Noah's Flood

[JohnsonJones]

11 minutes ago, Lost Boy said:

You might not want to speculate on hydrology too much.  If a river hits a bend, the water does go up hill a little.  but that is all, it doesn't have the momentum to go any higher.  Certainly not over a mountain.  Water has to flow downhill unless acted upon by some other force.

I'm not speculating on water going the path of least resistance.  I had no idea about rivers going uphill in nature, but I do know this is a principle that plumbing relies on.  Gravity is only ONE principle of what path water flows.

Water follows the laws of gravity.  There is no law of downhill with water, it is called the law of gravity.  It also follows the law of thermodynamics and acts in accordance to the forces upon it.  Hence to flow uphill, normally that means it will have had to flow downhill for quite a while to generate the force to enable it to flow uphill, but it CAN flow upwards (not just uphill, actually upwards, as what we do with fountains). 

Typically we use pumps today to give water more force behind it to get it to flow in opposition to the force of gravity, but the Ancient Romans at times  made fountains where the force behind the water that forced it to shoot upwards was done via the force of gravity over long distances. 

If we are going to discuss science, let's at least talk about science and not illusionary things like a fake law of water having to flow downhill.  When it flows downhill that is a result of the force acting upon it which is caused by the law of gravity.  That same law of gravity which causes the force, can also give it enough force when it is going downhill to flow upwards.

I did not know that it flowed uphill in nature (not the one who pointed this out or said it originally), but if it does, I can see how it might be possible since water is subject to the laws of physics just like everything else that we know of in this world.

Edited May 14, 2018 by JohnsonJones

[Lost Boy]

5 minutes ago, JohnsonJones said:

I do not know, but there are MANY stories and myths concerning the flood.

Anything we would say is just total conjecture and even then, less than even a hypothesis...it is simply saying...well...it may have happened this way if I had to take a wild guess, but that's all it is, a total and completely wild guess with nothing to back it up except wild conjecture on my part.

For example, I've floated this idea before, but I really have NO idea how the flood happened, so this is totally just a wild story built off of myth's found from ancient cultures rather than anything concrete or even what I believe happened (Because I don't believe it happened this way).

Combining several myths we have the idea that in olden days, it never rained.  There arose a mist that watered the earth.  The earth itself was supported by the foundations of the earth, and many of these pillars of the earth contained water.  Hence there was a division of the earth and water, with the water being beneath the earth.  One day, these fountains came to the surface of the earth.  There are some myths on how this happened.  Most are in conjunction with a flood myth.

In this idea, there would be no water in our oceans before this event.  The ocean floor would be where people could have been living.  Perhaps that is where MOST people lived during that time period.  If this was so, and the water started pouring, then the water from the land above (what we now call continents) would eventually make their way to these oceans...and that would cause a Great deal of flooding for those on these lands on the ocean floors.  It would literally be a flood with hundreds of feet of water.  While not stories talk about people living on the ocean floor and drowning there are stories of lost continents where people were living and then the land literally got plunged underwater (the most famous in our Western society today is probably Atlantis).

Is this a possibility, still as per science...no...not really.  However, there are myths that could indicate something like this happened.   Do I believe this is how it happened.  Not a chance.

I don't KNOW how it happened at all.  I believe there was a global flood but I have no idea how it happened, however, in whatever way it happened, I think when we understand more about how it happened we will sit back and say...ah...yes...that makes so much sense now.

See, I can accept that.  Believe in a flood, but don't know how it happened.  To me that is cool.  But trying to explain the flood using some weird pseudo science when really science doesn't support it at all is just nuts to me.  Believe it happened and leave it at that.  Or be like me and just don't believe the bible account at all.  I don't deny the power of God, I just don't think that is what he would do.

[Guest Scott]

JohnsonJones, that was a good answer and I'm glad you came up with an intelligent answer.   Most of what you say in your answer is true.   

The hose analogy was a good one.   

