A knockdown prophecy

[Foxaèr]

Quite possibly a gene pool issue.

Not so much a pool I imagine but a puddle and a small one at that.

To be honest, I was conceived from a rather shallow gene puddle. Yet I seem to have fared well.

[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.

[Angrboda]

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.

I'll apologize for the insult to Muslims. That was a bit gratuitious. It isn't Muslims in general that I have an issue with, just you. And for good reason.

Yes, I did address it, in the very text that you quote in accusing me of not addressing it. Now you're just being a liar.

And I keep quoting it over and over because you haven't really answered it. You don't have a definition if part of your definition is undefined. The whole point of the subjective-objective argument is a direct refutation of your claimed definition.

[The Grand Nudger]

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.

 -which is incorrect.  There are many oldest modern humans separated by time and geography, for the umpteenth time. Look at this silly shrinking shit, though. You started a thread about a knockdown prophecy, turns out it was globally common knowledge..whether it's right or wrong. Then you started babbling about the first modern man, but..you know, now not-that either.

Anywho, here's a fun fact for you. The oldest possibly modern human remains we have are unlikely to be represented by any surviving genetic line because they were, as we understand it, overtaken by successive waves of migration from other human populations, and multiple bottlenecks representing the challenges of pioneering species or species reps. You could actually observe this pioneering phenomena in your yard or in the cracks of a city sidewalk - or, if you were super interested, in the genetics of surviving populations. In short, the weeds that prepare the ground (or the cracks in the pavement) rarely survive the wave of things that can survive on prepared ground, as opposed to unbroken ground. Many...many, many,many,many early modern and fully modern human beings worked their asses off and died in the process so that you, many tens of thousands of years later, could shit on what they gifted you at the cost of their own lives, by writing them out of their own story and inserting some stupid rib-man.

That's one of the ironies of abrahamism to me. Yall had better hope there aren't actually ghosts and spirits..because if there are, there are alot of em, and they're probably not happy with you.

[Angrboda]

Btw, speaking of arguing in bad faith, this is the second time Rootkit has said he'd stop responding to me because of an insult to Muslims. Apparently, Rootkit is a bit of a liar.

[Mister Agenda]

That's not how evolution works. With the exception of hybrids and a few rare instances like the marbled crayfish, no offspring is ever a different species from its parent. There was no first human, no first horse, and no first rabbit. Populations change over time as different alleles become more or less common. It doesn't matter how you define 'modern human', there wasn't a first one.

Sounds like a long winded way to say: I don't have a definition of "modern human", therefore there is no first human.

I mean, you're not wrong. If a characteristic X is undefined (or you can't define it), then there is no first element who has this characteristic.

No matter how you define it there was no first human or first modern human because the offspring is the same species as the parent.

[Mister Agenda]

....and suddenly a modern human became a literally impossible non-entity........

This bit about atheists not acknowledging the simple, logical fact that a first modern human existed, will always make me laugh uncontrollably.

That's not something to be proud of.

[The Grand Nudger]

I don't think it even matters anymore. This dipshit is arguing that there's no definition of modernity only because the actual definition of modernity, which he was absolutely supplied with, as well as the mechanics of heredity, make his Now-Not-An-Adam...itself a retreating excuse for the failure of a "knockdown prophecy" to be -any- of those things... an actual impossibility.

He's a disingenuous simpleton who is not convinced or persuaded by his own arguments, and will not find their failures informative, either. Idk why he would expect anyone else to think more of it than he does. Allah needs a better rep. Maybe he can whip one up out of clay or dust or a blood clot or whatever witchcraft he's capable of?

[Jehanne]

Btw, speaking of arguing in bad faith, this is the second time Rootkit has said he'd stop responding to me because of an insult to Muslims. Apparently, Rootkit is a bit of a liar.

Muslims take offense when someone calls the Prophet a delusional, manipulative, power-hungry pedophile who believed angelic beings to be speaking to him. Of course, Muhammad may have been coming to his senses near the end, hence, Act II involved the Devil coming on the scene as the Agent of Deception.

(Please, no one reveal that I live in Eastern Iowa.)

[Angrboda]

And while we're pointing out Rootkit's bad faith, let's underline that while he vehemently resents insults to Muslims, he blithely insults and denigrates atheists in every other post.