Inerrancy of Bible (Claire to Dave Taylor)
Tim Bedding tim@polyhedra.com
Wed, 11 Feb 1998 20:06:32 -0000 (00887249192, 01BD3728.8D301500@tim.polyhedra.com)
CURT
> You seem to have the burden of proof backwards. Biologists know how people
> age at the cellular level. We know with some precision what causes a cell
> to stop dividing, and at what point in the average person's life these
> senescent cells will start to accumulate and cause the phenomenon known as
> aging.
TIM
The burden of proof is on the one making the claim I would suggest,
although I would welcome being corrected if I am wrong here.
Ian claimed, in effect, that Sarah could not be 89 years old when pregnant.
CURT
> If you have some "solid science" on your side that indicates that a woman
> may remain fertile into her 80's, then please present it. Until then, we
> are quite justified in claiming that the story of Sarah and Isaac is
> biologically very unlikely.
TIM
One approach is to test assertions and look for proof either way.
If there is no way to test the assertion, then I wonder whether it is worth
making the hypothesis.
To understand fully the story and to judge the probabilities accurately,
I wonder whether we need to look at how humans have evolved over
the years since the time when Sarah was supposed to be alive.
I do not have any science which specifically indicates that a woman
may remain fertile.
However, there is, I believe, evidence that the sperm count
has fallen significantly over recent years.
Perhaps, some, currently unknown factors, could come into play
which make Sarah's pregnancy more realistic.
Is there any evidence casting light on the comparability of
human biology in the two time frames?
Cordially
Tim Bedding