The Flood Story

[ryanelwood]

Modern Science has painted itself into a corner on this one. Obviously everyone involved in "popular" modern geologic science revears the likes of Charles Darwin, Charles Lydell and the granddaddy of them all James Hutton as the "prophets" of modern uniformitarianism.

These men created an irrepairable rift between modern uniformitarianism and catastrophism. If you accept evolution and its foundation of uniformitarianism, you cannot accept catastrophism in any way shape or form.

Taking into account that focilized sea life is currently and continually found by geologists and paleontologists at above the 18,000 foot mark worldwide, how do you "true science" uniformitarians reconcile this? I mean give us a break. You can't have it both ways. If by your arguement the flood wasn't a worldwide immersion, what was it? I guess it just left the tips of some mountain ranges showing. That sounds like you're really straining at a knat there. You can't reject catastrphism for uniformitarianism and then run to it to explain just one phenomena like ancient sea life miles above the sea.

The bottom line is you are full of it and you don't know. Pardon me, the last statement was only directed at true scintists in this forum. For the rest of you pseudo-intellectuals who got a B+ on your college geology course, I have another comment. YOU REALLY DON"T KNOW.

Sure love ya,

Uncle Wa

There are many fossilized sea animals found on ground, but they are not uniformally at 18,000 feet all over the world. Many places have been covered by large bodies of water. Take for example that North America was covered by a large body of water 200,000,000 years ago. This left the remnant of lake Bonneville that covered a large portion of Utah. But never was it worldwide. You have to account for millions of animals living on an ark, people being able to breath above Mt. Everest, and then you have different animals in many different parts of the world. Did the American Moose swim to North America after the mythical ark landed in Turkey? Did the Kangaroo swim to Australia? How anyone living in the 21st century can believe such a yarn is beyond my own human comprehension.

[Kreno]

The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints claims to have the truth, and Mormon theology claims that there are perfect harmony between science and true religion. The only conflicts exist in the minds of men.

My short question is this: Can a member in good standing really claim that the Flood of Noah was worldwide?

The article below (see the link) may be a helpful introduction of this issue: http://www.dialoguejournal.com/content/wp-.../4003-White.pdf

The background for my question is this. Recently my bishop made a firm statement on this issue. He said that the Devil repeatedly attacks the Bible stories trying to persuade the faithful to abandon the true revealed stories that are important for our understanding of our salvation and the salvation of our entire planet.

Hugh Nibley taught this theory and many others that would seem to contradict church doctrine. Something to keep inmind is that not everybody is ready for the "whole truth". What matters is that these principles willnot affect my salvation.

I have listened to many people who have left the church becouse of one teaching: Reincarnation. That is a shame. Reincarnation could have been used in previous epocs of time, but with this being the last days it doesnt seem likely anymore. There are many good teachings in Budhism, but they are missing alot of information. You dont have to be LDS to go to heaven but it does help the process to start in the right spot.

I live in a rural farming community and most of my ward are in thier "wisdom" years, so I am very cautious about the discussions of "grey" areas in my religous discussions. Many topics of this board would seem like a hearesy for many I work with.

[katherine the great]

Taking into account that focilized sea life is currently and continually found by geologists and paleontologists at above the 18,000 foot mark worldwide, how do you "true science" uniformitarians reconcile this? I mean give us a break. You can't have it both ways. If by your arguement the flood wasn't a worldwide immersion, what was it? I guess it just left the tips of some mountain ranges showing. That sounds like you're really straining at a knat there. You can't reject catastrphism for uniformitarianism and then run to it to explain just one phenomena like ancient sea life miles above the sea.

The bottom line is you are full of it and you don't know. Pardon me, the last statement was only directed at true scintists in this forum. For the rest of you pseudo-intellectuals who got a B+ on your college geology course, I have another comment. YOU REALLY DON"T KNOW.

Maybee if u lurned to spel, the scintists in this forum wud take u seeriously.

[Uncle Wa]

Uncle Wa:

Ever hear of Punctuated Uniformitarianism?

And yes I am a real honest to goodness scientist. I have a Bachelor of Science, and a Master of Science.

Yes, I am familiar with Punctuated Uniformitarianism. The formula is quite simple: Total evolutionary changes = gradual evolutionary changes + (Speciation Events x beta {the weight of puncuated contribution}). Modern science predicts that less than 22% of all geologic events or evolutionary changes are a result of puncuation. Mathematics disagrees by saying it can only safely say that puncuation MAY happen as much as 2% in nature.

