How atheist ideology messed up the human origin story

Spin-off from "Dialog on 'Creationists read this' "

Incl. intelligent design, belief in divine creation

Moderators: Calilasseia, DarthHelmet86, Onyx8

Re: How atheist ideology messed up the human origin story

#3321  Postby Spearthrower » Jun 03, 2019 10:48 am

Jayjay4547 wrote:
Because you say so, then.


No... because it IS so.

Its amazing how your hubris wont even let you ask the natural question here.

The simple fact is that you know fuck all as usual. You weren't even aware that the composite replica you were waving around was a female.

I suppose that ignorance in this case is superior to mendacity.


Jayjay4547 wrote:
In the skulls of what ”both species”?. You needed to show male and female Australopithecus skulls but you simply added a female gorilla skull to compare with the male gorilla skull


:doh:

No, JJ - gads, I'm not sure if you're playing dense here or...

You wanted to compare a male gorilla with a female australopithecine, so I posted the pic of a female gorilla skull to compare to the female australopithecine. You know: like for like.


Jayjay4547 wrote:According to the Smithsonian: http://humanorigins.si.edu/evidence/hum ... -afarensis
”Au. afarensis had both ape and human characteristics: members of this species had apelike face proportions (a flat nose, a strongly projecting lower jaw) and braincase (with a small brain, usually less than 500 cubic centimeters -- about 1/3 the size of a modern human brain), and long, strong arms with curved fingers adapted for climbing trees. They also had small canine teeth like all other early humans, and a body that stood on two legs and regularly walked upright.”


Yes, the Smithsonian are correct, but let's see whether you are correct in your follow up to citing this.


Jayjay4547 wrote:My emphasis. So one of the first signals about what KIND of animal Australopithecus was, was their lack of dental sexual dimorphism.


Of course, you've performed your typical bait and switch. You are incorrect in 2 distinct ways.

The first, and relatively minor compared to the next, as I have already highlighted for you is that you aren't talking about a species, but a subtribe comprised of a dozen different species - and as I already pointed out, you either need to a) specify which species you are talking about or b) make statements that are true of all of that group.

More egregiously, you've gone from 'small canine teeth like other early humans' to 'lack of dental sexual dimorphism' - clearly the 2 aren't synonymous. They could have small canine teeth and yet still present dimorphism. That is actually the case, and it is more or less pronounced depending on the species of australopithecine. Even the species with the least pronounced dental dimorphism, A. boisei (i.e. best case scenario for you), still has some sexual dimorphism present, so your usage of the word 'lack' needs to be clarified because, as I am well aware, you are trying to hang far too much on it.

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/a ... 2X05000478

Analyses show that A. afarensis is similar in size sexual dimorphism to gorillas in femoral variables, to humans in humeral variables, and to chimpanzees in canine variables. The results of this study are compatible with the hypothesis that the pattern of sexual dimorphism in A. afarensis is different from any that are observed in living humans or apes.


https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/a ... 8400904019

These results show that significant directional changes do occur in the A. afarensis mandibles and teeth, and in these elements, at least, the species is not static. Temporal variation is clearly an important component of overall variation in the A. afarensis lineage, even though other factors, such as sexual dimorphism, may also play a part.



https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/a ... 8487900662

Based on this relationship and coefficients of variation of four species of the genus Australopithecus, we predict degrees of canine dimorphism for these extinct hominids. The estimates show that A. afarensis is as dimorphic as the pygmy chimpanzee, A. boisei slightly less dimorphic than the pygmy chimpanzee, A. robustus slightly more dimorphic than the lar gibbon, while A. africanus overiaps with the lar gibbon as well as a modern human sample.


Again, you are not respecting the data and drawing conclusions from it. You are making up the data to concur with your preconceived conclusion. But the evidence does not support your case, so quite how you're supposed to have alighted on 'what kind of animal' it was is perplexing when you're simply manufacturing details in the absence of evidence.

