All Big Issues
The Instigator
Pro (for)
Winning
9 Points
The Contender
Con (against)
Losing
0 Points

# There Must Have Been a First Human

Do you like this debate?NoYes+0

Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 3 votes the winner is...
rush1170
 Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point Started: 12/13/2013 Category: Science Updated: 3 years ago Status: Post Voting Period Viewed: 828 times Debate No: 42300
Debate Rounds (3)

6 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 6 records.
Posted by rush1170 3 years ago
@bitterherbs - I thought your very final statement: "Also My refutation was that your proposition leads to a contradiction, and is therefore necessarily false" was a good rebuttal. It's true. If there were a first human, it would have necessarily have been birthed by a pair of non-humans. I find this situation to be quite a problem.

On one hand, humans are birthed one at a time, started with a population of zero, and has a current population of more than zero. These three statements are all facts. It's also a fact that a pair of non-humans cannot birth a human.

1) Humans had a population of zero.
2) Humans are birthed one at a time.
3) Humans have a population of more than zero.
4) Non-humans cannot birth a human.

These are all facts as far as we can tell. However, for humans to exist, at least one statement must be false. If #1 is false, then humans have existed infinitely. #2 cannot be false. #3 cannot be false. If #4 is false, then a pair of non-humans can birth a human.

So, between #1 (humans have always existed) and #4 (non-humans can birth humans), we have to decide which of the two is most likely to be false based on all the collective human knowledge of everything. We've not been around long enough to observe either, so we can only guess the most likely false statement.

My guess is that #4 is the most likely false statement between those two. What is your guess?
Posted by rush1170 3 years ago
I hear you - I don't want that debate either. My comments posted were to answer someone else who asked me my 'take' on ToE, that's all.
Posted by bitterherbs 3 years ago
To rush1170. Being an atheist I start all of my arguments with the assumption that there is no ID. Sorry everybody doesn't want to just debate about God and creationism.
Posted by rush1170 3 years ago
The ToE establishes a premise that there cannot be Intelligent Design (ID) before it starts it's journey of investigation. However, the existence or non-existence of ID is not knowable. Therefore, I do not subscribe carte blanche to the ToE. There are questions that arise when discussing how creatures have changed over time that are not knowable, but I've found that full-subscribers to the ToE most always offer a conjectured answer, a dismissal of the question, or just tell me to go read more books on the subject. Often those questions merely indicate a potential for the existence of an ID'er. Sometimes the existence of an ID'er is a more plausible explanation of the answer to the question. However, since the ToE establishes the premise that there is no ID'er with certainty when certainty cannot exist, it has a potential for getting some stuff wrong for no other reason than it declared a premise as fact when it's impossible to know.
Posted by infinityland 3 years ago
i would like to accept this debate, but before i do so i would like to ask aquestion; do you believe in the theory of evolution? as this is what i would structure my debate around
Posted by infinityland 3 years ago
i would like to accept this debate, but before i do so i would like to ask aquestion; do you believe in the theory of evolution? as this is what i would structure my debate arounf
3 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 3 records.