Creationists: can you explain post-Flood repopulation? (2)

[Astrid]

I suspect multiple significant but not catastrophic floods of the Tigris and Euphrates rivers are the historical origin for the Genesis and Gilgamesh narratives.

A hundred year storm could all but annihilate a bronze age culture if they were unlucky.

hundred year storm?

 

[samiam]

Then I'm not sure what you are trying to achieve. What are these mental gymnastics for?

I am content with a universe which does not need an atheistic world view to explain everything in it. If this were, say, RationalWiki, that would be a different ball game, but remember that this is Christianforums and while the mods and admins here do allow people with a purely naturalistic worldview in some of the subforums, that’s not the worldview this site promotes.

We will have to agree to disagree here. My worldview and my philosophy is willing to accept a form of “last Thursdayism”, where “last Thursday” could be 100,000 years ago.

Why not learn something about the geological history of the Med instead of dreaming up a personal theory?

Whether it was the Black Sea deluge or if the Mediterranean Sea within human history is a pedantic difference—it doesn’t change the general nature of the story—but I have dutifully noted that it’s more feasible for the Black Sea to have flooded during human history. I’ve also fixed the Wikipedia article on the Black Sea deluge theory, since for some reason Robert Ballard’s expeditions in to the Black Sea were deleted from the article.

There isn’t broad consensus about whether the Black Sea flooded relatively recently (i.e. within human oral history), so it’s a “theory” in the sense it’s one plausible explanation of what happened. It could also have been, as pointed out by Shemjaza, a flood in the fertile crescent.

The argument used by Flavius Josephus is that the flood happened because it was a common element in many myths that existed, so there is very likely something which happened to cause the stories to spread among ancient humans.

 

[Astrid]

Robert Ballard

I am content with a universe which does not need an atheistic world view to explain everything in it. If this were, say, RationalWiki, that would be a different ball game, but remember that this is Christianforums and while the mods and admins here do allow people with a purely naturalistic worldview in some of the subforums, that’s not the worldview this site promotes.

We will have to agree to disagree here. My worldview and my philosophy is willing to accept a form of “last Thursdayism”, where “last Thursday” could be 100,000 years ago.



Whether it was the Black Sea deluge or if the Mediterranean Sea within human history is a pedantic difference—it doesn’t change the general nature of the story—but I have dutifully noted that it’s more feasible for the Black Sea to have flooded during human history. I’ve also fixed the Wikipedia article on the Black Sea deluge theory, since for some reason Robert Ballard’s expeditions in to the Black Sea were deleted from the article.

There isn’t broad consensus about whether the Black Sea flooded relatively recently (i.e. within human oral history), so it’s a “theory” in the sense it’s one plausible explanation of what happened. It could also have been, as pointed out by Shemjaza, a flood in the fertile crescent.

The argument used by Flavius Josephus is that the flood happened because it was a common element in many myths that existed, so there is very likely something which happened to cause the stories to spread among ancient humans.

" More feasible"? Did you see when the Med refilled?
It was like quite a while ago.
As in, " why don't you learn a little before concocting
a specious theory's?

It's not a matter of pedantry to mention you put
zero thought or info into your " theory". It seems rather to
the point of how it reflects on other notions you may express.

As for "atheistic worldview" intruding a lite reality,
we find many Christians being well capable of incorporating
matters of a factual nature in their faith, at no risk.

You may be doing so yourself with tacit acceptance that
there was no world wide flood, no 40 days and nights, no
need for an " ark".

 

[DialecticSkeptic]

My personal theory is that the Strait of Gibraltar broke in ancient times, and the Mediterranean Sea went from being farmland to being flooded, causing the flood story become part of ancient people’s oral history, one form of which became the Noah Story.

So, you don't believe the flood of Noah was a global one that covered "all the high mountains under the entire heavens" (Gn 7:19).

 

[samiam]

" More feasible"? Did you see when the Med refilled?
It was like quite a while ago.
As in, " why don't you learn a little before concocting
a specious theory's?

It's not a matter of pedantry to mention you put
zero thought or info into your " theory". It seems rather to
the point of how it reflects on other notions you may express.

Yes, it is a matter of pedantry, and yes I put some real thought in to the theory. Well, more like, I read about the Black Sea stuff and talked to a friend about it two decades ago, saw the remains at the bottom of the Black Sea, and decided it was plausible. I then heard years later from a friend it might had been the Mediterranean sea instead so put some weight in to the idea.

