The significance of the literal global flood in the days of Noah

[katherine the great]

45 minutes ago, pogi said:

Species differentiation is important with the ark because different species can't reproduce with each other.  Different kinds of ants can't reproduce.  So, either there had to be 2 of every kind of species on the ark, or evolution is on way faster than we think. 

We are actually finding out that the genus level seems to be the true barrier for interbreeding. 

[Ahab]

Just to be clear, we testify that Adam lived here on this planet about 6,000 years ago, not 4,000.  Arriving sometime around 4,000 B.C.

 

[pogi]

39 minutes ago, rongo said:

2) Sure, dog breeding is an example of natural selection. Or, artificial selection  , when it comes to designed breeding. Still a dog, but the range from Chihuahua to Irish Wolfhound. 

Artificial , yes.  Natural, no.  There is nothing like it seen in nature.  There is still no evolution from one species to another in breeding.  So, we can't use dogs as an example of how fast species can evolve in nature to bolster the ark argument.  We simply don't see that level of differentiation in species in nature, so we are not really reducing the number by much with your "prototype" theory.  We still have to have 2 of every species on the ark.  That still seems unreasonable.

47 minutes ago, rongo said:

3) With God, all things are possible. My faith does not exclude the possibility that God helped Noah and his family and the animals to overcome what we see as the norm today in terms of instinct, nurturing, dietary requirements, etc. Any way you slice it, it was an extreme situation that required extreme divine help.

That is just an assertion of your personal faith.  I am fine with it and can't argue with it, but have no reason to accept your faith in a global flood.

 

 

 

 

 

[Ahab]

17 minutes ago, katherine the great said:

Huh? There is no kingdom of ants. They are part of the Animal kingdom, Phylum: arthropod, Class: Insecta, Family: Formicidea. 

Okay, I can see that now.  Thank you for that intelligence.  What does Domain refer to?  This planet only or all of known existence?  And what about Order, Genus, and Species?  And please use a kind of something else as an example, for contrast.

Edited December 17, 2020 by Ahab

[katherine the great]

4 minutes ago, pogi said:

There is still no evolution from one species to another in breeding.

Unless you count fruitflies. 😀

[LDS Watchman]

6 hours ago, Calm said:

Icr.org is not the word of God

The people of ICR are the ones trying to use the tools of science to be accepted by the world.  They would do better to just claim a miracle and God hid it than misuse science as it taints faith as well.   They are trying to have it both ways, but are refusing to commit to the necessities of both methods.  Instead they are mixing faith and science in a way that damages both. 
 

Not saying faith can’t work with science, but it isn’t working if you have to ignore most of the science data to make it fit. Not a good example of faith either, acting on one’s own trying to force belief to be twisted ways rather than waiting on the Lord to reveal more. 

Have you read any of ICR's articles on the flood?

While they are laughed at by the scoffers in the scientific community, I believe that they provide some solid evidence for the flood. 

Not saying everything they claim as evidence is true, but I think what they present is strengthens faith. 

They aren't "using the tools of science to be accepted by the world." What they're doing is using the tools of science to give believers a reason to continue believing instead of having their faith destroyed by the godless academics who mock them from the great and spacious building.

[LDS Watchman]

6 hours ago, Calm said:

What do you mean by died?  Do you believe its internal fires went out?  All life died?

Do you see humans as dying and being reborn in baptism?  If not, why the earth?  If so, how?

I'm referring to what Peter said in 2 Peter. The old wicked world was destroyed (or died) and a new world was born.

3 Knowing this first, that there shall come in the last days scoffers, walking after their own lusts,

4 And saying, Where is the promise of his coming? for since the fathers fell asleep, all things continue as they were from the beginning of the creation.

5 For this they willingly are ignorant of, that by the word of God the heavens were of old, and the earth standing out of the water and in the water:

6 Whereby the world that then was, being overflowed with water, perished:

7 But the heavens and the earth, which are now, by the same word are kept in store, reserved unto fire against the day of judgment and perdition of ungodly men.

