EXTINCTIONS AND THE FLOOD

[Kirby D. P.]

I've never considered the Noah story to be about extinction, and haven't come across the idea before. I don't see a strong case for it in the text....

Don’t focus on the technical term “extinction.” The main narrative element of the story is one of Noah working at God’s command to save all terrestrial life in the face of the Flood. That’s all I mean.

 

[Kirby D. P.]

We need to speculate and reason among ourselves on many trivial issues.... ...He did not mention many things.

You’ll forgive me, but my impression of the Flood is that it is one of the most important elements of the Bible and one of the most important elements of the Flood story is the saving of all Earthly life. Yet, if extinct species like dinosaurs survived on the ark – as many celebrated young Earth creationists insist – then they appear to have since died off.

If they have not died off, then those who contend so bear a burden of proof to demonstrate it if the literal points of the Noah’s ark tale are to be believed.

If they are indeed extinct, then people who claim that God succeeded in having Noah save all earthly life should be able to also explain why God subsequently permitted them to die off.

 

[Hekuran]

Don’t focus on the technical term “extinction.” The main narrative element of the story is one of Noah working at God’s command to save all terrestrial life in the face of the Flood. That’s all I mean.

It's clearly not about saving all life. Noah took a few of each kind of creature onto the ark. Everything else perished.

I still can't see what issue is at stake here. Every living thing on the ark died eventually.

If you want to challenge a rigidly literal reading of Genesis, there are easier ways than this.

 

[Kirby D. P.]

...Lets assume a finger is ten different molecules from a pool of one hundred. The odds of a successful / winning combination are 1 in 17,310,309,456,440...

By the way, don’t succumb to common pitfalls of statistics.

First, the universe is swamped with unlikely events that put data alleged to disprove evolution to despair. For instance, statistically it is impossible for anyone to play a whole game of chess. This is because the total number of all possible chess games exceeds the number of atoms in the visible universe. Yet people play chess, all the way to the end of the game, every day. Millions of chess games get played every year. Each one as “unlikely” as each other, and each occurs 100% of the time when they happen.

More importantly, however, an incredulousness at the apparently staggering unlikely chances for successful evolution usually hinge on some notion that all evolutionary change is absolutely (that is “purely and completely”) random. Evolution DOES include elements of randomness in its processes. But these are never any more random (indeed, are usually LESS random) than the uncertainty principle in quantum physics. Yes, subatomic particles do not exhibit absolutely certain, predictable behavior. But they do behave according to well-understood laws of probability. Hence, with respect to those probabilities, their behavior is exquisitely predictable.

Now, this is only an analogy. Theory does not (yet, at least) address evolution on the quantum scale and probably never has to. At the large molecular scales where evolution plays out, quantum effects are swamped by much more prosaic influences.

But, while it IS true that evolution displays a certain amount of randomness, almost no evolution is completely random. Each evolutionary change is constrained by a number of factors. The two biggest ones that spring to mind are inherited limitations and natural selective pressures.

Evolution is constrained from complete randomness by inherited limitations because it cannot reinvent the wheel with every throw of the dice. (Forgive the mixed metaphors.) Evolutionary theory absolutely does not claim that genes have to figure out how to make a person’s finger for each of the ten times fingers that are made on (most) every new person. Evolution by natural selection depends on organisms inheriting uncannily accurate recipes from their parents the overwhelming majority of the time. Only very rarely do errors in heredity occur that are drastic enough to show up (and then only barely) in the offspring, but that do not also alter its recipe so much that the error is fatal.

Which raises the second reason I mentioned: selective pressure. The rare errors in hereditable replication are made even rarer by the fact that environmental conditions usually weed disadvantageous errors in replication from passing on to subsequent generations -- Your new genes cause you to need more food than there is available, or make you too picky about selecting a mate, or too eager to **** off a member of the social group who kills you before you can reproduce, etc.