So what? It's still a THEORY and it still takes faith, and based on the mathematical LAW of probability it's a weak theory.

I'm not saying which way it really is, all I'm saying is that Uniformitarians, especially Christian Uniformitarians are trying to stand on two sides of a canyon that has been getting wider and wider over the last 150 years. If they keep trying to have it both ways they'll soon find themselves at the bottom of the canyon.

The practical matter is that I see "scientists" clings to the dogma of science with no more evidence than Christians have, but just as much faith. Neither group should testify of their faith in absolutes.

Sure love ya,

Uncle Wa

[Joseph Antley]

I don't understand what the problem is. It's a fact that animals evolve, it's a fact that the land masses were roughly the same as they are now 6,000 years ago, and it's a fact that millions of animals could not survive on a large boat during a forty-day flood that covered the entire earth.

How did Noah get the polar bears, tigers, cougars, and kangaroos, seeing as they were all in different parts of the world separated by ocean?

It just didn't happen. Hundreds of thousands of animals couldn't fit on the ark described in the Old Testament, especially if you consider they had to have food and water as well. What was it, nine humans on board? And they have to feed and clean for millions of animals every day?

Just imagine all of the poop!

[Lightbearer]

No, I meant what I said. Can a member in a leading position claim something we know to be false without any actions from higher Church levels? The Church should make an official statement on this matter. The Church should be a place for truth.

But I think the problem is YOU DO NOT KNOW the Flood of Noah was not a world wide event. The Church is not where we teach scientific theories or concepts but we teach the word of God. If the Church did make an "official statement on the matter" and it conflicted with your own personal opinion would you denounce the Church and become an apostate or would you reject what science teaches on the matter? I think that is the reason the Church has not saw fit to comment more than it has so we would not have intellectualists leave the Church in droves. God wants the wheat and tares to grow together so that perhaps more can be saved in the Kingdom of God instead of denouncing the Church over scientific trivia.

[Zakuska]

No, I meant what I said. Can a member in a leading position claim something we know to be false without any actions from higher Church levels? The Church should make an official statement on this matter. The Church should be a place for truth.

And here I thought the church was a Hospital for Liars, adulturers, and theifs?

[Rob Osborn]

The flood story is a true geological account that really happened. Just as the story of Christ, his death, and miraculous resurrection into eternal life is real, so is the story of Noah and the flood. Nobody here questions on if Christ was really resurrected. The same bodies of modern scientific institution telling us the flood was a myth is that same institution telling us that resurrection is impossible. Why do we discard one belief over another? Is it because we must believe in Christ because it pertains to our eternal identity as resurrected beings?

For those believeing in the flood there is ample evidence, just as there is ample evidence of Christ and the creation for those who follow after Christ. No prophet to date has discounted any part of the flood story as mythical. To do so would be like saying the resurrection is not for real.

Must we believe in a global worldwide flood catastrophe? We must! The prophets have warned us against being scoffers not believeing the ancient happenings of the earth including specifically that the world that then was, was destroyed being covered by the flood waters!

Because the evidence for the flood is so noticable, it is almost entirely overlooked!!! Is it of no accident that watery laid sediments lay fragmented all over the earth? Is it also no accident that every major mountain chain is an upthrust of watery laid sediments containing millions of fossils?

Finally, Is it no accident that even Christ himself testified of the magnitude of the flood? Is Christ a liar?

[cinepro]

Can someone who believes in the "Local Flood Theory" please explain to me what, exactly, this covenant with God means?

8

[cinepro]

But I think the problem is YOU DO NOT KNOW the Flood of Noah was not a world wide event. The Church is not where we teach scientific theories or concepts but we teach the word of God. If the Church did make an "official statement on the matter" and it conflicted with your own personal opinion would you denounce the Church and become an apostate or would you reject what science teaches on the matter? I think that is the reason the Church has not saw fit to comment more than it has so we would not have intellectualists leave the Church in droves. God wants the wheat and tares to grow together so that perhaps more can be saved in the Kingdom of God instead of denouncing the Church over scientific trivia.