(2 Peter 3:3-7)

When a true believer has fully repented and is baptized by immersion, they are demonstrating to God that their old life is dead and that they are beginning a new life in Christ.

[pogi]

19 minutes ago, katherine the great said:

We are actually finding out that the genus level seems to be the true barrier for interbreeding. 

From what I understand, as a general rule, species are reproductively isolated from each other.  There may be rare exceptions to this general rule (I would be interested to see a link), but I am pretty confident that most species are reproductively isolated. 

Quote

Speciation requires that the two incipient species be unable to produce viable offspring together or that they avoid mating with members of the other group.

https://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrary/article/evo_44

 

[rongo]

2 minutes ago, pogi said:

That is just an assertion of your personal faith.  I am fine with it and can't argue with it, but have no reason to accept your faith in a global flood.

Which is fine. 

It really boils down to what each of us wants to believe. 

I wonder, long-term, how the numbers between literalists like me and "nuanced/sophisticated" believers like many here will change. Or even if it will change. I don't think anyone knows the answer to that. My read on things is that literalists vastly outnumber the non-literalists in the active Church. For the most part, this works fine in the day-to-day Church, unless people get annoyed at a stance (in either direction) that is insisted upon by a teacher in a class, or a priesthood leader, etc. 

Out of curiosity (for everyone, not just you), do people see a time where the institutional Church ever officially comes down on the side of modern science? Right now, the official (in that the only things published by the Church) party line is literalism. Over the last many years now, the Church simply remains silent on the matter and lets people "govern themselves," while not disavowing or correcting the older "default setting" stances. I think there are a lot of advantages to this, overall, even though I am in favor of more robust traditionalism and doctrinal conservatism. It allows for a broad tent and doesn't exclude. Does anyone see this state changing, sort of like with the gospel topics essays (but even then, the essays are notorious for not really planting a flag, and they leave open other interpretations).

This isn't nearly the issue it was in the 1920s and 1930s, where conservatism/progressivism on doctrinal and scriptural topics was a hot item. Or is it? I think a lot of young people who become disaffected have issues with the literalism/non-literalism tension, and they don't want to resolve it with the "believe what you want, but don't teach it as official doctrine" stalemate. 

[LDS Watchman]

4 hours ago, MrShorty said:

A few examples of other words of the prophets that I doubt (or even outright reject):

That the universe consists of a flat earth sandwiched between the waters of heaven and hell.

That God commanded the genocide of whole populations as part of the Israelite conquest of Canaan.

That a man survived 3 days in the belly of a fish.

That God approves of slavery.

That God instituted a segregated priesthood and segregated access to saving ordinances in this dispensation.

That God assigns people's skin color/race based on premortal valiance.

It sometimes seems to me as if truth exists at an unstable point on a slippery slope between Biblical literalism/Scriptural Inerrancy/Prophetic Infallibility on one end and atheistic rejection of everything eternal on the other end. Due to the pull of either extreme, it is often difficult to find the truth about some of these issues. Sometimes I think one of the Church's real challenges right now is how best to understand the tensions involved and how to teach and explore these ideas.

You are free to reject whatever you want to.

What ideas should the church explore? Should they explore if God even exists? If Christ died for our sins? If there's life after death?

[JLHPROF]

13 minutes ago, katherine the great said:

Unless you count fruitflies. 😀

Fruit flies never count.  😥

[pogi]

21 minutes ago, katherine the great said:

Unless you count fruitflies. 😀

Fruit fly breeding is a thing?  

Humans are interesting creatures. 

[JLHPROF]

3 minutes ago, rongo said:

It really boils down to what each of us wants to believe. 

Except that doesn't matter.

Shouldn't it boil down to what is actually true.

I can believe the grass is orange, you can believe it's pink.  It may even appear to us that way.  And we may even respect each other's right to our beliefs.  But in the end we're both wrong and the grass is green.