This is why evolution is so glacially gradual. It can’t come up with some new nifty idea on how to make a better baby with any single new birth. It’s why there’ll never be a “crocaduck” and why the flu germ EVOLVES from season to season: the evolution is “drastic” enough to prompt the development of a new flu shot each year, but never so drastic that it’s no longer flu by the time cold and flu season rolls around. It is only compounding tiny increments like this, generation after generation, like compounding interest in a bank, that you get vast change such as wolflike-pakicetus to a bottlenose dolphin. On it’s surface it seems preposterous. Even Darwin admitted this. But if you lent me 10$/year for a certain amount of time and I told you when I returned the whole thing, I’d give you over $16,000, you would say that was preposterous, too… until I told you I was to placing it in an account bearing 10% guaranteed interest and saving it there for 50 years.

Evolution is a low yield, guaranteed-interest-bearing account.

 

[Kirby D. P.]

It's clearly not about saving all life...

I’m not trying to challenge a literal reading of Genesis. I am trying to find out if anyone has sought to explain this apparent contradiction.

The ENTIRE POINT of having Noah build the ark was to save every kind of life. This is why a mated pair of every unclean animal is ordered aboard, and why 7 mated pairs of clean ones show up, so the Noah family will have food and something to use as a sacrifice when they disembark AND still have enough to perpetuate the life forms.

It is the overawing core of the story. Otherwise it would simply be, “There was a flood. Aaaaaaand… everything died.”

 

[KingJ]

First, the universe is swamped with unlikely events that put data alleged to disprove evolution to despair.

The universe is swamped with atoms that have insanely huge odds of ever forming parts that have purpose.

For instance, statistically it is impossible for anyone to play a whole game of chess. This is because the total number of all possible chess games exceeds the number of atoms in the visible universe. Yet people play chess, all the way to the end of the game, every day. Millions of chess games get played every year. Each one as “unlikely” as each other, and each occurs 100% of the time when they happen.

Nice to use miraculously completed products in an example of chance.

Evolutionary theory absolutely does not claim that genes have to figure out how to make a person’s finger for each of the ten times fingers that are made on (most) every new person. .

My generous example was based on only 1 object.

But, while it IS true that evolution displays a certain amount of randomness, almost no evolution is completely random. Each evolutionary change is constrained by a number of factors. The two biggest ones that spring to mind are inherited limitations and natural selective pressures.

Inherent limitations worsen odds when new parts are needed. Natural selection can improve odds on some parts needed but then it can also increase odds on others.

There is simply nothing you can say that will ever cause a smart gambler to ever bet on evolution. You are just clouding the real issue that simple math exposes.

 

[KingJ]

You’ll forgive me, but my impression of the Flood is that it is one of the most important elements of the Bible and one of the most important elements of the Flood story is the saving of all Earthly life. Yet, if extinct species like dinosaurs survived on the ark – as many celebrated young Earth creationists insist – then they appear to have since died off. If they have not died off, then those who contend so bear a burden of proof to demonstrate it if the literal points of the Noah’s ark tale are to be believed. If they are indeed extinct, then people who claim that God succeeded in having Noah save all earthly life should be able to also explain why God subsequently permitted them to die off.

There are viable possibilities.

1. No Dinosaurs.
2. Dinosaur pool represented by a few lizards.
3. God lead the animals to Noah. Of those that arrived at the ark, he made his selections as instructed.
4. Applied logic from looking at the current state of the earth. There are many species and in harmony. Human population growth graphs tie in with the flood date. This results in claims of billions of species dying sounding bizarre.
5. God is omnipotent and can literally do whatever He wants.

I do agree with you that the flood is a stand out event in the bible. But what is relevant / interesting for me is:

1. God brings change when a society goes rotten / reaches a certain level of acceptance to grievous sins.
2. God gave mankind 100 year warning before He removed them.

I would then ponder questions like:

1. How rotten were they? What were these sins?
2. What happened to the kids? Were all, bar Noah and family truly rotten?

To wonder about the number of extinctions of species in text that is not an encyclopedia is being pedantic / missing the boat / trivial.