Plus, of course, it is another babushka. Inside this babushka is the further claim regarding the supposed 'perfect adaptation to hand weapons', which aside from being abjectly nonsensical, is also not what the lessening of sexual dimorphism shows:


Henry Mchenry 2005 wrote:Sexual Dimorphism in Fossil Hominids and its Sociological Implications

In general, mammalian species with polygynous mating systems have a higher level of sexual dimorphism in body weight, canine size and other features than do species with monogamous mating systems (Alexander and Hoogland 1979, Clutton-Brock 1989, Clutton-Brock and Vincent 1991, Clutton-Brock et al. 1977, Frayer and Wolpoff 1985, Gaulin and Sailer 1984, Harvey and Bennett 1985, Harvey et al. 1978, Lande 1980, Leutenegger 1977, 1978, 1982a, b, Leutenegger and Kelly 1977, Plavcan and van Schaik 1992, Rodman and Mitani 1987, Willner and Martin 1985).


A general trend is clear: monogamous species have very low levels of body weight sexual dimorphism and polygynous species have higher dimorphism. Clutton-Brock et al. (1977) show this by comparing the socionomic index (number of adult females per male) with body weight ratio. The association holds up relatively well. Within the Order Primates, monogamous species are always monomorphic and polygynous species are usually dimorphic with males often weighing twice as much as females. Trivers (1972) explains how selection may drive the evolution of dimorphism in polygynous species. By this view male/male competition to monopolize the reproductive potential of females tends to favour greater size, strength, display and other sexually dimorphic characteristics among males.


So your contrived babushka wouldn't even support the next babushka even if it were true, which it's not.


Jayjay4547 wrote:
Again, because you say so.


Again, it's not because I say so, it's because it is so. If I were to say otherwise, I'd be just as wrong as you.


Jayjay4547 wrote:Look, I can believe that an anatomist (or a dentist) might be able to demonstrate the difference between male and female dentition in Australopithecus but you sure haven’t demonstrated it.


I didn't claim to have demonstrated it: there is no need for me to demonstrate it - it's factually so. As usual, we're playing a game to protect your ego. You haven't the faintest idea how to go about sexing the replica skull, or what fossil fragments the replica skull is composited from, so you can't even begin to engage on the subject. You were simply caught out again, but rather than say 'oh I wasn't aware of that, can you possibly explain further?' you're playing a 'nuh uh' game.

Do you want to maintain that it's a replica composite of a male afarensis skull, JJ? If so, then the onus is actually on you to show this is true. Going to show that are you? Be my guest: this will be amusing.

Of course someone who studied comparative primate anatomy would be able to sex it. Of course, someone who studied the fossil record of afarensis would know that replica composite skull intimately... and such a person would therefore know straight away that it's female, and then find it highly amusing that someone would pretend to knowledge while being unaware of this fact. :lol:


Jayjay4547 wrote:
Spearthrower wrote:Image

How do you protect your cognitive bias with this evidence-based contradiction to your claims, JJ?/Sadly for you, you already played the blanket dismissal / transparent evasion card:

I have read a lot of crap on this forum but seldom something as rubbish as that.


Those two skulls are of some male and female great ape, with the typical dental sexual dimorphism found in primates but so strikingly absent in our own ancestors.


SOME male and female great ape? There aren't many great apes JJ - surely you can take a guess?

The problem for you is that there is significant canine dimorphism present, but there are no comparable scenarios to gorillas where the brave, stout male heroically protects his womenfolk from the shadowy forces of predation.

Rather as is the reality with gorillas: the male great ape fights other males for access to females.

That is, of course, a genuine comparative relationship: intraspecific male competition, not 'defensive biting scenarios'. :lol:


Jayjay4547 wrote:Some other readers in this forum are sure to be aware of that fact and some might be thinking of the correlation between polygamous primate habits and their canine dimorphism.