I was however, referring to rivers cutting through the Himalaya, which is the highest mountain range on earth. A hose works because as you wisely pointed out, the water is following the path of least resistance.

Theoretically, if you created a mountain range far higher than the Himalaya, and funneled all that water into a channel or giant cave/tunnel, and pointed all the flow towards the mountain range, you could bore through the mountain range.

The Himalaya however is the highest mountain range on earth.    There is no much higher mountain range behind the Himalaya to make it the path of least resistance.

Your answer is still and acceptable one though,  since someone could claim that that's just what happened and that God simply made the other and much more massive mountain range disappear.    That's not what I believe though.

To me the logical explanation is that the the rivers were already there and the mountains rose slowly enough that the rivers cut through them as they were rising.

 

[BJ64]

6 minutes ago, Lost Boy said:

My whole belief is that God does not leave proof of himself.  We are to have faith.  Proof of his existence is the enemy of faith.  Therefore I don't believe we will ever find proof of his existence. I believe God created the universe in an orderly many obeying the laws of nature that he established.

How can you say it does not defy scientific analysis when you don't know the science you think it follows?

Similarly, God could have let Joseph keep the gold plates and they could be on display at church headquarters for all to see as proof that the Book of Mormon really was translated from ancient gold plates. However that’s not how He works. We are required to accept the Book of Mormon on faith. 

[Grunt]

21 minutes ago, Lost Boy said:

Sure, but a global flood should leave evidence globally.  where is it?

Who knows.  It also depends on how it flooded, how long it flooded, and how it receded.  Lots of things we didn't know existed were later found, or things we knew existed we later found were evidence of something.  Who knows what we'll know tomorrow that we didn't know today.

[Guest Scott]

Anyway, for those who want to believe in God and science, why would there even be a problem?   Some people who believe in a literal 6 day creation ask the a question of why would God create ancient plant or animal life before man was created.

Man breaths oxygen.    The oxygen in our atmosphere comes from cyanobacteria that lived a long time ago (for the sake of argument, I'm not going to state the age).

Things like oil come from ancient life.   Even if we do go to alternative energy, no ancient life = no plastics, which are building materials for the computer or phone everyone is typing on right now   

There could be no steel without ancient life that supplied the carbon to be infused with the steel.

Without ancient life, there would have been no industrial age and power driven machines, at least not in today's day and age (until another suitable energy was found).

To anyone who believes in God, why couldn't ancient life and the age of the earth simply be viewed as a gift from God?   Without ancient life, how much progress would there really be, from a historical standpoint.   We certainly wouldn't be living in the same way we do today if things like oil, coal, steel, or even oxygen never existed, and all of which came from plants and animals living a long time ago.

 

Edited May 15, 2018 by Scott

[Rob Osborn]

2 hours ago, Lost Boy said:

It is not just geology, but animal diversity, etc that just doesn't jibe.  The number of animals noah could have had on the ark was quite limited compared to the diversity that we have today.  There are 60k species of vertebrates, 1.2 million species of invertebrates.  How did Noah take care of all of them?  How did he get them all on the ark?  The ark would have had to be big.  Say it took Noah 5 minutes per species to get them on the ark and in their appropriate location.  That would mean he could load about 300 animals/day.  This would take over 200 days just to load the vertebrates.

What did the lions and tigers and bears eat after they got off the ark?  if they ate any of the species, that species would go extinct.

So much that doesn't make sense.

I think believing in the flood is fine.  However, trying to back up your belief in the flood by using science is not a wise idea.  There have been thousands of good Christian geologists in the past and I would assume all have looked for evidence.  Nada.  A few papers that suggest a localized flood.  That is all.

Well, not every species of animals were on the ark. Only land dwelling animals who had the breath of life. Scientists exaggerate the amount of animals Noah had to save. We know he didn't have to save fish or other water/ocean dwelling createures and probably not insects either. That removes basically 97% of all species. So out of the 3% we aren't sure how many "kinds" actually needing saving. Kinds means one species of dog, one species of cat, etc,. Calculations have thus been made that Noah probably cared for around less than 10,000 "kinds" of animals. The ark could fit around 60,000 animals. So I'm not really seeing any issue here.