 

[Lanolin]

If you not interested in Jesus and rather chase vain imaginations like evolutionary theory then sorry cant help you..the spiritual life will always be a unfathomable mystery to you.

God told Noah to take two of every sort. Note Noah did not take all the animals on the ark, just two, and seven of clean beasts as sacrifice or burnt offering to the Lord.

Not sure what your issue is. As said before the flood changed everything including climate, so, large cold blooded animals like dinosaurs may not have survived the shift. Also since there was such a huge upheaval, the land was divided.

There is no contradiction as I can see. Fossils are only made by compaction of sediment or rapid burial and this happens in a flood of epic scale. Fossils can be made today by the same action. An island can be made in a day..witness volcanoes out of the sea and colonised in less than 50 years.

 

[Kirby D. P.]

There are viable possibilities... ...To wonder about the number of extinctions of species in text that is not an encyclopedia is being pedantic / missing the boat / trivial.

Very well. I am honestly not here to convince you out of any of your opinions or beliefs. I simply offered my take on things such as statistics and evolution so, where we think we disagree, that disagreement can be based on some mutual understanding of how the opinions are different.

But, getting back to my, as yet, open question. I submit the reason God sent Noah the animals to ride in the ark was “to keep them alive” (Genesis 6:__). This is a matter of scriptural fact as well as derived dogma in a number of faiths.

Most of the kinds of animals that Noah must have taken on the ark are no longer alive.

This appears to be a contradiction, and a major one in one of the foundational Biblical narratives.

I take it you do not find it as contradictory as I do. Fine. Why not?

I have not asked about and cannot speak to things like how many breeds of lizard could or would constitute a conservation of the Dinosaur genome. In my heathen view, modern birds ARE dinosaurs, and if dinosaurs are to be take as a single “kind” of animal, then some of my reason for seeing contradiction is addressed.

But God does not speak to Noah in genomics. He speaks in terms of “kinds” and “sorts” of animals. These categories are arguably vague, but they are consistent, so I limit my inquiry accordingly.

Nor can I discuss contrasting conditions between pre- and post-Flood climates in any informed way. But since the Bible makes no such comparisons, neither am I bound to.

If you don’t think this is a matter worthy of any scrutiny, I’ll respect that. But I confess it in no way diminishes my interest in an explanation.

 

[KingJ]

Most of the kinds of animals that Noah must have taken on the ark are no longer alive.

This appears to be a contradiction, and a major one in one of the foundational Biblical narratives.

I take it you do not find it as contradictory as I do. Fine. Why not?

It could be that they were needed to serve some purpose. It could also be that God's purpose for all creation was simply an environment for us. As such the extinctions from increased human population is acceptable to Him.

 

[Hekuran]

I’m not trying to challenge a literal reading of Genesis. I am trying to find out if anyone has sought to explain this apparent contradiction.

The ENTIRE POINT of having Noah build the ark was to save every kind of life. This is why a mated pair of every unclean animal is ordered aboard, and why 7 mated pairs of clean ones show up, so the Noah family will have food and something to use as a sacrifice when they disembark AND still have enough to perpetuate the life forms.

It is the overawing core of the story. Otherwise it would simply be, “There was a flood. Aaaaaaand… everything died.”

Accepted. Noah built the ark so that life on earth could continue. But I still don't see how this makes the extinction of a species (or even the death of an individual creature) a greater philosophical or theological problem than it would be otherwise.

Species went extinct before and after the flood. The major feature of Noah's Ark is that not everything was destroyed.

 

[Kirby D. P.]

If you not interested in Jesus and rather chase vain imaginations like evolutionary theory then sorry cant help you... ...There is no contradiction as I can see.

Hi, Lanolin.

FWIW, I am VERY interested in Jesus and his ministry. Also, I take care not to “chase after” any particular dogma. I simply try to accord scientific theories the reasonable acceptance and skepticism they deserve.