Well, if they are, then they're also thinking 'Gee willikins, JJ hasn't half been talking a lot of crap for an awfully long time'.
I'm not an atheist; I just don't believe in gods :- that which I don't belong to isn't a group!
Religion: Mass Stockholm Syndrome

Learn Stuff. Stuff good. https://www.coursera.org/
User avatar
Spearthrower
 
Posts: 24962
Age: 43
Male

Country: Thailand
Print view this post

Ads by Google


Re: How atheist ideology messed up the human origin story

#3322  Postby Sendraks » Jun 03, 2019 2:28 pm

JayJay's rambling speculations do put me in mind of this famous letter.

https://www.ittc.ku.edu/~evans/stuff/smithsonian.html
"One of the great tragedies of mankind is that morality has been hijacked by religion." - Arthur C Clarke

"'Science doesn't know everything' - Well science knows it doesn't know everything, otherwise it'd stop" - Dara O'Brian
User avatar
Sendraks
 
Name: D-Money Jr
Posts: 15140
Age: 103
Male

Country: England
Print view this post

Re: How atheist ideology messed up the human origin story

#3323  Postby Spearthrower » Jun 03, 2019 2:53 pm

Oh that's not fai....

We are particularly interested in hearing you expand on your theories surrounding the trans-positating fillifitation of ferrous ions in a structural matrix that makes the excellent juvenile Tyrannosaurus rex femur you recently discovered take on the deceptive appearance of a rusty 9-mm Sears Craftsman automotive crescent wrench.


Ahh right, yes.
I'm not an atheist; I just don't believe in gods :- that which I don't belong to isn't a group!
Religion: Mass Stockholm Syndrome

Learn Stuff. Stuff good. https://www.coursera.org/
User avatar
Spearthrower
 
Posts: 24962
Age: 43
Male

Country: Thailand
Print view this post

Re: How atheist ideology messed up the human origin story

#3324  Postby Scot Dutchy » Jun 03, 2019 4:10 pm

Jayjay4547 wrote:
Scot Dutchy wrote:Are we not past the skull stage again!

Does JJ see any other planet as being created by his creator. Why do we only have one earth in our solar system? Kept on making mistakes? Not very good was he?


Sorry Scot Dutchy I'm not interested in that stuff.


That is not part of your myth. It does not fit well with your fantasies?
Myths in islam Women and islam Musilm opinion polls


"Religion is excellent stuff for keeping common people quiet.” — Napoleon Bonaparte
User avatar
Scot Dutchy
 
Posts: 43020
Age: 70
Male

Country: Nederland
European Union (eur)
Print view this post

Re: How atheist ideology messed up the human origin story

#3325  Postby Jayjay4547 » Jun 04, 2019 6:18 am

Spearthrower wrote:
Jayjay4547 wrote:
Because you say so, then.


No... because it IS so.

Its amazing how your hubris wont even let you ask the natural question here./The simple fact is that you know fuck all as usual. You weren't even aware that the composite replica you were waving around was a female./I suppose that ignorance in this case is superior to mendacity.

I still don’t know why you claimed that the australopith skull I posted (here it is again)
gorilla_australopithecus.jpg
gorilla_australopithecus.jpg (8.73 KiB) Viewed 227 times
...was of a female and you still haven’t even tried to explain why you came to that conclusion. You still rely purely on an appeal to your authority. Plus, you throw in insults: “hubris, know fuck all, mendacity, ignorance”.

Your posts on this issue are consistent with your having assumed that skull was female because it lacked sharp canines but now it turns out that both male and female australopithecus lacked sharp canines, so you throw insults around.


Spearthrower wrote:
Jayjay4547 wrote:
In the skulls of what ”both species”?. You needed to show male and female Australopithecus skulls but you simply added a female gorilla skull to compare with the male gorilla skull


:doh: No, JJ - gads, I'm not sure if you're playing dense here or.../You wanted to compare a male gorilla with a female australopithecine, so I posted the pic of a female gorilla skull to compare to the female australopithecine. You know: like for like.