Do you or do you not agree it’s feasible for the flooding to have happened in the Black Sea, and for there to have been human settlements when it happened? To accuse me of putting no thought in to my reply because I said “Mediterranean sea” instead of “Black sea” when

a) It’s a plausible theory
b) There are, in fact, plausible theories that the Straight of Gibraltar has broken open, albeit before human history

is not going to lead to a productive conversation.

 

[Astrid]

Yes, it is a matter of pedantry, and yes I put some real thought in to the theory. Well, more like, I read about the Black Sea stuff and talked to a friend about it two decades ago, saw the remains at the bottom of the Black Sea, and decided it was plausible. I then heard years later from a friend it might had been the Mediterranean sea instead so put some weight in to the idea.

Do you or do you not agree it’s feasible for the flooding to have happened in the Black Sea, and for there to have been human settlements when it happened? To accuse me of putting no thought in to my reply because I said “Mediterranean sea” instead of “Black sea” when

a) It’s a plausible theory
b) There are, in fact, plausible theories that the Straight of Gibraltar has broken open, albeit before human history

is not going to lead to a productive conversation.

The theory you claimed and I referred to was
about the Mediterranean.
Grab goal posts and run.

 

[samiam]

So, you don't believe the flood of Noah was a global one that covered "all the high mountains under the entire heavens" (Gn 7:19).

Well, let me go back to the topic of this thread, and ignore the whataboutism about whether it’s the Mediterranean or Black sea where a deluge could had happened. To believe the literal worldwide flood requires repopulating the entire world with only 8 people starting around 3000 BCE. It requires repopulating the world quickly enough we have enough people to make the pyramids and what not, while having the world population we have today.

Now, I did come up with a hyperfertile model where we go from 8 people to 20,000,000 people in 100 years. It requires a lot of assumptions, but it can be done with some hand waving (e.g. removing death). More realistically, it would take about 200 years to have 750,000 living people, again using a hyperfertile model, but one with death and failed pregnancies.

 

[samiam]

The theory you claimed and I referred to was
about the Mediterranean.
Grab goal posts and run.

You have not made a single comment about the topic of this thread, which is the supposed repopulation after Noah’s family of eight people left the ark. Moving goal posts indeed.

 

[Tinker Grey]

hundred year storm?

The phrase generally means the kind of storm that happens only once in one hundred years. I've recently read some headlines about the flooding in Kentucky referring to a 1000 yr storm.

 

[Astrid]

The phrase generally means the kind of storm that happens only once in one hundred years. I've recently read some headlines about the flooding in Kentucky referring to a 1000 yr storm.

Ah. Tnx.

 

[Astrid]

You have not made a single comment about the topic of this thread, which is the supposed repopulation after Noah’s family of eight people left the ark. Moving goal posts indeed.

That would be why you offered an absurd " theory" about
the Med? Totally on repopulation topic. If you want a pass to talk nonsense free from comment, say so along with the post.

Others say like, "oops, got that wrong".

 

[Larniavc]

You have not made a single comment about the topic of this thread, which is the supposed repopulation after Noah’s family of eight people left the ark.

The problem here is that you are saying "let's ignore what we already know about the time frames and physical impossibility of a global flood and also the impossibility of 8 people repopulating the world because of the lack of genetic diversity. Let's also ignore the lack of a planet wide genetic bottleneck in the post Noachian era. Then lets say that humans are reproducing perfectly at a rate that would outstrip the communities resources (and DO NOT DIE) and any inconsistencies are hand waved away with 'Goddidit'. Anyone who points out the errors in this are simply being pedantic".

Then you say that you read about the Black Sea deluge hypothesis and talked to a friend about it (twenty years ago, no less). Then you swapped out the Black Sea for the Med (but pointing that out to you is pedantic).

All in the Physical and Life Sciences sub fora.

 

[Frank Robert]

Scientists want to store DNA of 6.7 million species on the moon, just in case. The 'lunar ark' would be hidden in lava tubes. A "lunar ark" hidden inside the moon's lava tubes could preserve the sperm, eggs and seeds of millions of Earth's species, a group of scientists has proposed.

Perhaps God stored DNA on the Ark with pictures of the animals. At the least it would have saved on cleanup.