The bigger question here is why did Noah have to build such a big boat if it was just a local flood? If Noah had 120 years to warn and prepare couldn't the wicked people just migrate as far away from Noah as possible? And, couldn't Noah have just migrated animals to a different part of the planet?

Not only that but God promised he would never cover the entire earth witha flood again. If it was just a localized flood then it's reasonable to say that there have been myriads of localized floods since Noah and thus God broke his promise.

The facts thus remain- the flood covered the entire earth.

[BJ64]

Some observations I have made. 

Genesis 8:2 The fountains also of the deep and the windows of heaven were stopped, and the rain from heaven was restrained;

I don’t think we know exactly what “the fountains of the deep” were and what effect they had on the flood. “Windows of heaven” and “rain from heaven” seem to be two different things. Perhaps the window of heaven brought water to the earth from some other location. 

Genesis 8:3 And the waters returned from off the earth continually: and after the end of the hundred and fifty days the waters were abated.

Perhaps the “waters” that “returned from off the earth” was water leaving this planet and returning to where it came from. 

[person0]

What if the 40 days of rain poured so hard that everything was completely submerged but only in a thin layer of water.  I have baptized people in the temple where the person actually didn't go completely under the surface layer of the water, but the water rose up and splashed over the parts of the body that weren't 'below level' in such a way that the entire body was under water even though it wasn't below the water level.  The baptisms that have occurred this way were considered valid and did not need to be repeated.

Even if you don't believe the water level rose high enough for everything to be submerged at level, it seems entirely plausible that the rain could have been powerful enough to have achieved this result.  Thus, a global flood and baptism of the earth, without a flood level that seems to contradict some people's perceptions of science would still be plausible.

[Rob Osborn]

3 hours ago, Scott said:

 

I was questioning you, rather than mocking you.  If you took it as mocking, I apologize.   

I didn't want to come out and say it, but a lot of what you said seems to be lifted off a website I am familiar with, which was the only reason I put "vision" in quotation.  I apologize. I didn't want to accuse you of lifting some of your information off a website because I don't know.   Let's just move on from that.

Can you answer the question?  Please?

Here it is again.  No, I am not mocking you; I'm just waiting for an answer.

Rivers from the Tibetan Plateau cut through the Himalaya.  This is because the Tibetan Plateau and accompanying mountain ranges riding from the central areas are older than the Himalaya.

Water does not flow uphill and yet rivers cut through the Himalaya. The reason for this is because the rivers coming from the Tibetan Plateau existed before the Himalaya did.   Since water does not flow uphill, the Himalaya had to rise at a slow enough rate that the rivers could cut through the mountains at a greater rate than the mountains were rising.    If the mountains rose at a high rate of speed as you are claiming, the rivers would simply be diverted around the mountains, not cut through them. 

Closer to home, the same situation is true in Utah and along the Wasatch Front.    The Uinta Mountains are older than the Wasatch.   This is known because the Provo and Weber Rivers which originate in the Uinta Mountains cut through the Wasatch.   Although geologically a young mountain range, the Wasatch had to rise slow enough that the rivers could cut through the mountain at a faster rate than the mountains were rising.  The Provo and Weber Rivers existed before the Wasatch (otherwise they wouldn't cut all the way through them).   If the Wasatch rose at a high rate of speed as you are claiming, why weren't the rivers forced around them?   Water does not flow uphill.

Here's what you said that prompted the question:

Then, nearing the end of the flood the ocean floor in some areas were upthrusted tens of thousands of feet while in other areas great trenches we're formed still under water. This explains it.

If what you say is true, that it should be a simple manner to answer the question and to let me understand how your answer "explains it".