As a show of my good faith (forgive the pun), if you scan back over the foregoing part of our conversation, while I admit unabashedly that I consider evolutionary theory generally correct, I don’t think you’ll find any instance of me claiming, “That’s impossible because…” or “Evolution says ___, so…” or any such tired old canards.

I am not here to spread atheism. If there IS a God as described in the Bible, I am actually here to spread Christianity… to me.

As part of that process, I am investigating into any common explanations for this rather striking (so far as I am concerned) APPARENT (though not necessarily actual) contradiction.

The reason it is so striking to me is because one way in which popular Christian dogma aligns with Scripture is the immutability and invincibility of the will of God. Even in this chat, you yourself have pointed out again and again how nothing happens except according to his design and that the whole shebang is always in his hands. I’ll guess (tell me if I’m wrong) that you’d agree: Even if the modern climate would be deadly to T-Rex, God could sustain a T-Rex alive and well today if he wanted to. If he wanted to, he could do this with a million anachronistic T-Rexes.

God tells Noah to admit the animals onto he ark “to keep them alive.”

But it appears that MOST of the KINDS of animals who rode in the ark have since been wiped out.

If God wanted to keep them alive beyond the cruise in the ark, he could have. But he appears not to have wanted to.

All I am asking is, “Does anyone know of a good explanation of why he seems to want to keep these animals alive through the Flood, but not after the Flood.”

I find your views on pre- and post-Flood climate genuinely interesting. For instance, while I knew that some fundamentalists believe rainbows did not exist before the flood, it never occurred to me that, if that is the case, then rain probably did not preexist the Flood either.

But my key interest here is for thoughts on this apparent paradox. If you have no opinion and/or don’t think the issue is even a worthwhile subject for contemplation, I’ll respect that. But, though I have never been a believer, I did receive a religious education until the age of 15. While I never found much of it compelling, I did pay attention. And one of the things that was absolutely drilled into our class’s heads was: The most important way to learn the will of God is to study, discuss, and even debate Scripture.

(Let’s see if you can guess in which faith I was reared from that one kernel.)

 

[Kirby D. P.]

Species went extinct before and after the flood. The major feature of Noah's Ark is that not everything was destroyed.

PLEASE don’t take this negatively, Hekuran, but the view that, “Species have gone extinct since the Flood, and no life EXCEPT ark passengers survived the Flood, yet still the Earth abounds with life,” is not exactly “evolution.” But it is pretty evolutionary… or… let’s say, evolutionish.

 

[Hekuran]

PLEASE don’t take this negatively, Hekuran, but the view that, “Species have gone extinct since the Flood, and no life EXCEPT ark passengers survived the Flood, yet still the Earth abounds with life,” is not exactly “evolution.” But it is pretty evolutionary… or… let’s say, evolutionish.

OK. But in common with the vast majority of believers in the UK, I don't have a problem with the theory of evolution, nor am I committed to a rigidly literal understanding of the story of the flood.

I don't doubt the power of God to create the universe in 7 days, nor to cover the entire planet in water with 40 days of rain. But it seems to me to be clear that this is not what actually happened in its literal detail. I find this a much more satisfactory way to think about the world; far better than getting swallowed up by muddleheaded arguments about how many dinosaurs were on the ark.

 

[Kirby D. P.]

OK. But in common with the vast majority of believers in the UK, I don't have a problem with the theory of evolution, nor am I committed to a rigidly literal understanding of the story of the flood.

I don't doubt the power of God to create the universe in 7 days, nor to cover the entire planet in water with 40 days of rain. But it seems to me to be clear that this is not what actually happened in its literal detail. I find this a much more satisfactory way to think about the world; far better than getting swallowed up by muddleheaded arguments about how many dinosaurs were on the ark.

Ah, sorry. Lost track of who's who and who's a YEC on this thread.

Agreed : getting hung up on the exact ark manifest is, at least to some extent, beside the point. That having been said, I am interested in any underlying principles. Is God determined to save all forms of life alive on earth? When he told Noah to keep the animals alive, was he giving Noah an assignment for his benefit alone? Or for the Animals' benefit? Or both? I don't think these are insignificant things to ponder.

