According to the bible, God created Adam and Eve about 6000 years ago...Lets think about some maths:
Two people multiplying to 6.5 billion in 6000 years. Ignoring the whole flood thing, how many children would eve had needed to give birth to to allow for both the genetic variation and the current population of the planet?
Has anyone ever thought about this before? I might attempt the math myself sometime if no one has.
That's interesting... calculating the math on a problem like that would be very imperfect, too many variables. But I suppose it could still be somewhat solved. This could be a huge Christian debunking factor.
That's what I thought.... 2 people multiplying to get to 6.5 billion in 6000 years...doesn't sound legit to me.
Science has only advanced to the point where we can feed tremendous amounts of people. Cities like Rome and Paris only numbered in the tens of hundreds 600 years ago before fertilisers and more sustainable methods were invented. At today’s growth there is no problem but history is plagued by, well, plagues and wars.
I would also suggest that whoever does the calculation takes it from noah and his bunch as everyone was suppose to be dead under 8 kilometres of water. I think he was at least a thousand years in so that would leave even less time for all the procreating that needs to be done.
less time but 3 or 4 breeding pairs to begin with... nonetheless, still sounds unfeasable.
You have to take into account that in a literal bible, everyone lives VERY LONG , Noah lived hundreds of years ...
So that would make it even sillier :)
if Noah lived 900 years, he could of had hundreds of children....what was his stance on polygamy again?
And while we're at it, why not try to calculate the probable population if the millions of people killed in the name of religion had survived, and bred.
That could be taken as an argument FOR religion lol....I'll think about it when I do some maths.
I know you were joking, but some people (not here) take that kind of thinking seriously. By the same reasoning, any humanitarian activity should be abandoned in the name of population control. Stop feeding the starving of Africa. Abandon any attempt to eradicate disease. Let the poorest die. (It would probably balance itself out to a large extent anyway, if the Pope would lift the ban on the use of condoms. Population growth would slow down over night)
I also have some ideas on this. I heard about a doctor in NH that lost his practice because he spiked his daughters' food with some kind of pheromonal inhibitor (apparently he didn't think they had enough moral fiber) and I thought, why not do this to Africa? We can kill two birds with one stone by feeding them spiked grain and rice that makes them lose their sex drive. We do this until the majority of people with AIDS die out, thereby ensuring that they don't produce offspring with the same immune deficiency. Basically, cut AIDS off at the source. And all we'd have to do is a) feed them, and b) sacrifice one measly generation. This seems to me to be the most humanitarian way to do this.
As for overpopulation, we just don't die like we used to. People used to die by the thousands per battle, ten thousands per plague, and we just don't have that anymore. There's plenty of room on the planet for the population, but the disbursement's inadequate (too many people in the cities). We need to legalize modern euthanasia (which is to say assisted suicide) and secure a middle ground on abortion. That should cull the growth a little.
Oh god... I think I might be the anti-Christ.
Aren't we all? haha