You keep saying that "it's easy to explain"; "there is no problem"; it's easy to see ___", etc.

If it's easy for you, can you please explain in the simplest form possible the answer to the question above?

 

Sone uplift happened rather quickly. Yet we are told in scripture that it took hundreds of years for the geologic events to take place causing separation of continents. I imagine that the uplift of all the mountain chains happened at separate times over different periods of time in the past 4000 years. We know that under catastrophic circumstances, as which were happening around and after the flood, that deposit and erosion events happen relatively fast. Mt. Saint Helen's showed us first hand how fast an entire forest can be buried in debris while in other areas entire gorges can be eroded out very fast.

[Guest Scott]

 

Quote

I don’t think we know exactly what “the fountains of the deep” were and what effect they had on the flood. “Windows of heaven” and “rain from heaven” seem to be two different things. Perhaps the window of heaven brought water to the earth from some other location. 

The fountains of the deep and windows of heaven were taken to as quite literal in ancient Hebrew times (even though the Hebrews also had many symbolic connotations to many subjects as well). In addition to the evidence in Bible itself, there is also a lot of archaeological evidence as well. 

  The ancient Hebrews believe that the heavens were filled with water just above the level of the stars.

 

Things like the Windows of Heaven, waters in the firmament, fountains of the earth, the foundation of earth etc. were taken quite literally during ancient Hebrew times. 

As for the flood, the way the Bible and other texts are written, the Windows of Heaven opened up and all the water in the firmament above the stars and sun spilled out and onto the earth, flooding it.  (For those that don't know, Sheol is Hell).  The fountains of the earth come from the great deep, which was also taken as literal.

According to the Bible (in a literal sense), the fountains of the deep and the water in the firmament just beyond the sun and stars and which spilled through the windows of heaven (after they were opened) is the source of the flood.  
 

PS, I was just answering your post since you mentioned the windows of heaven; I'm not arguing whether or not the above is 100% literal, was the viewpoint of those who observed the flood, or is symbolic.  I'll let you decide that.  That would just lead to some strange, but mostly fruitless discussion.  Anyone who really desires to have such a discussion can always find a Flat Earther to go the rounds with.

 

Edited May 15, 2018 by Scott

[Lost Boy]

8 minutes ago, Rob Osborn said:

Well, not every species of animals were on the ark. Only land dwelling animals who had the breath of life. Scientists exaggerate the amount of animals Noah had to save. We know he didn't have to save fish or other water/ocean dwelling createures and probably not insects either. That removes basically 97% of all species. So out of the 3% we aren't sure how many "kinds" actually needing saving. Kinds means one species of dog, one species of cat, etc,. Calculations have thus been made that Noah probably cared for around less than 10,000 "kinds" of animals. The ark could fit around 60,000 animals. So I'm not really seeing any issue here.

The bigger question here is why did Noah have to build such a big boat if it was just a local flood? If Noah had 120 years to warn and prepare couldn't the wicked people just migrate as far away from Noah as possible? And, couldn't Noah have just migrated animals to a different part of the planet?

Not only that but God promised he would never cover the entire earth witha flood again. If it was just a localized flood then it's reasonable to say that there have been myriads of localized floods since Noah and thus God broke his promise.

The facts thus remain- the flood covered the entire earth.

I disagree.  The ark according to wikipedia was around 40k cubic meters.  The Harmony of the sea is around 1.5 million cubic meters.  about 35 times larger than the ark.  it is capable of handling 5000 passengers and a huge staff to accommodate.  Say the ark only had 10k animals.  There were only 8 people on the ark to take car of that many animals.  They would be able to care for roughly 1500 animals per day.  That means the animals would only get attention once a week.  Yeah, I don't think that works.

"Your facts" still remain and they boggle the mind.

[person0]

18 minutes ago, BJ64 said:

I don’t think we know exactly what “the fountains of the deep” were and what effect they had on the flood. “Windows of heaven” and “rain from heaven” seem to be two different things. Perhaps the window of heaven brought water to the earth from some other location. 

