A knockdown prophecy

[R00tKiT]

[The Grand Nudger]

Hey, if we had 359 or 361 joints, would you abandon your faith?

[The Architect Of Fate]

That was a hadith, which isn't part of the Qur'an. Sounds like you don't have the foggiest idea of what you're talking about.

An example of why our other muslim friend thinks that set of fables damages the credibility of the religion of magic book.  

The paragraph you quoted above is a heap of crap, 

-just as magic book and hadith are a pile of pigshit, scientifically speaking.  Like your attempt to parody electronics manufacturing..I think you've succeeded ...just not in what you set out to do.  Furthermore, I'd posit that every scientific miracle nuts true faith is found in science, and not hadith or magic book or big mo, or some silly god.  After all, we're looking at science as the truthmaker for your religious claims, and not the other way round.

Also if mere human could figure it out by mundane means  in ancient times it's not a prophecy

[The Architect Of Fate]

Also as pointed out earlier there is a debate on what is considered a joint.

[The Architect Of Fate]

Also, there is no evidence of a first man. Let alone one named Adam. Humans evolved as populations, not individuals.

[HappySkeptic]

Although that's part of the mentioned hadith, it's another topic entirely. Suffice it to say that there is necessarily a first human. Even without any knowledge of evolution or biology, we can declare with 100% confidence that there is a first male we label Adam.

No, there isn't.  Evolution doesn't work that way.  One could always say "modern humans have gene ABC, and pre-humans didn't", but then you would probably find some modern humans that don't have gen ABC either, and that gene might end up being found in some ancient hominids in some degree.

Also the idea of a common male chromosome-Y ancestor, seems reasonable, but that isn't all your genes!  Every gene in your body has a different common ancestor, and some go back to the time of bacteria.  The common female mitochondrial ancestor isn't even a common ancestor of any of your genes, but of a symbiote. Plus, the common ancestor of these just means the other lines died out, not that they weren't equivalent or in any way substantially different.

There is therefore no first male or first female human.

[The Architect Of Fate]

I always hate it when people call a fossil or a genetic marker "the first human" Or "The origin of humans" no what you have is merely the oldest we have found so far. We have no reason to believe this individual was the first or that this marker is where we started being human. It's simply dishonest. The fact is we will likely never find the first human population.

[zebo-the-fat]

sorry.. the magic book trumps mere biology!

[R00tKiT]

An example of why our other muslim friend thinks that set of fables damages the credibility of the religion of magic book.  

Winter is a quranist. He can easily learn how silly quranism is by searching the responses in the web. It's bad enough that he got the number of prayers wrong. I lived for two decades in a Muslim country and I never met nor heard of anyone who prays three times a day. The guy really is an extreme case.

Quranism aside, the hadith simply got a fact right, I don't see how that damages the credibility of anything.

-just as magic book and hadith are <snip>  Like your attempt to parody electronics manufacturing..I think you've succeeded ...just not in what you set out to do.  Furthermore, I'd posit that every scientific miracle nuts true faith is found in science, and not <snip>.  After all, we're looking at science as the truthmaker for your religious claims, and not the other way round.

That's simply not true, because science changes and religious claims don't. There is however a subset of scientific facts that is unlikely to ever change, like the fact that the Earth is round, or the fact that the luminferous aether doesn't exist, or the fact that we have 360 joints.

[R00tKiT]

No, there isn't.  Evolution doesn't work that way.  One could always say "modern humans have gene ABC, and pre-humans didn't", but then you would probably find some modern humans that don't have gen ABC either, and that gene might end up being found in some ancient hominids in some degree.

That's because you didn't accurately define what the word "modern human" means, once you stick to a definition, there is necessarily a first human who fits the definition.

But yeah, you always win if you keep changing definitions.