I'm more interested in changing my beliefs to match God's reality (or as close as possible).  What I want to believe isn't important.

[Ahab]

2 minutes ago, rongo said:

Which is fine. 

It really boils down to what each of us wants to believe. 

I wonder, long-term, how the numbers between literalists like me and "nuanced/sophisticated" believers like many here will change. Or even if it will change. I don't think anyone knows the answer to that. My read on things is that literalists vastly outnumber the non-literalists in the active Church. For the most part, this works fine in the day-to-day Church, unless people get annoyed at a stance (in either direction) that is insisted upon by a teacher in a class, or a priesthood leader, etc. 

Out of curiosity (for everyone, not just you), do people see a time where the institutional Church ever officially comes down on the side of modern science? Right now, the official (in that the only things published by the Church) party line is literalism. Over the last many years now, the Church simply remains silent on the matter and lets people "govern themselves," while not disavowing or correcting the older "default setting" stances. I think there are a lot of advantages to this, overall, even though I am in favor of more robust traditionalism and doctrinal conservatism. It allows for a broad tent and doesn't exclude. Does anyone see this state changing, sort of like with the gospel topics essays (but even then, the essays are notorious for not really planting a flag, and they leave open other interpretations).

This isn't nearly the issue it was in the 1920s and 1930s, where conservatism/progressivism on doctrinal and scriptural topics was a hot item. Or is it? I think a lot of young people who become disaffected have issues with the literalism/non-literalism tension, and they don't want to resolve it with the "believe what you want, but don't teach it as official doctrine" stalemate. 

Do you believe modern science (represented by modern scientists I suppose) is in agreement with itself ?  

All anyone ever does is share a very personal belief, and as I am sure you have noticed, we do not all agree with each other.  And personally I believe we never will agree on everything.

[The Nehor]

1 hour ago, Ahab said:

A kind of being doesn't necessarily equate to a species, or at least not to every species of that type of creature.  The domain or kingdom of ants consists of all ants, for example.

https://www.britannica.com/science/species-taxon

 

Species:

a group of living organisms consisting of similar individuals capable of exchanging genes or interbreeding. The species is the principal natural taxonomic unit, ranking below a genus and denoted by a Latin binomial, e.g. Homo sapiens.

In other words if you put two animals of different species but the same of any of the rest of the groups they won't be able to breed.

[The Nehor]

29 minutes ago, Ahab said:

Just to be clear, we testify that Adam lived here on this planet about 6,000 years ago, not 4,000.  Arriving sometime around 4,000 B.C.

 

Is this the royal "we"?

[LDS Watchman]

3 hours ago, smac97 said:

I think it may be helpful to differentiate a bit here.  Here is my thinking on the subject:

1) Ahistorical Stories, or Stories Where Historicity is Immaterial

There are some "stories in the scriptures" that are helpful and valid even if they never "actually happened."  The Parable of the Talents, for example.  Historicity is not necessary for such stories to be instructive and "true."

The Parable of the Talents.    The Good Samaritan.  Zenock's Allegory of the Olive Tree.  The story of Job (maybe - I'm sort of conflicted on this one).  These are stories that may have actually happened, or may be purely fiction.  We'll never really know, I suppose.  But it doesn't matter, since these stories are intended to preach moral precepts, not establish the reality of the events described.  So they can be historical or ahistorical.  It doesn't matter.  

2) Stories that are "True" (Historical) but Particulars and Details are Missing or Misunderstood

Then there are some stories that happened, but about which we lack the particulars, or about which we may harbor erroneous notions.  For example, I think it's sort of hard to deny that Noah's Flood happened at all, but I think the scope of it (local rather than literally every square inch of dry land in the world covered) is open for principled, reasoned discussion.  We must, in the end, construe/interpret scripture.  We should seek to understand it both in the way it was originally intended, and also in ways that reconcile the narrative with observable things.  Consider, for example, Luke 2:1, which states: "And it came to pass in those days, that there went out a decree from Cæsar Augustus, that all the world should be taxed."  Dan Peterson noted:

In other words, even though the text says "all the world should be taxed," nobody interprets this verse in an absolutist, literal way.

