Two people reproduced 7 billion people.

[John V]

Six words: each line is a separate generation.

For example, the second line is nine. That's 3+3+3, the three surviving children of each of the three initial couples. The parents are not included in that number. We're accounting for death.

Three children per couple seems reasonable, but let's lower it. Set the growth to just 10%. Now you hit 7 billion in the 293rd generation. If a generation is 20 years, that's 5,860 years, and we're not even building in the effect of the early long life spans.

It just doesn't take that long.

Are you taking into account divine murder, infertility, disease and plagues, death in infancy and childhood (kind of a big deal in the past!) the limited life expectancy before the modern era, war, and the fact that some people just don't want to have kids? Not to mention homosexuality, or the fact that people just don't pair up in neat little rows like you're expecting, nor do they spit out the requisite number of kids?

Yes, I'd say that 10% takes those things into account. Are you taking into account younger start to childbearing and lack of modern contraception?

[Ryantology]

So, did God put fossil fuels in the ground in their current state? It takes far longer than 6000 years for fossils to become fuel.

[Minimalist]

It's called inbred.

That would, however, explain the number of idiot theists around.

[Esquilax]

Yes, I'd say that 10% takes those things into account. Are you taking into account younger start to childbearing and lack of modern contraception?

You'd say, or you know? Because what you want to believe, and what can actually be proven are two different things. You gotta do the math, if you're going to make claims like that.

Now, I could continue here, adding that you're probably not taking into account the number of people who die in childbirth before reliable medical care, but that would just be foolish. It'd be foolish, because you still can't get a stable gene pool from the offspring of just two people to begin with. Start there, since it's the foundation of your premise. I refuse to take the rest of it on faith until the baseline can be established.

[Napoléon]

They didn't just give birth to everybody on Earth today. It's called reproduction. I believe you've heard of it? Two gives birth, their children give birth, their children's children give birth, their children's children's children gave birth, etc. etc. Years and years.

How is this a fallacy? I understand some atheists' points, but this one is ridiculous.

Fuck my life, this shit is going into the hall of shame.

[John V]

You'd say, or you know? Because what you want to believe, and what can actually be proven are two different things. You gotta do the math, if you're going to make claims like that.

I've done the math. Neither one of us knows what the actual rates have been over time, but I'll bet most people find 10% reasonable.

Now, I could continue here, adding that you're probably not taking into account the number of people who die in childbirth before reliable medical care, but that would just be foolish. It'd be foolish, because you still can't get a stable gene pool from the offspring of just two people to begin with. Start there, since it's the foundation of your premise. I refuse to take the rest of it on faith until the baseline can be established.

So don't take it on faith. Doesn't bother me.

[Aegrus]

Okay, I could be wrong, but if each family had 4 children and generations were 20 years long, the human population would increase exponentially and exceed 7 billion by year 140. My calculator would not be able to display the vast exponent after 6000 years.

Meanwhile, if each family had 2 children, the human race would shrink and die out, given diseases and war.

So, after 6000 years, the difference between human extinction and a population in the thousands of trillions depends on a difference of two children per family.

With that kind of margin per error, there's no way we can possibly draw any conclusions from these equations.

I might have made an erroneous math error somewhere. The 7 billion in 140 years stat seems too insane to be real. Can someone verify if my math is accurate?

[Something completely different]

I have to add.

If you count up all ancestors you ever had. Meaning counting up you 1, + your parents 2 = 3, + their parents + 4 = 7, and on and on

by the time you reach the 14th century you have a number higher than the possible amount of humans that ever existed on the planet.
So I guess there certainly was somekind of distant incest, actualy there had to be.

[Esquilax]

So don't take it on faith. Doesn't bother me.

That rather shuts the debate down, don't you think? Don't you want good reasons to believe the things you do?

[John V]

That rather shuts the debate down, don't you think? Don't you want good reasons to believe the things you do?

When discussing religion you generally get to questions of faith at some point. It's obvious that it's within god's supposed power to maintain the genome long enough for interbreeding to become avoidable. Whether he did or not is just a question of faith.