 

[Hekuran]

OK, here's an all too simple answer.

God's saving work at the time of the flood did not completely fulfill the promise of salvation
God's action in saving the Hebrews from the hand of Pharaoh in Egypt was a partial salvation
Restoring the Jews to Jerusalem after the Babylonian exile did not bring to reality the full promise of salvation..

...none of these great actions of God fully dealt with the fundamental human problems of sin, death and decay.

Jesus life, death, resurrection and ascension conquered death and the power of sin. We wait in hope for the completion of his work when he returns in glory.

That may all be a big pill for an atheist to swallow, and probably raises more questions than it delivers answers. But I think it at least shows that the great themes of the Bible are consistent. Every work of salvation in the Old Testament foreshadows the work of Jesus Christ.

 

[Lanolin]

Hi, Lanolin.

FWIW, I am VERY interested in Jesus and his ministry. Also, I take care not to “chase after” any particular dogma. I simply try to accord scientific theories the reasonable acceptance and skepticism they deserve.

As a show of my good faith (forgive the pun), if you scan back over the foregoing part of our conversation, while I admit unabashedly that I consider evolutionary theory generally correct, I don’t think you’ll find any instance of me claiming, “That’s impossible because…” or “Evolution says ___, so…” or any such tired old canards.

I am not here to spread atheism. If there IS a God as described in the Bible, I am actually here to spread Christianity… to me.

As part of that process, I am investigating into any common explanations for this rather striking (so far as I am concerned) APPARENT (though not necessarily actual) contradiction.

The reason it is so striking to me is because one way in which popular Christian dogma aligns with Scripture is the immutability and invincibility of the will of God. Even in this chat, you yourself have pointed out again and again how nothing happens except according to his design and that the whole shebang is always in his hands. I’ll guess (tell me if I’m wrong) that you’d agree: Even if the modern climate would be deadly to T-Rex, God could sustain a T-Rex alive and well today if he wanted to. If he wanted to, he could do this with a million anachronistic T-Rexes.

God tells Noah to admit the animals onto he ark “to keep them alive.”

But it appears that MOST of the KINDS of animals who rode in the ark have since been wiped out.

If God wanted to keep them alive beyond the cruise in the ark, he could have. But he appears not to have wanted to.

All I am asking is, “Does anyone know of a good explanation of why he seems to want to keep these animals alive through the Flood, but not after the Flood.”

I find your views on pre- and post-Flood climate genuinely interesting. For instance, while I knew that some fundamentalists believe rainbows did not exist before the flood, it never occurred to me that, if that is the case, then rain probably did not preexist the Flood either.

But my key interest here is for thoughts on this apparent paradox. If you have no opinion and/or don’t think the issue is even a worthwhile subject for contemplation, I’ll respect that. But, though I have never been a believer, I did receive a religious education until the age of 15. While I never found much of it compelling, I did pay attention. And one of the things that was absolutely drilled into our class’s heads was: The most important way to learn the will of God is to study, discuss, and even debate Scripture.

(Let’s see if you can guess in which faith I was reared from that one kernel.)

Uh no idea was it catholicism...? Or anglicanism. I wasnt reared in any faith. I am not a findamentalist or whatever its label is. Just a plain born again christian.

Well, if you have a question thats really bugging you as I said before ask God!

Did you ask, or you just not interested in communicating with Him?

 

[Lanolin]

Lord, why are there no dinosaurs and t rexes around today? This guy really really wants to know!

 

[Lanolin]

Ok kirby...you got a Bible?

Turn to Job chapter 41

 

[Kirby D. P.]

"...God's saving work at the time of the flood did not completely fulfill the promise of salvation..."

Ah. Thank you. That is actually a very clear and comprehensible answer. And it seems to cohere quite naturally with my understanding of Christian doctrine. Thanks for something significant to chew on.

(If you don't mind saying, what about it do you find over-simplistic?)