which is what I was getting to

See this is why people shouldn't interrupt other people

660 years is not account for all the death, and all the extraneous stuff like war disease and murder that hinders people thriving

So what you have, at best, is a proof of concept.

so a little less than 10 times that amount to compensate for all the death, murder, disease, plagues, and weather like lightning and heart attacks

cancer

in 6 K years its possible, I would say probable, that people could go from 2 people to 7 billion, not even 8 billion people on this flat earth

That’s a mighty big assumption to be making, that a factor of ten accounts for all of that.

I rest my case unless I hear objections

i dont think anyone argues that there could be 8 billion people in 6000 years

its also not 8.5 billion, its 7.5 billion people on the planet, so its more than 10 X in compensation

You have been this whole time you just don't listen

Objection: According to my calculations, only two children from each family would survive to have children when accounting for death and disease, so the population should stay the same.

And it would take an extremely long amount of time to grow to 7.5 billion.

population has been growing and continues to grow

china did some radical laws to try to mitigate growth because they saw in the long run they were going to have mass starvation

kevin, this is a useless point, no one argues we can have a population of 8 billion people

Records, actual historical evidence, shows that until a couple hundred years ago, the increase in population was very, very slow.

people were argueing with me until my awesome debating skills proved them without a doubt that I was right

that is how you win a debate people

no one wants to argue with the professor

I’ve presented two objections that you have ignored.

I didn't ignore your objection, I just finished saying population is growing

its not staying the same, your objection that its not growing and staying the same is in error

Thanks to modern medicine. Whereupon we come to my second objection.

you didn't even make your 2nd objection yet

lets not put the horse before the cart

and sanatation

so you admit your first objection was a red herring to led credence to this next bogus objection

are you going to come up with any valid objections

Records, actual historical evidence, shows that until a couple hundred years ago, the increase in population was very, very slow.

sanatation was a huge improvement

my 10 X time factor takes that into account

sanitation was severely lacking but is much better

at least in some places, in india you still have 1 billion people shitting in the street

severely lacking? you mean none exsistance

in the past

people knew about bathing, just didn't do it as much in the past as they do now

You ignore counter points and ramble that's why no one l Iikes debating you

*pokes nat*

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ancient_Roman_bathing