John Taylor agrees with you:

Quote

Another cause was ‘the fountains of the great deep were broken up’—that is something beyond the oceans, something outside of the seas, some reservoirs of which we have no knowledge, were made to contribute to this event, and the waters were let loose by the hand and by the power of God; for God said He would bring a flood upon the earth and He brought it, but He had to let loose the fountains of the great deep, and pour out the waters from there, and when the flood commenced to subside, we are told ‘that the fountains also of the deep and the windows of heaven were stopped, and the rain from heaven was restrained, and the waters returned from off the earth.’ Where did they go to? From whence they came.
(Old Testament Student Manual)

[Lost Boy]

6 minutes ago, person0 said:

What if the 40 days of rain poured so hard that everything was completely submerged but only in a thin layer of water.  I have baptized people in the temple where the person actually didn't go completely under the surface layer of the water, but the water rose up and splashed over the parts of the body that weren't 'below level' in such a way that the entire body was under water even though it wasn't below the water level.  The baptisms that have occurred this way were considered valid and did not need to be repeated.

Even if you don't believe the water level rose high enough for everything to be submerged at level, it seems entirely plausible that the rain could have been powerful enough to have achieved this result.  Thus, a global flood and baptism of the earth, without a flood level that seems to contradict some people's perceptions of science would still be plausible.

The bible account states that it rained for 40 days.  And then it wasn't until several months later that they found dry land.  The tops of the mountains.  I suppose you can pick and choose what parts to believe.  I guess that is what I do..  I believe in Noah.  I think he built a boat and took some animals along with him.  I think there was local flooding and Noah survived.  And to Noah the whole world appeared to be under water.

[Rob Osborn]

4 minutes ago, Lost Boy said:

I disagree.  The ark according to wikipedia was around 40k cubic meters.  The Harmony of the sea is around 1.5 million cubic meters.  about 35 times larger than the ark.  it is capable of handling 5000 passengers and a huge staff to accommodate.  Say the ark only had 10k animals.  There were only 8 people on the ark to take car of that many animals.  They would be able to care for roughly 1500 animals per day.  That means the animals would only get attention once a week.  Yeah, I don't think that works.

"Your facts" still remain and they boggle the mind.

And yet on my way to work each day I witness a single ranch hand feeding hundreds and hundreds of cattle of cattle a day and it looks like it doesn't take him very long...

And we haven't even brought up the fact of why some animals hibernate and don't eat at all for long periods of time...

[Rob Osborn]

5 minutes ago, Lost Boy said:

The bible account states that it rained for 40 days.  And then it wasn't until several months later that they found dry land.  The tops of the mountains.  I suppose you can pick and choose what parts to believe.  I guess that is what I do..  I believe in Noah.  I think he built a boat and took some animals along with him.  I think there was local flooding and Noah survived.  And to Noah the whole world appeared to be under water.

God would be a liar then. How could he promise to never flood the earth again if we have seen and witnessed myriads of localized floods?

[person0]

12 hours ago, Lost Boy said:

I suppose you can pick and choose what parts to believe. . . And to Noah the whole world appeared to be under water.

I am not picking and choosing anything, you are.  I am simply showing that even by your supposed rules requiring scientific evidence, if the flood occurred in the way I just indicated, there would clearly be no evidence as you claim is justification to not believe in a global flood as taught by the prophets and the Church.  Also, the ark could simply not have been directed in an area toward mountains for that long of a time.  But most importantly, Noah didn't write it!  Moses did!  And Moses saw a vision of the history of the entire earth from beginning to end!  I think He would know if it covered the whole entire world or not!

Edited May 15, 2018 by person0

[Lost Boy]

1 minute ago, Rob Osborn said:

And yet on my way to work each day I witness a single ranch hand feeding hundreds and hundreds of cattle of cattle a day and it looks like it doesn't take him very long...

