Post Global Flood Population Demographics

[CriticalSock]

Please can you help?

I'm having a discussion about population growth with a christian friend. I loosely recalled a couple of paragraphs from "Innumeracy" by John Allen Paulos and argued that for the numbers of people later quoted in the bible as being in places like the Tower of Babylon and the Israelites in Egypt were impossible given a starting population of 4 breeding pairs (can you refer to humans as breeding pairs??) after the destruction of every other person on earth by a global flood.

I don't want to focus on the fact that a global flood never happened or anything else. I'd just like to keep it to the fact that 8 people can't turn into the kind of populations that could support an Egyptian dynasty Plus a million israelites making all their pyramids for them.

The trouble is I can't actually find my copy of Innumeracy at the moment and the discussion resumes this evening!

Things that I'm already having to counter are:

The original 8 people lived for hundreds years and their progeny would also have lived for much longer than normal humans today thus giving them a greatly extended time for reproduction.

They were also closer to perfection so their genes would have been "better" and wouldn't have caused freakish inbreeding.

Polygamy was acceptable back then so a man could have multiple wives.


Any help much appreciated!

 

[Beerina]

Please can you help?

I'm having a discussion about population growth with a christian friend.

A. The Flood in Genesis is set in a world that's a flat land with a solid "vault" above as the sky. These form, literally, a pocket in the waters (of chaos.) As in "the Spirit of the Lord moved above the waters".

The flood, as actually described in Genesis, involved God opening up not just the "windows" in the vault above (such that water could fall down as rain) but also "breaking up the fonts below", which held back the same water that was under our little pocket called Earth, which then flooded up from below.

So even according to a strict interpretation of the Bible, rain wasn't the only source of water for The Flood.


My point, for your buddy, is that we now know the Earth is not a pocket hogged out inside a watery 3 dimensional space, as Genesis actually describes it.



B. As for this numbers argument, let's say you get 3 generations per century.

If The Flood were 4000 years ago, that's 40 x 3 = 120 generations.



To go from, say, 2 people (let's make it an even greater accomplishment!) to 7 billion would require a reproduction rate of X kids per couple, you (punch punch punch) have to average 2.4 kids per couple for all 120 generations, or about 1.2 kids per person.

(1.206-ish)^^120 = about 7 billion


Most families for most of human history have well in excess of 2.4 kids on average. Most of of them, of course, dying due to disease and war and so on, praise be God's name.


In any case, it's trivially easy to breed up 7 billion people in only 4000 years. Were it not for untimely deaths and strife, we'd have a hell of a lot more!

 

[Beerina]

Oh, you asked about Babel-to-Egypt/Moses/etc. Given the more realistic numbers of a lot more than 2.4 kids per couple and more than 3 generations per century (4, with an average age of 25 for the average parent situation, is probably an underestimation) it would not be a problem unless "Egypt/Moses" was within a few hundred years of Babylon.

Pulling a number out of my butt, 4 kids per couple reaches 10 million people in about 23 generations. At 3/century that's 7.6 centuries.

At 4/century that's under 600 years.

 

[TimCallahan]

Please can you help?

Things that I'm already having to counter are:

The original 8 people lived for hundreds years and their progeny would also have lived for much longer than normal humans today thus giving them a greatly extended time for reproduction.

They were also closer to perfection so their genes would have been "better" and wouldn't have caused freakish inbreeding.

Polygamy was acceptable back then so a man could have multiple wives.


Any help much appreciated!

This is pretty typical of creationist arguments, and there's really no effective way to convince anyine employing them of anything, because the arguments are set up to be unfalsifiable. Notice, however, that in order to make things work according to the literal interpretation of the flood myth all kingds of natural conditions have to be suspended: Imbreeding, which we know produces a higher percentage of people with birth defects, is discounted by an assumption of superior genes. The assumption, of course, is based on prior acceptance of the myth of the fall and the fundamentalist interpretation of the God saying (Gen. 3:17), "Cursed is the ground because of you." This, by the way, is the creationist escape hatch: Since a world created by a perfect God should itself be perfect. The fact that it obviously is not is explained away by God's curse.