For this category of narratives from scripture we really need to remember the Church's teachings on A) inerrancy (we reject it), B) continuing revelation (we are big into this), and C) seeking knowledge and wisdom from the "best books" (we are big into this, too).

For me, I view Noah's Flood through this lens.  I believe there was a literal flood, but I have real reservations about the notion that I am required to believe that the flood was global.  

I like this comment by William Hamblin (responding to Brent Metcalfe) :

3) Stories that Require Historicity

I will note that there are major portions of the scriptures that must be "historical" (meaning that the persons described were real, and that the events described really happened).  

Consider, for example, these comments by Daniel C. Peterson:

And these remarks by Kent Jackson (regarding the historicity of the origins of the Book of Mormon) :

And these remarks by then-Elder Dallin H. Oaks (also regarding the historicity of the Book of Mormon) :

I highly recommend Historicity and the Latter-day Saint Scriptures, edited by Paul H. Hoskisson, and available online for free.

With respect, I disagree.  As Daniel Peterson put it: "{W}e must distinguish the essential from the nonessential."  I feel quite at ease viewing the Flood as possibly-but-unlikely-to-have-been "global."

That it is "spoken of as a literal historical event" doesn't mean that we fully understand what happened, or that it was necessarily global.

But I question whether all of them have taught that the flood was literally global, or that it is essential that we believe it to have been.

Consider, for example, this excerpt from The Encyclopedia of Mormonism:

Thoughts?

I do not accept the premise.  Also, Joseph Smith taught that "a prophet was a prophet only when he was acting as such."

Which is a separate question from whether the flood was literally global.

Again, I do not accept the premise.

Again, I do not accept the premise.

You are conflating the scope of the flood with whether the flood happened at all.  

As for there being "no other reason to doubt" a global flood, consider this:

Thoughts?

Again, I do not accept the premise.

I think our trust in the former should should predominate over, but not totally exclude, some trust in the latter.

Again, I do not accept the premise.

I believe Jesus Christ is the literal Son of God.  I believe in the miracles described in the scriptures.  I believe in angels and heavenly manifestations.  I believe in Joseph Smith's theophanies and the reality of the Gold Plates and Joseph's translation of them.  I believe in all sorts of things that are amazing, and that are treated with scorn, disbelief, etc. in many quarters.  But I have real reservations about the idea that Noah's Flood necessarily encompassed the whole earth, up to fifteen cubits above Mount Everest.

If I am wrong to harbor such reservations, I believe the Lord will forgive me. 

Again, I do not accept the premise.

See my numbered comments above.

I think the Flood happened, but I doubt it was global.  Meanwhile, I think we need to spend more time and effort to focus on loving God, loving our neighbor, and keeping our covenants.

Thanks,

-Smac

You gave me way too much to respond to, so I won't bother going through each point one by one.

What it boils down to is that the only reason any believer would doubt that the flood literally happened as described in the scriptures, is because secular science tells them it's ridiculous. There literally is no other reason to doubt it.

To answer your question about the flood covering the mountains, including Everest, my conclusion is that these high mountain ranges came up at the end of the flood when the water receded or sometime afterwards, likely when the continents were divided in the days of Peleg.

[LDS Watchman]

2 hours ago, Teancum said:

Claims of supernatural events and such are the burden of those making the claim to demonstrate the truth of the claim.  A global flood 4000 or so years ago has about 0evidence to support it and a lot to show it never happened. 

 

Likely  the people of the BoM did not exist.