And we haven't even brought up the fact of why some animals hibernate and don't eat at all for long periods of time...

It is a good thing that they had hundreds of cattle and a ranch hand to feed them on the ark.   What did the lions and tigers and bears eat?  where was all this food stored.  cattle go through hey like there was no tomorrow.  What did they drink?  did they have a desalinization plant onboard?  Many animals have very unique diets...  such as the great panda.  Did Noah go out and get fine cuisine for the pandas on board?

What did Noah eat after he got off the ark?  And what did the animals eat?  The vegetation would have been destroyed by the floods.  It would have been months before there was vegetation for the animals to eat and those lions and tigers and bears are getting mighty hungry... 

[Guest Scott]

Quote

John Taylor agrees with you:

This is slightly off topic, but has anyone hear listened to the Dramatized Church history from In Living Scriptures?   I bring this up since you mention John Taylor.  

It gives a basic synopsis (which can be researched further in our Church history using other archives and Church materials) of the arguments the church leaders themselves had on the same very topics.   John Taylor believed in a literal 7 day creation, but others such as James E. Talmage did not.  It was the same with the flood and evolution. Talmage definitely believed that the flood was local and in evolution (and Tamage wrote Jeses the Christ!).   The first presidency would even argue about such issues.   Unfortunately, unless they updated it, the source above cuts off in 1977, but plenty of more documentation is available.  (See part 59 for a good synopsis of such subjects). 

The Church leaders (even the first presidency) used to even argue with each other in public about such things.  Or maybe discuss/debate are better words than "argue".

The Church even came out with several statements concerning evolution saying that the Church has no policy on evolution and other touchy topics (despite the fact that some materials and church leaders continued to make statements to the contrary).

Even closer to our time, it is still interesting.    Some even switched positions.  President Kimball, for example, started out not believing in the old earth or evolution at the beginning of his presidency, but switched his position later in his presidency, though he wasn't that vocal about it.   He would just say that he didn't worry about it anymore.

President Hinckley definitely didn't believe in evolution, and used to be vocal about it before the other two members of the first Presidency asked him to tone it down.   James E. Faust wasn't that vocal about it (unlike Talmage in earlier days), but apparently did believe in evolution.  

The First Presidency doesn't even agree on such issues, so it seems like a stretch to expect that we all would.

I will however say that BYU and the University of Utah do have plenty of materials to research that matter if the Dramatized History of the Church isn't detailed  enough.  Use them!   There are plenty of interesting sources available.

Edited May 15, 2018 by Scott

[Rob Osborn]

1 hour ago, Lost Boy said:

It is a good thing that they had hundreds of cattle and a ranch hand to feed them on the ark.   What did the lions and tigers and bears eat?  where was all this food stored.  cattle go through hey like there was no tomorrow.  What did they drink?  did they have a desalinization plant onboard?  Many animals have very unique diets...  such as the great panda.  Did Noah go out and get fine cuisine for the pandas on board?

What did Noah eat after he got off the ark?  And what did the animals eat?  The vegetation would have been destroyed by the floods.  It would have been months before there was vegetation for the animals to eat and those lions and tigers and bears are getting mighty hungry... 

Well, plenty of meat was around...

[Lost Boy]

13 minutes ago, Rob Osborn said:

Well, plenty of meat was around...

God:  Noah, what did you go and feed the jackalopes to the lions for? Now all we have to remember them by are these dumb post cards. 

[Rob Osborn]

1 minute ago, Lost Boy said:

God:  Noah, what did you go and feed the jackalopes to the lions for? Now all we have to remember them by are these dumb post cards. 

Don't forget about T-rex

[person0]

11 hours ago, Scott said:

Talmage definitely believed . . . in evolution

At least this and possibly more of what you said is demonstrably incorrect. 

