinion about that?
Barry, how about taking that one on? Then let’s see how the UM team responds.
That, of course, is based on the assumption of a 4.6 billion year old earth, as current rock dating suggests. In Volume 11 of the UM, (Age Model, chapter 10, see Summary) this method of dating rocks will be challenged