Your friend's argument is also based on the assumption of the literal truth of the phenomenally long lifespans of the pre-flood patriarchs, and the statement in Gen. 6:3 that God limited human slifespans to 120 years, though Noah was supposed to have been 600 years old when the Flood hit (Gen. 7:11). My whole point here is that you have to believe the basic truth of the myth in order to prove it.

Since none of this is likely to register with your friend, I sugest you first talk to her about science and the importance of arguments that are falsifiable / verifiable. If you can get her to accept this concept, then you might be able to point out to her that her arguments do not fall into that category, are thus not testable and are therefore of no worth. This, of coure may not work a all; but it's worth a try.

 

[blobru]

...I'm having a discussion about population growth with a christian friend. I loosely recalled a couple of paragraphs from "Innumeracy" by John Allen Paulos and argued that for the numbers of people later quoted in the bible as being in places like the Tower of Babylon and the Israelites in Egypt were impossible given a starting population of 4 breeding pairs (can you refer to humans as breeding pairs??) after the destruction of every other person on earth by a global flood.

...Any help much appreciated!

The only reference to Noah's Flood in Innumeracy I can find is [p. 10]:

The book of Genesis says of the Flood that "...all the high hills that were under the whole heaven were covered..." Taken literally, this seems to indicate that there were 10,000 to 20,000 feet of water on the surface of the Earth, equivalent to more than half a billion cubic miles of liquid! Since, according to biblical accounts, it rained for forty days and forty nights, or for only 960 hours, the rain must have fallen at a rate of at least fifteen feet per hour, certainly enough to sink any aircraft carrier, much less an ark with thousands of animals on board.

-- which questions the flood itself, not the repopulation afterwards.

Not too useful for your discussion I guess; might help with your search for the original citation.

 

[bokonon]

I think you're probably going to come out on the wrong side of the numbers on this one, if you accept the fundamentalists' assumptions.

The Bible says that Sarah, at 90 years old, was "too old" to have children, so we can pare that back a bit. Whether we can pare it all the way back to a "modern" 50 years is something you'll have to resolve with your adversaries.

If we assume that girls start having babies at 15, and have one a year until they're 65, each girl has 50 babies. If half the babies are female, and everyone lives 200 years on average, it may be possible to reach a million people in the times required.

According to the Bible, Noah's sons had 14 sons themselves, so we can assume they also had 14 daughters. If we start with 10 reproducing men and 10 reproducing women 30 years after the flood, in another 50 years we could have 500 (250 men, 250 women). 50 years after that, there could be at least 20,000, which could swell to close to half a million in another 50 years. At this point, some of the "originals" start to die off, and life expectancies start to drop, to the newly-mandated 120 years, so the rate of growth may slow. Still, it shouldn't take more than a few centuries to have several million people available, which is all you need for the pyramid stories.

Why the black people (Ham's line, they'll say) decided to migrate to Africa, and the Asian people (Japheth's line?) to Asia and the Americas, and the Europeans (Shem?) to Europe (what about the Australian aborigines?) and all presumably after the Tower of Babel incident which gave them individual languages, well, those are other questions. How many people were left at that point in the middle east, to start building the line that would build the pyramids? Most of their answers to those questions will probably be "I don't know, but I trust the Word of God," which is why it's probably a waste of time to try to convince them.

 

[Dancing David]

I think more importantly the genetics of humans would not have diversified much in 6,000 years. If you have eight people who are the progenitors and 6,000 years, mitochondrial drift would be very low , and would standard genetic variation.

Now I am sure they can tell you that each of the four couples founded four seperate races.

 

[bokonon]

I just noticed that Genesis 10 goes on to say that the sons of Noah's sons only had a few (ten or less, most likely; they're listing five sons) children themselves, so my "50 per woman" projections are probably on the (extremely) high side. Although, Joktan (one of Shem's descendants) lists 13 sons, which we'll assume means 26 children, so some of them got up there.