Quote

The insect is fitted for its abode on the leaf; the fish for the water; the bird for the air; each beast for its allotted life; and so man for his. No one form can be transmuted into another. The thought that it could be otherwise is far more wild than the alchemist's dream of transmuting base lead into royal gold. In the fable of old the frog burst when it tried to appear as an ox. Each after its kind—each to its sphere—this is the song of nature; and all praise to nature's God.

. . .

Is evolution true?  Aye: true evolution is true. The evolution that means advancement, progress, growth to a full realization of the intended measure of all things, that is true.

-James E. Talmage, The Theory of Evolution (1890)

 

Quote

I do not believe that Adam derived his mortal body by evolutionary processes from the lower animals. The adamic race of men are of an entirely different order.

-Talmage to F. C. Williamson, 22 Apr. 1933, Talmage Papers.

Edited May 15, 2018 by person0

[Guest Scott]

2 hours ago, person0 said:

At least this and possibly more of what you said is demonstrably incorrect. 

 

 

Have you ever read any of Talmage's letters and essays though?   I'd recommend starting with essays 25-27.   Talmage's views on evolution may have evolved (pun intended) throughout time, and he did occasionally waffle back and forth, but he definitely believed in evolution in most of his letters and writings (at least that I have found).  He did seem to waffle on it more later in life than earlier.  Don't take my word for it; read them.

How about these quotes from Talmage?

 In speaking of the origin of man, we generally have reference to the creation of man’s body; and, of all the mistakes that man has made concerning himself, one of the greatest and gravest is that of mistaking the body for the man. The body is no more truly the whole man than is the coat the body.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I find my faith strengthened by the demonstration that God has operated through countless ages according to a “secondary cause” that I am beginning to understand, which seems controlled at every point by an eternal and immutable law, which law is included as a part of the principle of evolution.  I find such a concept far more faith-promoting than the old idea that every organic species simply came into existence by divine fiat.

If you read through all of his essays and letters and not a just a few cherry picked ones, it is obvious that he believed in evolution, at least for the majority of the time (though perhaps not for 100% of the time-"believed" is past tense rather than all encompassing like "always believed").  I was careful not to say that he always 100% of the time agreed with evolution, but he definitely believed in it, for at least much of his life.

You are right however, that throughout certain times (especially in the 1930's), he did waffle on the subject (See the "Roberts/Smith/Talmage Affair" papers for example).  Don't most of us do so on some topic?  I know I have.

I think it important however, to mention that Talmage, even early on did not agree with Darwinism on several accounts.  For example, Talmage said that he believed that Adam's body may have came from evolution, but not Adam's soul.  Talmage did believe in what he and others referred to as pre-Amamites, but he didn't believe them to be fully man (see above) because "pre-Adamites" didn't have a soul before Adam.   He also believed that God was the author and designer of evolution.  

I would recommend that you also listen to the Church History CD's as pointed out above.  They summarize everything quite well,.  They also give different sources to research.  As I said before, don't take my word for it.  Read into the matter from historical documents themselves.    If you need something quicker, listen to the Church History on CD.

Anyway, the Church has come out with four official statements or letters on evolution.  None have come out since 1931.   The 1931, which was the last is the most interesting in my opinion.  It came out a few years after the Scopes Trial.  It was written by the First Presidency and given to all Church general authorities.   Bolding is mine:

The idea that there were not pre-Adamites upon the earth’ is not a doctrine of the Church. Neither side of the [pre-Adamite] controversy has been accepted as a doctrine at all. Leave geology, biology, archaeology and anthropology, no one of which has to do with the salvation of the souls of mankind, to scientific research, while we magnify our calling in the realm of the Church.

Anyway, my point about Talmage wasn't whether he was right or wrong, but that not all Church leaders and figures were in 100% agreement on this and other matters.  Some of them even changed their minds or at least part of their minds throughout their lives as well (as you point out with Talmage).  

