That is used to explain how to fit all “kinds” on the ark, but not how the limited number of kinds exploded into the number of species found today. I’ve heard one creationist, I think, claim the stress of the new earth did it. Not very convincing.
Though I was not raised in a Fundamentalist Christian sect, I was raised to believe that the Great Flood did happen and that God made it happen because He was unhappy with his creation. When I read the Bible as an adult, I got the same impression regarding God’s role in causing the Flood. By that time, however, I was already an atheist and judged the whole account to be a shaggy dog story told around countless campfires to explain rainbows.
Just for a point of reference do you find comic inflation convincing?
cosmic inflation - Google Search
Expected answer, why sure, it’s science and all.
Sure, some comic books do get more expensive as the years go by. That can be confirmed by observation.
Well yes, since it made a prediction about the fine structure of cosmic microwave radiation which were verified. That’s how science works.
Der Flood story makes all sorts of predictions about what we should find, none of which have panned out. Making up post hoc justifications for the failure of ones predictions doesn’t hack it.
Corrupted DNA causes visible mutations to happen at a higher rate, which is also why close relatives should not breed today and why it wasn’t a problem when human DNA was relatively new. See, back in the day, humans could avoid the genetic diseases associated with inbreeding, and they also lived a lot longer, as they were designed to do. But over time their DNA accumulated so many mutations that genetic birth defects and premature aging have become common. It’s a similar mechanism for driving the high mutation rates needed for accelerated evolution.
Or so I’ve been told by someone who managed to keep a straight face and, knowing her religious beliefs, likely believed it.
Same religion time period and region, was always taught that the OT had allegorical elements, and mainly important insofar as it was said to foretell Jesus, or to give the context for Jesus’ statements as ‘scriptural scholar’ in the Gospels.
That said, since you don’t need much qualification to teach ‘CCD’ (Confraternity of Christian Doctrine), Catholic speak for what US Protestants call ‘Sunday School’, and generally taught by lay people even back then, I suppose all kinds of stuff was and is taught. And some priests and nuns I’ve known have also been a lot more ‘fiery’ than others. But it also gets back to exactly ‘correct’ interpretation of OT stories being relatively peripheral to Catholicism certainly in Vatican II era but even much earlier.
A story where the Flood was strictly literal but mankind being ‘warned’ I’ve never heard of before. But in general God in OT does (like, really) harsh things and gives the Israelites harsh laws to live under. Catholicism generally draws a distinction between that and the message of the Gospels to be spread to ‘the ends of the earth’, and the gentiles (as per Paul), again as it interprets being foreshadowed in OT (Isaiah particularly). So while you might say the Flood was allegorical, it’s not claimed every harsh and vengeful act of OT God, of which there are many, or the harsh laws given to the Israelites, weren’t ‘real’. But rather the message of the NT is mainly ‘forward looking’ for believers in Christ, to oversimplify a book length topic.
Creationism works in exactly the reverse way as science. Creationism starts with a description of how the world got to be the way it is, and then tries to fit observations into that framework. Science starts with observations, and from that tries to develop an explanation of how they fit together based on testable hypotheses.
Science starts with an existing premise of how, in this case the world, got started, which just happens to be based on prior science, instead of ancient wisdom in scripture. But the foundation of how the world works in some form is given to both creationists and scientists as a starting point and they have to figure out how new observations work in their chosen model.
I was raised fundamentalist Presbyterian, with a smidgen of Lutheran. I remember being taught that The Flood was the Literal Truth, but the distinction in the OP’s poll was not significant. God did what He had to do to save us from Godless Heathens.
I was raised Catholic. I’m not sure if CCD didn’t cover many Bible stories or if I just blanked them all out of my mind. I don’t really remember any of what the curriculum covered?
Anyway, what my parents taught me about the flood was that Noah built an arky, arky; built it out of sticks and barky, barky. It was for the animals in twosies, twosies - elephants and kangaroosies, roosies.
I chose the closest one - that God was trying to wipe out the evil humans. But that’s not exactly correct. Specifically, I was taught that the Nephilim had lain with human women, and corrupted God’s created humans so much that we were no longer capable of good in his sight. So God sought to wipe out all the hybrids. I found that bit interesting as it seemed to jibe with the Greek and Roman mythologies. But I guess Noah and his family were good, so God convinced Noah to build the ark and keep his own family safe, thus the flood only wiped out the corrupted DNA lines.
So yeah, we’re all the descendants of Noah’s family incest and inbreeding. The really bizarre part is, that these same people who taught this would also try to teach that there were tribes of humans today who were decided as they descended from the various sons of Adam. When I tried to argue that all these “tribes” would have been consolidated at the time of Noah, I was asked to go sit in the hall until I had learned to “respect the Bible as the Word of God.”
Hmmmmmnn.
Get those children out of the muddy, muddy
As if the old guy didn’t have enough to do building an ark big enough for all the animals, he also had to get them across oceans in several cases. Unless you believe continental drift didn’t happen until later, of course. Maybe the total land mass on earth was about the size of Vermont. Yeah, that’s the ticket.
Not even close. Science in the 18th century mostly accepted the Bible but as facts were discovered about the age of the earth the facts and observations led to hypotheses to explain them - and then those hypotheses were tested. The Earth (and universe) kept getting older as new data came in.
Fact about the earth caused scientist to dump the Biblical creation story and come up with a story fitting the data (and they revised it). Facts about the Earth caused creationists to either reject the facts or pile up the bullshit explaining how the Bible was still correct no matter how much contradictory evidence was found.
I was sure that was gonna be the Cosby routine. 
I think you are referring to the serpent seed doctrine, which purports that Eve engaged in sexual intercourse with the serpent (often believed to be Satan incarnate) and thus produced Cain. even apart from the anti-scientific and non-biblical aspects of this notion, it is often used to support anti-African and antiSemitic beliefs. It is, in other words, highly stupid.
I was raised Catholic and had religious ed throughout my whole time in school. I can’t remember where I first heard about the Noah story, but I suspect it was from a “Bible” for kids which I had that was mostly a picture book with short accompanying text. It was just a neat story with animals, and I’m sure it didn’t mention that God caused the flood to wipe out humanity. I remember myself as kid (and haven’t changed in that regard), and if I had known that aspect I would have protested that all the other animals were unjustly killed as collateral damage when wiping out the wicked humans. I also think that nobody ever gave me the impression that the story was anything other than a pious legend.
I don’t remember learning about the story in school, because even in elementary school (Grundschule), the Old Testament wasn’t a frequent subject, the only story from the OT I remember having heard in school was Exodus. At grammar school (Gymnasium), we didn’t talk about the OT ever again in religious ed as far as I remember.
ETA: just remembered, this song could also have been my introduction to the flood story.