 

[TimCallahan]

None of these rational arguments are going to shake the belief system of a fundamentalist. As an example, consider that the watter inundation the planet in the flood had to come from somewhere to create the floodand had to go somewhere, or we'd still be flooded. Creationists invented the vapor canopy theory to cover that one. The fact that its existence would defy physical laws, that any stirring of dust into the atmosphere would destroy such a system or that the whole thing vioates the principle of parsimony doesn't register on these twits.

 

[CriticalSock]

The only reference to Noah's Flood in Innumeracy I can find is [p. 10]:



-- which questions the flood itself, not the repopulation afterwards.

Not too useful for your discussion I guess; might help with your search for the original citation.

Thanks Blobru, I did find my copy over the weekend and have been going back and forth through it trying to find anything about post flood populations. Maybe I just dreamt it!

This doesn't help my chances in this discussion!

 

[CriticalSock]

None of these rational arguments are going to shake the belief system of a fundamentalist. As an example, consider that the watter inundation the planet in the flood had to come from somewhere to create the floodand had to go somewhere, or we'd still be flooded. Creationists invented the vapor canopy theory to cover that one. The fact that its existence would defy physical laws, that any stirring of dust into the atmosphere would destroy such a system or that the whole thing vioates the principle of parsimony doesn't register on these twits.

This isn't a case of me going out to convince a fundamentalist that they're wrong and I'm right. I've been challenged to defend my stance that the bible isn't the word of god. The discussion ranged all over until we finally decided to focus on this one issue for now. From what Bokonon says I might have shot myself in the foot somewhat.

Ok, so, from t'internet I've gleaned these dates:

Global Flood - 2500 to 2300BC
Tower of Babel destroyed - 1928BC
Egypt Exodus - 1447BC


So that makes 372 to 572 years from the Flood to Babel tower. If I take Beerina's extreme figures and the oldest flood date then that could give 10 million people in roughly 600 years.

Is that right? It sounds crazy! Do I have to concede the point that there would have been a big enough population to support the tower of babel event?

 

[Mangoose]

Is that right? It sounds crazy! Do I have to concede the point that there would have been a big enough population to support the tower of babel event?

You forgot to take into account infant and child mortality. As recent as the nineteenth century, 1 out of every 5-6 infants died in their first year of life. Here is a source claiming that the mortality rate of ancient Egypt was 30% for infants under age 1 and an additional 20% for children between the ages of 1 and 5.


http://www.reshafim.org.il/ad/egypt/people/index.html

 

[Marduk]

you'd have to show him the flood story from Gilgamesh and see if he recognises it or if its vaguely familiar

Gilgamesh: -
When a seventh day arrived
I sent forth a dove and released it.
The dove went off, but came back to me;
no perch was visible so it circled back to me.
Genesis 7
8 And he sent forth a dove from him, to see if the waters were abated from off the face of the ground. 9 But the dove found no rest for the sole of her foot, and she returned unto him to the ark, for the waters were on the face of the whole earth
Gilgamesh
I sent forth a raven and released it.
The raven went off, and saw the waters slither back.
It eats, it scratches, it bobs, but does not circle back to me.
Genesis 7
7 And he sent forth a raven, and it went forth to and fro, until the waters were dried up from off the earth

then when hes forced to accept that this flood source is older than his and so must be more accurate you show him where the flood story in gilgamesh was derived from which is the story in Atrahasis which again is older so more accurate and word for word the same but with "river" in place of later where "ocean" appears.

they only have one answer to this and when a creationist cries "diabolical mimicry", you win

 

[pakeha]

I could be going off topic here, but I could help noticing the date in Critical Socks post

Ok, so, from t'internet I've gleaned these dates:

Global Flood - 2500 to 2300BC
Tower of Babel destroyed - 1928BC
Egypt Exodus - 1447BC

2500 to 2300 BC.
I noticed them because of Troy:

Troy I until Troy IX
Troy I (3000 - 2500 BC)
The first civilians of Troy built their city on a hill of 16 meters. Today we'll only find a wall with two towers and some houses of Troy I. The houses were long and small and the walls 2,5 meter weight. Probably, Troy I burnt down.
Troy II (2500 - 2300 BC)
After Troy I burnt down, the civilians built a new city on the rests of the old city. The houses were bigger than these of Troy I. It was a rich Troy, which you can see on the portal way. Troy II had a radial of 55 meters. Troy II had much money so Schliemann believed this was the Troy of king Priam. Later Wilhelm Dorpfeld thought that Troy VI was the Troy of king Priam. Troy II is destroyed by an attacking nation.