Correction: you CLAIMED that was a female australopithecine, without explaining why you made that claim and in the face of the major fact that to a good first approximation, male and female australopthecines had similar teeth. So much so that there was at one time a rational discussion whether gracile and robust specimens just reflected female and males of one species: their sex wasn’t obvious from their canines.

But hang, you have a 50% chance of being right about the sex of that specimen.

Spearthrower wrote:
Jayjay4547 wrote:According to the Smithsonian: http://humanorigins.si.edu/evidence/hum ... -afarensis
”Au. afarensis had both ape and human characteristics: members of this species had apelike face proportions (a flat nose, a strongly projecting lower jaw) and braincase (with a small brain, usually less than 500 cubic centimeters -- about 1/3 the size of a modern human brain), and long, strong arms with curved fingers adapted for climbing trees. They also had small canine teeth like all other early humans, and a body that stood on two legs and regularly walked upright.”


Yes, the Smithsonian are correct, but let's see whether you are correct in your follow up to citing this.

Great; we have established then that Au. afarensis (an early Australopithecus) had small canines LIKE ALL OTHER EARLY HUMANS.
Spearthrower wrote:
Jayjay4547 wrote:My emphasis. So one of the first signals about what KIND of animal Australopithecus was, was their lack of dental sexual dimorphism.


Of course, you've performed your typical bait and switch. You are incorrect in 2 distinct ways.

The first, and relatively minor compared to the next, as I have already highlighted for you is that you aren't talking about a species, but a subtribe comprised of a dozen different species - and as I already pointed out, you either need to a) specify which species you are talking about or b) make statements that are true of all of that group.

I do emphatically claim that the Australopithecus genus all lacked long sharp canines. And the Smithsonian Institution would back me up. And you agreed. Just above here.
Spearthrower wrote:
More egregiously, you've gone from 'small canine teeth like other early humans' to 'lack of dental sexual dimorphism' - clearly the 2 aren't synonymous. They could have small canine teeth and yet still present dimorphism. That is actually the case, and it is more or less pronounced depending on the species of australopithecine. Even the species with the least pronounced dental dimorphism, A. boisei (i.e. best case scenario for you), still has some sexual dimorphism present, so your usage of the word 'lack' needs to be clarified because, as I am well aware, you are trying to hang far too much on it.

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/a ... 2X05000478

Analyses show that A. afarensis is similar in size sexual dimorphism to gorillas in femoral variables, to humans in humeral variables, and to chimpanzees in canine variables. The results of this study are compatible with the hypothesis that the pattern of sexual dimorphism in A. afarensis is different from any that are observed in living humans or apes.


https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/a ... 8400904019

These results show that significant directional changes do occur in the A. afarensis mandibles and teeth, and in these elements, at least, the species is not static. Temporal variation is clearly an important component of overall variation in the A. afarensis lineage, even though other factors, such as sexual dimorphism, may also play a part.



https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/a ... 8487900662

Based on this relationship and coefficients of variation of four species of the genus Australopithecus, we predict degrees of canine dimorphism for these extinct hominids. The estimates show that A. afarensis is as dimorphic as the pygmy chimpanzee, A. boisei slightly less dimorphic than the pygmy chimpanzee, A. robustus slightly more dimorphic than the lar gibbon, while A. africanus overiaps with the lar gibbon as well as a modern human sample.


Again, you are not respecting the data and drawing conclusions from it. You are making up the data to concur with your preconceived conclusion. But the evidence does not support your case, so quite how you're supposed to have alighted on 'what kind of animal' it was is perplexing when you're simply manufacturing details in the absence of evidence.


