Re: So we're all related!

Gordon, some comments interspersed with your own:

----- Original Message -----
From: "gordon brown" <gbrown@euclid.colorado.edu>
To: "Vernon Jenkins" <vernon.jenkins@virgin.net>
Cc: <asa@calvin.edu>
Sent: Wednesday, October 06, 2004 5:47 PM
Subject: Re: So we're all related!

>
> On Wed, 6 Oct 2004, Vernon Jenkins wrote:
>
> > Gordon Brown wrote "There may be many Christians who will jump to a
> > conclusion similar to Vernon's. This could lead to the rise of another
urban
> > legend to hurt the credibility of Christians."
> >
> > Gordon, I'm not in the business of creating 'urban legends', but rather
in
> > revealing scriptural truth. As you know, the traditional understanding
of
> > Genesis 6-9 is that God cleansed planet earth with a global flood that
> > destroyed '...both man, and beast, and the creeping thing, and the fowls
of
> > the air...' (6:7). Many, of course, for what they would regard as
reasons of
> > scientific necessity no longer accept this. They insist that the purpose
of
> > this gripping narrative is to describe, not a global cataclysm, but
merely
> > an inundation of the land in which Noah and his family lived - this by
> > translating the Hebrew word 'eretz' as 'land' rather than 'earth'. In so
> > doing, of course, they ignore the illogicality of God requiring Noah to
> > build a large ocean-going vessel when a simple trek with family and
> > menagerie to higher ground would surely have been the kinder option. And
> > ignoring also God's promise '...neither shall all flesh be cut off any
more
> > by the waters of a flood...' (9:11 - clearly false if a _local_
community
> > had been intended).
> >
> > I believe these matters now assume a sharper significance in that the
Author
> > of this event, and its telling, is also the One whose powers and serious
> > purposes are clearly demonstrated in the miraculous structure of Bible's
> > opening verse. Can there really be any more doubt that it is Noah who is
the
> > nearest common ancestor of everyone alive today? Dr Olson and his team
are,
> > perhaps, not so far wide of the mark after all.
>
> Vernon,
>
> I have refuted your arguments for a global flood before. You seem to
> ignore my refutations and repeat your claims. I will not at this time
> repeat my refutations since that would get us off the subject at hand.

I remember your arguments - but not the refutations. Would you mind stating
your defence afresh with respect to, (1) Ark vs Trek to higher ground, and
(2) the implied false promise to Noah concerning future 'local' flooding.

> When I spoke of an urban legend, I was thinking of something like the
> story that NASA had found Joshua's long day, which is completely false no
> matter whether there was such a day. If you claim that the computations
> about a common ancestor prove a global flood, that reasoning is just as
> false even if there was a global flood.

I don't believe I claimed Dr Olson's findings to be _proof_ of a global
flood. However I think one possible explanation might be just that. I trust
you would agree.

> If you are fortunate enough to have a few descendants, you probably have
> or will have more grandchildren than children and more great grandchildren
> than grandchildren, and so forth throughout all subsequent generations. So
> the percentage of the world's population that is descended from you should
> increase with each successive generation. Assuming that the world lasts
> that long and that there are no permanently isolated populations, after a
> few thousand years you should be the ancestor of 100% of the people alive
> at that time. Maybe at that time someone will do a computation and
> conclude that everyone on earth is descended from someone who lived in
> Wales in 2004. Is it proper to conclude that that person was the only male
> alive at that time? This is the sort of computation that I understand was
> done in the research in question, and it was your conclusion, not the
> authors', that the population was very small during the lifetime of our
> common ancestor. In fact, he probably used the generally accepted
> estimates of the world's population over the past few millenia as input
> for his computations, not as the results.
>
> Once we get back to the common ancestor of everyone, then all his
> ancestors must be the ancestors of everyone also, and as you go back
> through the previous generations, we all have more and more common
> ancestors until we attain the point where everyone alive at that time
> whose line hasn't died out is the ancestor of everyone alive today. I
> think that this is the point of the research, which I have not actually
> read.

> If someone wanted to do a similar computation with another species rather
> than with humans, similar results would be obtained, but the date would
> vary from species to species rather than pointing to a common date for
> one-digit populations of each species. Genetic studies would be more
> relevant for the question that interests you.

Perhaps so. But what is of particular interest to me at this time is that a
mathematician such as yourself remains completely silent with respect to the
true nature of the Bible's first verse, as recently revealed. Have you any
views on this matter and its possible wider implications?

Vernon
www.otherbiblecode.com
> Gordon Brown
> Department of Mathematics
> University of Colorado
> Boulder, CO 80309-0395
>
>
Received on Wed Oct 6 18:37:06 2004