From:http://209.85.229.132/search?q=cach...+2300+BC&cd=10&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=es&lr=lang_en


Anyway, there's no evidence of a global flood in the layers of this city.
Nor in Jericho.

 

[eccles]

All B S from the book of B S.



Holey Babble

 

[CriticalSock]

I'm going to concede the point that from the flood to babel there was enough time for the population to grow to a sufficient level to support the babel story.

I'm going to make clear that this doesn't actually do much to help prove the veracity of the bible though. Next point I'm going to go onto is that various centres of civilisation were thriving all over the world at the time that according to the bible all the people in the world were gathered at babel prior to god confusing them all by giving them different languages thus kicking off the great migration around the world.

So how ever many people there were, they were all spread out over the whole globe (well, not in the sea) rather than still being gathered in one place building a tower.


Eccles, I'm fighting the urge to just jump out of my chair and say something like your "All B S from the book of B S."

 

[Marduk]

I'm going to concede the point that from the flood to babel there was enough time for the population to grow to a sufficient level to support the babel story.

ummm no, the babel story is based on an akkadian original

 

[CriticalSock]

ummm no, the babel story is based on an akkadian original

That line can only be used waaaay ahead in the nebulous future of my discussion, after of all my (from now on hopefully) elegant arguments have brought the flailing tendrils of belief to a standstill and she is finally bound to retreat to the "The bible is the divine word of god, if I don't understand it, I have faith that it is true." last stand.

The other reason I can't use it now is that I have no knowledge of akkadian's, the epic of Gilgamesh or any of that stuff! I'll get right onto that research once I've finished Dawkins new book "The Greatest Show on Earth"...

 

[Marduk]

That line can only be used waaaay ahead in the nebulous future of my discussion, after of all my (from now on hopefully) elegant arguments have brought the flailing tendrils of belief to a standstill and she is finally bound to retreat to the "The bible is the divine word of god, if I don't understand it, I have faith that it is true." last stand.

The other reason I can't use it now is that I have no knowledge of akkadian's, the epic of Gilgamesh or any of that stuff! I'll get right onto that research once I've finished Dawkins new book "The Greatest Show on Earth"...

Well when you get round to it

Once upon a time, there was no snake, there was no scorpion,
There was no hyena, there was no lion,
There was no wild dog, no wolf,
There was no fear, no terror,
Man had no rival.

In those days, the land Shubur-Hamazi,
Harmony-tongued Sumer, the great land of the me of princeship,
Uri, the land having all that is appropriate,
The land Martu, resting in security,
The whole universe, the people well cared for,
To Enlil in one tongue gave speech.

Then the lord defiant, the prince defiant, the king defiant,
Enki, the lord of abundance, whose commands are trustworthy,
The lord of wisdom, who scans the land,
The leader of the gods,
The lord of Eridu, endowed with wisdom,
Changed the speech in their mouths, put contention into it,
Into the speech of man that had been one.

it goes like this
Christians based their religion on Judaism
Judaism based their religion on Babylonian polytheism
Babylonians based their religion on Akkadian polytheism
Akkadians based their religion on Sumerian polytheism
Sumerian polytheism is formed from Ubaidian polytheism
this takes us back to around 5000bce,

 

[CriticalSock]

it goes like this
Christians based their religion on Judaism
Judaism based their religion on Babylonian polytheism
Babylonians based their religion on Akkadian polytheism
Akkadians based their religion on Sumerian polytheism
Sumerian polytheism is formed from Ubaidian polytheism
this takes us back to around 5000bce,

Evidence??