I still know exactly where the discussion is. Either you or rob thought that human races were the result of homonid interbreeding, then flamescale came in here and went on about how there can't be a first of a species.
Again, putting words in my mouth. Noone in here has suggested that the human race was the direct result of homonid interbreeding. We have gotten some traits from other races, but to suggest that we are the product of species interbreeding is entirely a different point and a wrong one. We have our own characteristics that are different from the competing human races. This difference in human species leads us to the next point.
There cant be a first human species, because there was another version of humans that preceded it. This is the essence of evolution. we EVOLVED. From apes on all fours, to apes that stood on 2, to apes that had larger brains, to apes that could think cognitively, then eventually we look like we do today. There cannot be a first, because evolution is a process in stages and each stage is key in the make up of our composition. You have clearly made your assumption that human race started off from some type of Adam and Eve. This contradicts with evolution because that means the first process was created and not evolved. Your definition of ID is creationism and a psuedo-science. End of Discussion as far as Im concern. You are delusional if you continue to persist that your theory holds true as it violates the principles in theory of evolution.
Don't act like this is getting out of hand solely on my accord. I didn't bring up either of the sidetracks we got into. Flamescale brought up one, and the math was originally brought up by either you or rob I can't remember which.
YEs. Bloody hell, this has been your accord for being ignorant and incompetent in the fields of discussion, from evolution to maths to science to general knowledge everything except your bible. You have derailed the debate by arguing over small details, missing entire points, and blatantly refusing to read the rebuttals laid out.
to go back to species I will restate the proof so that you can try to disprove it.
Given a time scale of infinite accuracy, it's infinitely improbable that 2 humans can be born at the same time.
We know for a fact that at one time there were 0 humans. We know for a fact that n >0 where n is a counting number representing the population of all humans.
As each addition of a human is n+1, and no two humans can be added at the same time, working backwards there must have been 1 human at some point. The point and individual are trivial, but they do exist.
So where do you determine when was the start of humans. Because I can tell you right now, that that start had another start that preceded it, and that start that preceded the start you had in mind had another start before it and so on so forth to infinity. Your mathematical assumption is irrelevant if you cannot determine your starting point.
The convergence series explains why there cannot be a first human because before that human, there was another first human, and before that there was another, and another, and then for good measure, another. Another times infinity. The only way you can say that that was the first human and end this loop is to determine your definition of a human. The problem being, this definition is entirely subjective and differs with what you percieve as human.
Even if you determine the first human, so what. That first human was the product of evolution and was not created.
This statement leads us back to topic. Evolution works fine without an omnipotent being. Therefore, it does not matter if that being exists or not. It is not important. I also notice that every argument you make begins with "God created this, then let it fend for itself, but he knew the outcome and determined it before hand." or "God exists because we cant prove it doesnt". Quite frankly, that is the misguided logical reasoning and rational thought your are showing to me.
It is also ridiculous to spend an entire life worshipping this being with a question mark on its existence. That is entirely up to you to do so. But dont try to pass your superstitions as something truthful and be vengefully hurt if proper logical reasoning doesnt agree with it.
Edited by Riddle, 12 April 2010 - 03:39 AM.