 

[DialecticSkeptic]

To believe the literal worldwide flood requires repopulating the entire world with only 8 people starting around 3000 BCE.

Agreed. However, that leads to my question. See, if you don't believe the flood of Noah was global in scale—and it seems that you do not—then there is no need to figure out how to repopulate the world starting with only eight people roughly 4,000 years ago. That is, you're proposing a solution in search of a problem.

 

[AV1611VET]

Agreed. However, that leads to my question. See, if you don't believe the flood of Noah was global in scale—and it seems that you do not—then there is no need to figure out how to repopulate the world starting with only eight people roughly 4,000 years ago. That is, you're proposing a solution in search of a problem.

When God told Noah and his sons to replenish the earth, notice He blesses them with "fruitfulness" and "multiplicity."

Genesis 9:1 And God blessed Noah and his sons, and said unto them, Be fruitful, and multiply, and replenish the earth.

In short, they would have made Nadya Suleman blush with envy.

And notice there were eight people after the Flood?

Adam & Eve were only two people and, with God's blessing, they did the same thing.

 

[DialecticSkeptic]

And notice there were eight people after the Flood?

It follows that there were eight people in all the world only if the scale of the flood was global, and @samiam appears to believe otherwise. With a flood the scale of which was regional, there would be no need to repopulate the entire planet but rather just the affected region, perhaps the Levant or even the Fertile Crescent. In short, you wouldn't need to calculate how to get a population of 20 million people, as those living everywhere else on Earth would have carried on with their lives unaffected.

 

[AV1611VET]

It follows that there were eight people in all the world only if the scale of the flood was global, and @samiam appears to believe otherwise. With a flood the scale of which was regional, there would be no need to repopulate the entire planet but rather just the affected region, perhaps the Levant or even the Fertile Crescent. In short, you wouldn't need to calculate how to get a population of 20 million people, as those living everywhere else on Earth would have carried on with their lives unaffected.

Good point.

In addition, if the Flood was just a local one, why was Noah aboard the Ark for a year?

 

[samiam]

In short, you wouldn't need to calculate how to get a population of 20 million people

Well, just because I don’t believe there’s a time traveler from Gallifrey who travels around in a spaceship which looks like a mid-20th-century blue British phone booth doesn’t mean I’m not interested in having some solution to the UNIT dating inconsistencies those stories have. There’s value in coming up with a “headcanon” which resolves the inconsistencies of a story, whether or not the story is fiction.

One thing I have learned as I grow older is that it’s really bad manners to mock or disrespect someone for believing something 40% of the people in the United States believe. It’s taken me a long time to accept that this number has been pretty consistent for four decades, and that Young Earth Creationists deserve my full respect, even if I don’t have those beliefs. They have my respect to the point I will, for a Bible study, come up with an entire “OK, supposing we have only eight people in the entire world in 3,000 BCE, how does the world get populated again?” thought experiment.

they would have made Nadya Suleman blush with envy

Actually, my model only has a 5% chance that a given birth will be twins. That’s higher than the 0.94% (1980) or 1.67% (2009) chance of having twins, but consistent with the number of births which are twin births among the Yoruba people (4.5-5%). There is also a 0.05% chance a given birth will be triplets in the model.

Anyone who points out the errors in this are simply being pedantic

The model actually doesn’t assume that the deluge happened in the Mediterranean Sea, the Black Sea, the Caspian Sea, or even the Great Lakes. It assumes it was worldwide—something I myself generally do not believe—but posters had to belabor a point which comes off as not arguing in good faith.

These kinds of “arguments” are a reflection of late-1990s Usenet or early-2000s-decade phpBB era online discourse, where attacking someone for making a single factual error in a long posting where the error isn’t even the main point of the posting (and even where the error is a pedantic point), or saying someone’s post isn’t worth reading are standard flamebait techniques.

I’m glad, with modern social media, I have tools like BotSentinel on Twitter (and algorithms which keep the flamers somewhat or completely hidden) and Facebook’s block feature to completely killfile trolls. We didn’t have those 20 years ago because of notions of free speech, notions which have been discredited in light of the amount of disinformation from troll farms which affected the 2016 election, killed a lot of people with COVID-19 era vaccine misinformation in 2021, and have otherwise caused a lot of harm.