There are enough indicators to safely assume there wasn't a worldwide catastrophic flood that killed all humans and animals outside the ark around 2500BC. The worldwide flood is most definitely a theory that can be tested scientifically, and it is taught in Chuch. The Church has made many, many official statements in the scriptures and Church publications and manuals regarding the literal reality of the worldwide flood. There has never been any middle ground. It is possible to reject the worldwide flood without becoming an apostate (as many on this board have demonstrated). I don't think a local flood story makes sense, but some seem happy with that idea.

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

Can someone who believes in the "Local Flood Theory" please explain to me what, exactly, this covenant with God means?

How does that make any sense with a local or allegorical flood?

It cant however Im sure some will cailm it was a misunderstanding amoung the anceints. To each his own on this one. I really dont care what anybody believes on this particular issue.

[katherine the great]

Nobody here questions on if Christ was really resurrected. The same bodies of modern scientific institution telling us the flood was a myth is that same institution telling us that resurrection is impossible. Why do we discard one belief over another?

Because there isn't an ark full of evidence against the resurrection of the Savior. We don't have Jesus' dead body to examine and say that his body is dead. We do have an earth that can be examined that shows that there was never a time during human history that it was completely submerged in water.

[dblagent007]

Can someone who believes in the "Local Flood Theory" please explain to me what, exactly, this covenant with God means?

How does that make any sense with a local or allegorical flood?

I am no expert on this by any means, but let me try to take a crack at it. The localized flood destroyed all flesh in the area of the flood (and it flooded all of the known area where the flood took place. In response, God covenanted that:

neither shall all flesh be cut off any more by the waters of a flood;

Thus, all flesh (as known to the people in that area) would not be cut off again. The need for this promise has diminished significantly since the people expanded beyond the boundaries of what was considered the "earth" by their fathers. Thus, presumably some of them migrated to new locales that would not be susceptible to such a flood anyway.

[dblagent007]

Another thing to consider is that the Bible states that the water only rose 22 feet (15 cubits). Others have also said that the word "mountain" should have been translated to the word "hill."

I believe God could have created a worldwide flood, thus, to me, it is possible. However, I think that this interpretation is likely not correct given what Genesis says. This website provides a decent explanation of the localized flood theory (although I don't subscribe to everything that it says): http://www.noahs-ark-flood.com/creation.htm

[Uncle Wa]

Because there isn't an ark full of evidence against the resurrection of the Savior. We don't have Jesus' dead body to examine and say that his body is dead. We do have an earth that can be examined that shows that there was never a time during human history that it was completely submerged in water.

Katherine, How long in years is human history?

[AZ_RM]

Katherine, How long in years is human history?

Around 4-4.5 billion.

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

Around 4-4.5 billion.

Humans accourding to the best science have lived on earth ofr about 4 to 4.5 billion years?

That is news to me.

I think the most recent claims was that humans have been around for a short 2-3 million years.

[katherine the great]

Katherine, How long in years is human history?

Written history is about 5000 years old. Human history reconstructed from archaeological sites goes back over 100,000 years.

[katherine the great]

Humans accourding to the best science have lived on earth ofr about 4 to 4.5 billion years?

That is news to me.

I think the most recent claims was that humans have been around for a short 2-3 million years.

I guess it depends on how we define "human." Physically modern human history is less than 200,000 years old. Behaviorally modern human history is significantly shorter than that.

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

I guess it depends on how we define "human." Physically modern human history is less than 200,000 years old. Behaviorally modern human history is significantly shorter than that.

I thought well.. that perhaps one could say when Humans first "evolved" as the scientist would say. You know when the first Homo Sapiens roamed.

As to actually histroy of civializations you are correct and just as correct on the written history. Were to start?

[AZ_RM]

I thought the question was about the geological timeline of the earth? Since we were talking about flood evidence.

[thesometimesaint]

The genotype Homo Sapiens Sapiens is approx. 200,000 years old.

The oldest of paintings are the cave paints of Europe and they are about 40,000 years old.

The oldest known writing is about 5,500 years old.

[katherine the great]

I thought the question was about the geological timeline of the earth? Since we were talking about flood evidence.

But, the flood happened during the course of human history.

[AZ_RM]

But, the flood happened during the course of human history.

Well our geological record goes far beyond that! Wonder what it says about the matter? Any geologists in the crowd?

[thesometimesaint]

AZ_RM:

I'm no geologist, nor do I play one on TV. But there is NO EVIDENCE for a world wide flood during mans living on earth.