Freethought & Rationalism ArchiveThe archives are read only. |
07-07-2007, 06:54 AM | #11 | ||
Veteran Member
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Missouri
Posts: 2,375
|
Quote:
|
||
07-07-2007, 07:09 AM | #12 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: French Pyrenees
Posts: 649
|
Quote:
|
|
07-07-2007, 07:27 AM | #13 | ||
Contributor
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: outraged about the stiffling of free speech here
Posts: 10,987
|
Quote:
1) 400 is 50 times more than 8. But this does not strike you at all being in any way important. 2) You never addressed this post, where I pointed out that a population of less than 50 individuals is considered to be critically endangenered". 50 is still more than 6 times more than 8. Quote:
However, before you get too excited, this means nothing.But you don't ever quote out-of-context, Dave, we know. |
||
07-07-2007, 08:38 AM | #14 | |
Regular Member
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: UK
Posts: 242
|
Quote:
|
|
07-07-2007, 08:49 AM | #15 | |
Veteran Member
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: New Jersey
Posts: 1,768
|
Quote:
There is no reason at all to believe this. You're comparing: (1) a situation where a decimated jungle tribe is given access to the medicines and technology and resources that have allowed the "first world" to experience the post-industrial population explosion with (2) a [mythical] situation where all resources have been erased. |
|
07-07-2007, 09:47 AM | #16 |
Veteran Member
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: New Jersey
Posts: 1,768
|
In case my point wasn't abundantly clear, let me emphasize:
You're comparing a situation where an isolated, beleaguered group is suddenly given access to the resources of the entire rest of the human population to a situation where a group - previously used to relying on the conveniences of interacting with the rest of the human population - is suddenly deprived of that interaction AND pretty much all resources altogether, and concluding that the population growth in the one situation is a pretty good guide to the other. Makes less than no sense to me. |
07-07-2007, 09:58 AM | #17 |
Veteran Member
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: England
Posts: 2,561
|
How did Noah manage to be super-hygienic when the entire planet was covered in two miles' thickness of mud?
|
07-07-2007, 10:39 AM | #18 |
Senior Member
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: California
Posts: 748
|
|
07-07-2007, 10:39 AM | #19 | ||
Senior Member
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: 36078
Posts: 849
|
Quote:
Then they said, "Come, let us build ourselves a city, with a tower that reaches to the heavens, so that we may make a name for ourselves and not be scattered over the face of the whole earth." 5 But the LORD came down to see the city and the tower that the men were building. 6 The LORD said, "If as one people speaking the same language they have begun to do this, then nothing they plan to do will be impossible for them. 7 Come, let us go down and confuse their language so they will not understand each other." NIV 4They said, "Come, let us build for ourselves a city, and a tower whose top will reach into heaven... NAS And so on. Quote:
Genesis 10 lists the lineage of Shem, Ham, and Japheth through their sons, grandsons, greatgrandsons. You should be able to count the male descendants before Genesis 11, which tells the tower of Babel story. Apparently the (not listed) daughters of Shem, Ham, and Japheth married their brothers and first cousins. Although it's not absolutely clear from the bible when the tower of Babel was being built, a location is given as the plains of Shinar. Gen 10 says that a grandson of Ham named Nimrod developed Shinar. It seems reasonable to deduce from the verses that Nimrod's generation of descendants was building the tower of Babel and the city surrounding it, but not necessarily all of the descendants of Noah to that date were living in the Shinar plains. |
||
07-07-2007, 11:03 AM | #20 | |
Veteran Member
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Seattle, WA
Posts: 1,642
|
Why does your lack of curiousity not surprise me.
Quote:
|
|
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
|