by Fisherman 51 Replies latest watchtower beliefs
Using that poplulation calculator and starting with 6 people, it takes 4000 years to reach ~8 billion people at a growth rate of .527%.
That still doesnt explain how kangaroos and all their prehistoric ancestors are found only on the continent of Australia, which would have been all but impossible to reach by land post-flood.
Bear in mind that, as TD's chart shows, we do have some data regarding the population of the world over time. And the data for the past couple of centuries (if not more) should be quite precise. We know that it hasn't been a linear progression, and we know many of the factors affecting growth rates over time.
remember too, that families take desperate measures to grow again after un-natural disasters, see
the Lot family after the fire and brimstone event of Sodom and Gomorrah, and the neck wrenching,salty death of the matriarch.
Noah's antique bedroom antics included, all new wine fueled.
The Hapsburgs reproduced with a starting pool of about 8. They died out in a few hundred years and it wasn’t very pretty.
Even if you claim some extraordinary intervention in the gene pool, child mortality alone was 40% back in the day. So you needed to produce a lot of babies just to replace yourself and then the women had a 15-25% chance at death every birth which would stop further reproduction.
So statistically speaking, it would have been near impossible. For healthy gene pool and genetic drift you need a population of about 500-1000 humans.
In a similar vein, we've driven enough species to the brink of extinction to have a very good grasp of the number of breeding pairs required with higher mammals.
Even if you ignore the human problem, the story just doesn't work.
lol...Mathematically possible? Is that the criteria for belief? I can assert any of millions of outrageous claims that are mathematically possible.
You are using a Chewbacca defense.
The genetic bottleneck, the cheetah nearly went extinct about 10K years ago, the number of breeding pairs required with higher mammals, the story just doesn't work.
Thank you TD for your always esteemed and always eagerly anticipated commentary.
There are 2 aspects of the Bible, that the information comes from God and therefore God’s Word and true AND what it means or how a person interprets what the Bible says. For example, before science could prove the contrary, JW interpreted the Bible to say that each day of creation is 7000 years long, but later compared to scientific evidence, science proved that the earth and the universe have been around for a bit longer than that but because the Bible is believed to be the infallible word of God, the interpretation of how long is a day of creation was falsified —but not the Bible. That is to say, the Bible was not falsified to believers like myself that God is the source of the information found in the Bible. You suggest that the Bible story of Noah conflicts with what is believed to be scientific evidence against it. But Jesus and the Christian Scriptures validate the story of Noah as true (that is to say that the story is not allegorical) and not a myth —to believers.
There will come a point at some point in time when believers will either be totally vindicated —or debunked and totally defeated but believers are convinced that will never happen. At present, empirical science hasn’t disproven what the Bible says about Noah inspite of scientific conclusions and beliefs. Nevertheless, your commentary is interesting.
At present, empirical science hasn’t disproven what the Bible says about Noah
is there empirical evidence such as in the Antarctic ice drill cores, 200 times older than "noah", that this ice floated above Mt Everest? did they find that tell tale layer marking the floating debris, pressure line? That the continent was lifted 10 000 meters off its rock bed? To believe that, without empirical evidence, you have to be off the rocker.
Nevertheless, it would be nice if . Re,11:18 , would come true, even if the rest is just -- ridiculous.
Then Jesus and Peter could be forgiven for watery hyperbole.
Come to think of it, it would have been more believable to have the survivors and fauna camp out on the glaciers, sure floaters, than trying to build that impossible barge.
Hi Waton
How would they prove that?
How would they prove that?
There is no question that ice floats (wt argument that this unusual property of water gives us liquid water, because it kept the oceans from freezing from the bottom up.} water gets less dense as its temperature falls, not rises.
Antartica would have floated 4000 years ago, the rising tide lifts all bodies. even the atmosphere.
we know the deluge date. No anomalies from a global catastrophe in the cores corresponding to that era detected. Imagine 9000 meters of water falling as snow on top of the ice, in 40 days, the mark that would make. The change in radiation levels from losing that water canopy shield.
good thing the titanic Ark did not hit a floating iceberg the size of Antartica.
