A knockdown prophecy

[R00tKiT]

To the OP, saying there is not an honest objection to an argument is called "posioning the well". I find it very rude to begin a conversation on the presumption that everyone who disagrees with you is dishonest. That said, getting that number exact is remarkable but not exactly beyond the best guess of a battlefield surgueon. Marvelous, yes. Conclusive, no.

I think you're just reading too much into a simple sentence. As a theist you must get the "vague prophecy" objection a lot too, so the thread was about showing that this not the case when it comes to Islamic scripture.

And, again, there are more considerations than just getting a number right :

1/ There is no serious consequence if the battlefield surgeon's guess turns out to be wrong, unlike the case of someone who claims prophethood. So you also have to explain why the prophet would take such a risk. And more importantly : he had no way to tell whether ancient accounts of the number of joints are accurate or not, assuming he did copy the number from these.

2/ Mentioning this number was entirely unnecessary, the prophet could've simply said to his followers : say such and such and praise God 360 times a day, and there wouldn't be the slightest problem.

I'm becoming convinced of the proposition that there is a strong correlation between being an incompetent moron and being a Muslim.

The problem isn't in defining what a first is.  The problem is in objectively defining what a modern human is, which you cannot do.

It apparently has eluded you that being subjective is an essential property of any and all definitions.  And therein lies the rub.

I suggested an objective definition of what would plausibly be a first modern human, and you didn't even bother to address it. I consider this to be a clear inability to consider any argument that is outside of the stock response "all definitions are subjective" that you've been regurgitating over and over.

That being said. It's not difficult to see that you're arguing in bad faith, in addition to having the repugnant habit of disrespecting any opposing view. In light of your insult to Muslims above, don't bother answering anymore, because you won't get any further answers from me, you don't deserve any.

This is devolving into a cheap game of semantics. Even if I play along, I can still squeeze a first modern human from your description above, regardless of its accuracy.

Let's assume we observe the first generation of modern men dispersed over groups in different places around the globe.

Step 1 : For each group of "modern men", take the oldest member.

The oldest member even in this thought experiment would be an archaic, not early modern, or fully modern, human.  

We're considering the first generation of modern humans here, so all members of this generation are indeed modern humans. You just take the oldest member of each group within this generation.

This one is just..bonkers..and I think you can figure out why it won't give you an adam all by yourself with reference to living families.  Picking the oldest member of our two families...will not yield a common ancestor between you and I.  

My argument wasn't exactly for a common ancestor -and therefore not for Adam, the traditional figure in abrahamic religions, but simply for the less ambitious claim that there in an oldest modern human.