 

Jesus likely existed.  Was he what the Bible claims abut him? Maybe, maybe not. Lots of pros and cons on that one.  If you want to read a book that challenges whether or not Jesus ever claimed to be divine I suggest How Jesus Became God by Bart Ehrman.

You just proved my point in the OP, thanks.

[Ahab]

8 minutes ago, LDS Watchman said:

You are free to reject whatever you want to.

What ideas should the church explore? Should they explore if God even exists? If Christ died for our sins? If there's life after death?

When you say "the church" I suppose you are referring to everyone who is a member of it, and if we don't know those things already there is no better time than the present to find out.

[rongo]

5 minutes ago, JLHPROF said:

Except that doesn't matter.

Shouldn't it boil down to what is actually true.

I can believe the grass is orange, you can believe it's pink.  It may even appear to us that way.  And we may even respect each other's right to our beliefs.  But in the end we're both wrong and the grass is green.

I'm more interested in changing my beliefs to match God's reality (or as close as possible).  What I want to believe isn't important.

Oh, I agree. I'm just talking about the tension stalemate within the Church. 

[katherine the great]

8 minutes ago, Ahab said:

Okay, I can see that now.  Thank you for that intelligence.  What does Domain refer to?  This planet only or all of known existence?  And what about Order, Genus, and Species?  And please use a kind of something else as an example, for contrast.

I am old school and still use the five kingdom taxonomy. The domains are a newer type of classification that is probably more accurate but...

As to your other questions: Look at your own picture that you posted and you can see how each level of classification is more narrow than the one above and the organisms that are placed in them are more closely related to one another than to organisms on another level. 
Example: there are two species of chimpanzee: the common chimp (Pan troglodyte) and bonobo (Pan paniscus). Both are in the genus Pan. All chimps and bonobos are more closely related to each other than any other type of great ape. The next major level up from genus is Family. Chimps are in the family “Hominidae” which includes all genera of great ape. All the great apes are more closely related to each other than to any animal outside of that family. And on and on. 

[smac97]

3 minutes ago, LDS Watchman said:

You gave me way too much to respond to, so I won't bother going through each point one by one.

As you like.

3 minutes ago, LDS Watchman said:

What it boils down to

With respect, I disagree.  I don't think "it boils down to" what you are saying here.

3 minutes ago, LDS Watchman said:

is that the only reason any believer would doubt that the flood literally happened as described in the scriptures, is because secular science tells them it's ridiculous.

That's not so.  "Secular science" would also tell us that turning water to wine, raising Lazarus and Jairus' daugher from the dead, multiplying the loaves and fishes, Christ's resurrection, and so on are impossible or ridiculous, and yet we believe these things.

3 minutes ago, LDS Watchman said:

There literally is no other reason to doubt it.

That's not so, either.  There are reasonable grounds to believe that the flood was local, not global.

3 minutes ago, LDS Watchman said:

To answer your question about the flood covering the mountains, including Everest, my conclusion is that these high mountain ranges came up at the end of the flood when the water receded or sometime afterwards, likely when the continents were divided in the days of Peleg.

You are free to that opinion, but it's not one that I believe.

Meanwhile, what are your thoughts about Elder Widtsoe's remarks?  Here they are again:

Quote

THE GREAT FLOOD. The Old Testament records a flood that was just over fifteen cubits (sometimes assumed to be about twenty-six feet) deep and covered the entire landscape: "And all the high hills, that were under the whole heaven, were covered" (Gen. 7:19). Scientifically this account leaves many questions unanswered, especially how a measurable depth could cover mountains. Elder John A. Widtsoe, writing in 1943, offered this perspective: The fact remains that the exact nature of the flood is not known. We set up assumptions, based upon our best knowledge, but can go no further. We should remember that when inspired writers deal with historical incidents they relate that which they have seen or that which may have been told them, unless indeed the past is opened to them by revelation.