Ever since the heyday of old forums like ChristianForums, online social norms have evolved and harassment which was tolerated or accepted in 2002 isn’t considered acceptable with modern social media here in 2022.

I probably won’t post here again for a while, just as I don’t post in other online spaces which still have 2002 notions of “free speech” (free speech never gave one a printing press). I see the same handful of posters still posting here, 20 years later, but I think this kind of discourse is stagnant in an era of Reddit where rude posts get quickly downvoted to oblivion (and where many subreddits have strong anti-troll filters, ban posters for the smallest of reasons, and where Reddit completely erases one’s entire posting history if banned site-wide), Facebook where AI removes rude postings—mentioning Herman Cain awards on Facebook gets your post deleted and Facebook gives you a stern warning; one friend who still argued in the early-2000s style CF still tolerates got blocked from posting to Facebook for a month—and where blocks are hard two-way blocks, or Twitter along with BotSentinel which use complex algorithms to weed out posters not arguing in good faith and suspending accounts which only stir up trouble. The Wikipedia tolerated uncivil posters 20 years ago, but that has changed and while Wiki doesn’t use fancy AI filters to find uncivil postings, they have a large team of admins who can and will ban people who engage in any kind of harassment.

 

[AV1611VET]

Actually, my model only has a 5% chance that a given birth will be twins. That’s higher than the 0.94% (1980) or 1.67% (2009) chance of having twins, but consistent with the number of births which are twin births among the Yoruba people (4.5-5%). There is also a 0.05% chance a given birth will be triplets in the model.

No doubt you're familiar with the story of how God orchestrated Jacob's ringstraked, speckled, and spotted cattle into a formidable herd?

Not to mention this miracle:

Exodus 1:19 And the midwives said unto Pharaoh, Because the Hebrew women are not as the Egyptian women; for they are lively, and are delivered ere the midwives come in unto them.
20 Therefore God dealt well with the midwives: and the people multiplied, and waxed very mighty.

Bottleneck events, such as the worldwide flood in Noah's time, were a piece of cake with God; especially since He was the one Who called all the shots.

As the song goes:

"Little is much, when God is in it."

 

[DialecticSkeptic]

Well, just because I don’t believe there’s a time traveler from Gallifrey who travels around in a spaceship which looks like a mid-20th-century blue British phone booth doesn’t mean I’m not interested in having some solution to the UNIT dating inconsistencies those stories have. There’s value in coming up with a “headcanon” which resolves the inconsistencies of a story, whether or not the story is fiction.

One thing I have learned as I grow older is that it’s really bad manners to mock or disrespect someone for believing something 40% of the people in the United States believe. It’s taken me a long time to accept that this number has been pretty consistent for four decades, and that Young Earth Creationists deserve my full respect, even if I don’t have those beliefs. They have my respect to the point I will, for a Bible study, come up with an entire “OK, supposing we have only eight people in the entire world in 3,000 BCE, how does the world get populated again?” thought experiment.

I suppose you could be one of those people who, like me, really enjoy writing even if only for its own sake—which I certainly think is fine!—but a lot of text could have been spared with the slightest change in the answer to my question. I had asked if you believe the flood of Noah was global in scale. You could have answered, "Personally? No. But this calculation was on behalf of those who do."

Instead, you dismissed the whataboutism (which was not even relevant to the discussion we were having) and asserted that a global flood requires some repopulating efforts. Well, sure, but how does that answer my question? It didn't, at least not clearly or obviously. Hence my confusion and second attempt. I really wish that you had instead answered, "I don't, no. But others do and so I came up with this solution for their benefit." I can understand and respect that kind of love for the brethren.

For those brethren, at least. For me, maybe not as much. I don't know what you meant by that comment about mocking or disrespecting someone for believing young-earth creationism but you were definitely talking to me, thus it felt aimed at me—even though I did not say anything that mocked or disrespected young-earth creationists (whom I have a history of respecting, loving, and defending). And then, taking no responsibility for your own answers, you also imply that I have been arguing in bad faith (and all because I had not understood your answer). [1] So, yeah, not as much love being shown for this brother, anyway. And why is that? I could not even guess at a reason. If I said something hurtful or offensive to you that warranted such treatment, I wouldn't mind an opportunity to apologize for it.

-----

[1] You said to Larnievc, "It assumes it was worldwide—something I myself generally do not believe—but posters had to belabor a point which comes off as not arguing in good faith."