Noah and the flood.....

[Hemidakota]

Legitimate is considered subjectiveness with some science studies. There is no conflict with true science and the Gospel of Jesus Christ.

[Nappaljarri]

Ahhhh, legitimate science says that a man cannot die on a cross and then wake up alive 3 days later. And yes, I believe in science as far as the human mind can comprehend those things which they can see and touch. But when it gets into spiritual matters, humans without faith cannot comprehend and therefore science cannot explain these things. ie: I believe that if I go to the doctor he has the intelligence to diagnose and help me get better just as much as I believe that I can go to my husband for a priesthood blessing for the same issue (they can go hand in hand).

Edited September 5, 2008 by Nappaljarri

[Hemidakota]

Or changing the elements [water to wine]...LOL

[rastler00]

Don't get me wrong...... as long as it stays within the realm of religion..... I am okay with most things people want to believe. :)

[blamb]

Science can explain all these things that were mentioned if we had the knowledge and the capcity to understand the science. Truth is truth even if we don't understand it. I'm sure that all the miracles ever performed were performed by action on some law that brought about the consequence. We simply don't know or don't have the capacity to do this but God does.

As far as legitimate science goes, man has been wrong on many accounts and what is considered legitamate science today may be proved wrong tomorrow. The book I mentioned, "Science and Mormonism" has some very detailed scientific explanations for some things like Pangea splitting up not long ago and also some possible mechanisms for the deluge. There are other books also like PEM (pre-earth model I believe, by non-LDS authors), quoted in the book that I mentioned that has some very convincing scientific evidence of a young earth (thousands of years). There is a lot of great scientific evidence that counters uniformitarianism (old earth model) and that counters evolution. Be careful what you say are facts!

[rastler00]

Again.... religious views of science are fine as long as they stay within the religion. I'm not looking for converts (well other than family but I already won that one). :)

[blamb]

Don't understand your point and the argument for it? Got an example?

[rastler00]

I am sorry, point for what?

[blamb]

I was referring to your comment, "Again.... religious views of science are fine as long as they stay within the religion. I'm not looking for converts (well other than family but I already won that one)."

The point I'm trying to get across is that there is not such thing as religeous truth that is seperate from scientific truth. Truth is truth. Behind every religious truth, there is a scientific explanation (above what we currently understand in the scientific sense). God does understand the science behind what he does and how he operates, we don't.

We don't have to understand all the science behind something to know something is there also. Science works with repeated phenomena all the time without having a total understanding of what is going on.

Religion has produced many truths before science has discovered the same truths. We would do ourselves well to trust in the revealed word of God to help us in our scientific quests so that we don't get off on the wrong track.

There is much not revealed behind the science of how things work but that does not mean that the religeous explanation of things are incorrect. If you believe in God and that he can reveal knowledge to people then what I have said should make sense to you.

[rastler00]

That is a supportable position in general. But to believe in something like a literal flood 4000 years ago pretty much disputes all the legitimate science taught in the schools and colleges. The insistance of such beliefs - which are about as far from generally accepted science as possible - is what had me orginally leave religion as a teen (long time ago), as well as had me stop any activity within this religion (my last attempt at religion - about a decade ago) - even though I rather enjoyed the fellowship part of it.

That's just me though. :)

[Justice]

If it could be proven it would not require faith.

What you suffer from is the same thing we all suffer from... a lack of faith. :)

[rastler00]

Perhaps.... but there are many different kinds of faith. Some of it I do not view as particularly constructive. Something which disputes the science that we are using to communicate at this very moment is one of those things.

FWIW, that I was even able to be part of the Church for a time was because I found a discussion board of LDS scientists. I just lurked there because they were actual professional scientists and while I like science, I was out of my league. Anyhow, they accepted the same science I am talking about. But they were also born and raised in the church, so they could seperate the two.... things like this 'against the accepted science; stuff annoyed them though. Being non-religious for most of my life, the cognative dissonance was just too much, even though I knew there were others out there who accepted the science (some on this thread as well). For me it wasn't that big of a deal in any event.

Don't get me wrong, I am not slamming the LDS in general..... there 'are' lots of really wonderful people in this faith - especially in the area I live in. They still come by and visit occasionally - probably more for my daughter than me. Oh, and we went through Utah several times in the past year, and everytime I needed help or information, Utah was the best out of all the states we travelled through. The campgrounds we stayed at were the friendliest as well.

[Justice]

I have learned that seeing is not believing.

I am as logical minded and hard-headed as the next guy. I doubt things until I see proof, or at least very strong evidence.

The funny part is that, even though I don't remember it all the time, there is very compelling evidence that the Book of Mormon is true. However, evidence notwithstanding, a testimony of anything must come by the Spirit or it is not a testimony. It really makes no difference what we "see."

[bytor2112]

That is a supportable position in general. But to believe in something like a literal flood 4000 years ago pretty much disputes all the legitimate science taught in the schools and colleges. The insistance of such beliefs - which are about as far from generally accepted science as possible - is what had me orginally leave religion as a teen (long time ago), as well as had me stop any activity within this religion (my last attempt at religion - about a decade ago) - even though I rather enjoyed the fellowship part of it.

That's just me though. :)

Accepting every Biblical account is not a requirement for your salvation. Having faith in Jesus Christ and obeying his commandments is all that is required. If you think that the flood is just a faith premoting story passed down through the generations...that is ok. There are many things that make me scratch my head when I try to reconcile my understanding of science..which is limited and my understanding of scripture...which is limited as well. The big test is to learn by the Spirit...to listen to his voice with our spiritual ears ....instead of trying to justify or reason through everything by our limited intelligences. There is so much more to the stories than the words written on the pages. If we really seek the truth......we learn so much more than is expected and sometimes more than we are capable of understanding.

[threepercent]

I have not read every post on here so if this is a repeat sorry.

this one is easy if you have faith. the flood was the Earths Baptism. We believe in Baptism by immersion.

so this is what I believe.

now given that, I am a delver, I enjoy speculating into these things, because God gave me a brain to use it as well as my faith.

There is only one global event I know of in geology and that is the kt boundary. wonder if that is really the flood.

Also, I prefer Cataclysm theory, it seems to cover most the bases that current theory dismisses.

[Moksha]

The [utah] campgrounds we stayed at were the friendliest as well.

We are indeed a prophetic, speculative and friendly people.

[abqfriend]

I tend to view many of the stories in Genesis in a more figurative light than a literal view. This is my own personal view and may not be the official view of my Church.

The Flood story is found in many ancient cultures.. Some believe that the Gilgamesh Epoch of Babylonian/Sumerian origin has many of the same features as the Flood story of Genesis.

Here is a link on Flood story narratives:

Flood Stories Noah Deluge

The important thing I see in the story is God's chosen people following his direction and God saving his chosen people.

-Carol (a Catholic)

I watched a Discovery channel program about whether the Biblical account really occurred. They made a pretty compelling case that Noah could not have built the Ark nor could there have been a worldwide flood. There isn't and geological evidence to support the story of the worldwide flood. So, is the account literal or perhaps a retelling of a Babylonian disaster that has been recorded in the Epic of Gilgamesh and other epics?