Two people reproduced 7 billion people.

[Esquilax]

We're arguing at this point because you believe things without proof, but earlier suggested that I should not do so.

Well, okay: let's look at the facts, then.

The fact is that the Earth is not six thousand years old. This is clear in the simple fact that we can find cultural artifacts of humanity that are older than this, and that we can see light from the rest of the universe that predates this by... ooh, a very long time indeed. So the claim that six thousand years ago- or ten, I know there's some disagreement over the precise timing- there were two people who propagated the entire species is manifestly false.

The fact is that we know how genetics and sexual reproduction works, and because of this we know that two people could not have been responsible for the genetic diversity of the entire human race. When this fact is pointed out, you essentially fall back on "they had magic genes," which is a non-argument.

The fact is, we can look back through the fossil strata, and when we do, we don't find perfectly formed modern day humans, which is what we would expect if the Genesis account were true. Instead, what we find are humanity's transitional ancestors, by the bucket full. We can map out an evolutionary lineage for our species, and at no point does it go back to a single man and woman.

So once again, saying I don't know with regards to the initial sexual reproduction of the species doesn't mean I need to throw away my belief in the evolutionary theory, because just from looking at the facts, I can come to two conclusions: One, it's happening. And two, the Genesis account and any reliance on Adam and Eve as the progenitors of my entire species is patently false, by a number of measures.

You talk of proof, yet you can't find any for your position, and when I mention that mine has plenty of documented and peer reviewed evidence to back it up, you move the goalposts back and say we're only talking about sexual reproduction. Why on earth would I allow that criteria? Why would I build my entire position around that, when there's a whole scientific continuum of research and study that backs me to the hilt and screams with deafening clarity that I am correct in my thinking? Why does not knowing one aspect of a thing mean I have no proof at all?

I have plenty, sir. More than enough.