I don't claim that all of the Church leaders and figures believed in evolution; far from it.  Some did and some didn't, and some didn't say anything at all on the matter.   Some did for only part of their lives (Kimball and Talmage-or at least part of his mind for Talmage). Others (as far as I know) believed for most of their lives (BH Roberts).   Some didn't believe at all (Hinkley and Joseph F Smith).

As I said more than once though; don't take my word for it.   I actually don't want you to take my word for it.  I'd also recommend looking at actual copies of documents as well to make sure that certain quotes aren't just cherry picked (which is something we all like to do on online forums-I am not exempt). You can research any of the above yourself.   I find it quite interesting.   

Edited May 15, 2018 by Scott

[Anddenex]

13 hours ago, Lost Boy said:

My whole belief is that God does not leave proof of himself.  We are to have faith.  Proof of his existence is the enemy of faith.  Therefore I don't believe we will ever find proof of his existence. I believe God created the universe in an orderly many obeying the laws of nature that he established.

How can you say it does not defy scientific analysis when you don't know the science you think it follows?

Let's review what "Lost Boy" thinks in relation again to what God actually has said (I will share it again since you missed it the first time),

 

Quote

 

43 And now Korihor said unto Alma: If thou wilt show me a sign, that I may be convinced that there is a God, yea, show unto me that he hath power, and then will I be convinced of the truth of thy words.

44 But Alma said unto him: Thou hast had signs enough; will ye tempt your God? Will ye say, Show unto me a sign, when ye have the testimony of all these thy brethren, and also all the holy prophets? The scriptures are laid before thee, yea, and all things denote there is a God; yea, even the earth, and all things that are upon the face of it, yea, and its motion, yea, and also all the planets which move in their regular form do witness that there is a Supreme Creator.

 

In relation to a person seeking a sign, the Lord instructs us that he has left signs which will entice our moral agency to make a choice. The Lord has said, the scriptures, prophets, all things on the face of the earth, the motion of all the planets are witnesses, evidence and proof, of his existence.

Proof is not the enemy of faith. If you think so, you clearly misunderstand faith. Even with proof people can reject it. The Pharisees had plenty of proof of who Christ was, and they rejected him out of their faith in what they understood the scriptures to mean. Jesus (their God) corrected them, and yet they still rejected him, because of their lack of faith and correct understanding in true and virtuous principles. They had their God before them, what greater proof can you have of his existence, and yet by faith and the lack thereof (their belief in false principles) they rejected their God who stood before them.

God indeed did create this earth in an orderly manner. This goes without saying as he is a God of order, not of chaos.

I say it does not deny "scientific analysis" because when you have all the correct principles and understanding of what occurred "scientific analysis" will back it up. What I actually said is the that arm of flesh and it's limited understanding currently defies it. Evidence is in your previous post regarding Mount Ararat, and now you can't use it anymore, so you say "Nevermind that anymore..." What I am for sure of, is that science, better said, the scientists who keep saying things will one day again put their foot in their mouth because they did not have all the right facts and knowledge to make such a declaration as you are now, because of your trust in the arm of flesh.

Just look at dinosaurs, and all the science. Dinosaurs, when I was in my youth did not have hair. Now dinosaurs do (some). Why? Because further information has been given. Stop pretending "science analysis" defies it. Stop pretending our limited knowledge of what actually existed defies it. When you have all the facts, all the knowledge, then come and show me the evidence/proof that "scientific analysis" defies it.

EDIT: To add on with dinosaurs, I watched a show explaining how a theory of dinosaurs lasted 60 years until one discovery, and theory has now changed -- evolved -- into something else. Imagine that! With science -- all that limited knowledge -- they change with more information granted. Scientific analysis defies a lot of things -- until further information is given and then -- wait -- the theory changes. I was just watching a video on scientific method and how he shared a theory lasted 100 years (scientific analysis backed this theory up for 100 years), until more information was given. His thoughts are even more evidence as he shared, its amazing how a theory can last that long and be wrong.

Edited May 15, 2018 by Anddenex