The details in the story of the flood are undoubtedly drawn from the experiences of the writer. Under a downpour of rain, likened to the opening of the heavens, a destructive torrent twenty-six feet deep or deeper would easily be formed. The writer of Genesis made a faithful report of the facts known to him concerning the flood. In other localities the depth of the water might have been more or less. In fact, the details of the flood are not known to us {Widtsoe, p. 127}.
...
Widtsoe, John A. Evidences and Reconciliations. Salt Lake City, 1987.

Thanks,

-Smac

[The Nehor]

16 minutes ago, LDS Watchman said:

Have you read any of ICR's articles on the flood?

A few years back, yes.

17 minutes ago, LDS Watchman said:

While they are laughed at by the scoffers in the scientific community, I believe that they provide some solid evidence for the flood. 

They don't.

17 minutes ago, LDS Watchman said:

Not saying everything they claim as evidence is true, but I think what they present is strengthens faith. 

Faith based on lies is incredibly dangerous even if the important stuff is true. Some people refuse to stop and sort when they find part of their faith is based on a lie. I was going to say "many people" but I realized I no longer believe that.

19 minutes ago, LDS Watchman said:

They aren't "using the tools of science to be accepted by the world." What they're doing is using the tools of science to give believers a reason to continue believing instead of having their faith destroyed by the godless academics who mock them from the great and spacious building.

They are contributing to the mockery by playing the buffoon.

You know what. I am feeling stupid. I will go to the website and catch up:

Read an article on the "we are living in a computer simulation" thing. Their counterargument is that can't be true because we have a soul as the Bible says. Then they claim evolution has religious elements.

Oh, this looks promising. An article on dinosaurs and the flood. Okay, first they mock science for changing their theory a little to account for changing evidence. Par for the course here. Dinosaurs existed from the late Triassic to the end of the Cretaceous but scientists are not entirely sure what caused the extinction. Bam! It must have been the flood. Oh, this is a nice twist. Noah took two of each dinosaur onto the ark too but they died out later. Two adult T-Rexes on that ark. That is VERY impressive. I have got an idea for a Jurassic Park spinoff now. They can't even describe the process of a flood right. So now all they have to do is prove that Noah's ark sailed at the end of the Cretaceous period so about 65 million years ago. Wait? They stopped there?!?!? So many questions unanswered!

Gloating about science not having every missing link yet so they are wrong. Yada yada. 

People being able to read proving divine design.

Not understanding glaciers.

All scientific dating mechanisms are fundamentally flawed.

A velociraptor ate Cain.

So, all fundamentally wrong and designed to create a worldview of science and religion based on a sandpit of bad information. We should build a house on that sand. What could go wrong?

[Ahab]

8 minutes ago, katherine the great said:

I am old school and still use the five kingdom taxonomy. The domains are a newer type of classification that is probably more accurate but...

As to your other questions: Look at your own picture that you posted and you can see how each level of classification is more narrow than the one above and the organisms that are placed in them are more closely related to one another than to organisms on another level. 
Example: there are two species of chimpanzee: the common chimp (Pan troglodyte) and bonobo (Pan paniscus). Both are in the genus Pan. All chimps and bonobos are more closely related to each other than any other type of great ape. The next major level up from genus is Family. Chimps are in the family “Hominidae” which includes all genera of great ape. All the great apes are more closely related to each other than to any animal outside of that family. And on and on. 

Okay, thank you for sharing your understanding.  I think I understand you (and some others who understand some science) a little bit better now.  I am wondering now how you would apply that understanding to people, in general.

To help you (and others) understand a bit more about me I will share that I do not buy into the idea that "kinds" of beings are related to other kinds of beings, whether they be animals or people.  I do believe all animals can be categorized as members of the animal kingdom, because all are what we can refer to as animals, but I do not believe any kind of animal is related to another, different kind of animal, even when there are many similarities among different kinds of animals.  Similar doesn't equate to related.

[katherine the great]

33 minutes ago, JLHPROF said:

But in the end we're both wrong and the grass is green.

Or is it???