Your extracts from that article by Lockwood, Kimbel and Johanson seem to contradict the Smithsonian information that all later humans had small canines. That is, until one gets to the conclusion in their summary, which you didn’t give:

All four species of Australopithecus are considerably less dimorphic in canine size for their body weight dimorphism than expected. This dissociation of canine size dimorphism and body weight dimorphism is shared with modern humans, and thus represents a unique hominid trait. We interpret the moderate to strong body weight dimorphism in australopithecines as the result of intra- and intersexual selection typical of a polygynous mating structure, while the rather mild canine dimorphism is interpreted in terms of the “developmental crowding” model for reduction in canine size.

So basically, what these authors did was measure general sexual dimorphism in a variety of higher primates and in Australopithecus species, use that to predict canine dimorphism in the latter and find their actual canine dimorphism was less. In agreement with the Smithsonian quote.

Spearthrower wrote: Plus, of course, it is another babushka. Inside this babushka is the further claim regarding the supposed 'perfect adaptation to hand weapons', which aside from being abjectly nonsensical, is also not what the lessening of sexual dimorphism shows:

Henry Mchenry 2005 wrote:Sexual Dimorphism in Fossil Hominids and its Sociological Implications

In general, mammalian species with polygynous mating systems have a higher level of sexual dimorphism in body weight, canine size and other features than do species with monogamous mating systems (Alexander and Hoogland 1979, Clutton-Brock 1989, Clutton-Brock and Vincent 1991, Clutton-Brock et al. 1977, Frayer and Wolpoff 1985, Gaulin and Sailer 1984, Harvey and Bennett 1985, Harvey et al. 1978, Lande 1980, Leutenegger 1977, 1978, 1982a, b, Leutenegger and Kelly 1977, Plavcan and van Schaik 1992, Rodman and Mitani 1987, Willner and Martin 1985).


A general trend is clear: monogamous species have very low levels of body weight sexual dimorphism and polygynous species have higher dimorphism. Clutton-Brock et al. (1977) show this by comparing the socionomic index (number of adult females per male) with body weight ratio. The association holds up relatively well. Within the Order Primates, monogamous species are always monomorphic and polygynous species are usually dimorphic with males often weighing twice as much as females. Trivers (1972) explains how selection may drive the evolution of dimorphism in polygynous species. By this view male/male competition to monopolize the reproductive potential of females tends to favour greater size, strength, display and other sexually dimorphic characteristics among males.


So your contrived babushka wouldn't even support the next babushka even if it were true, which it's not.

I was taught all that in 2003 by a bouncy and knowledgeable NYT poster called j.fear (juniper) . And I anticipated it in my post when I said “some might be thinking of the correlation between polygamous primate habits and their canine dimorphism”.

The Lockwood, Kimbel and Johanson article discussed above can be used again here. Clutton Brock et al (1977) associated high body size dimorphism with polygynous species. Lockwood et al found that generally, body size dimorphism predicted canine dimorphism. But Australopithecus species had less canine dimorphism than expected from that prediction. So we are back with the basic fact that Australopithecus had low canine dimorphism while quite possibly having variable polygeny across species and over time.

A practically important fact about our primate cousins is that they are extremely dangerous biters; the famous cases involving chimps being these:
St. James Davis' 2005: nose and severely mauled his genitals and limbs
Charla Nash 2009: blinded while severing her nose, ears, and both hands, and severely lacerating her face.
Andrew Oberle 2012: lost an ear, nose, most of fingers and feet

To the extent that human beings aren’t equipped with the canines needed to do this level of damage, we share that incapacity with Australopithecus. That doesn’t mean we are nicer to others than chimps or that our deep ancestors were, but that we do serious damage using hand weapons and so, apparently, did Australopithecus.

It’s not a babushka. It is what would occur to many people, not living in some ideological blizzard.
User avatar
Jayjay4547
THREAD STARTER
 
Name: Jonathan
Posts: 1093
Male

Country: South Africa
South Africa (za)
Print view this post

Re: How atheist ideology messed up the human origin story

#3326  Postby Thomas Eshuis » Jun 04, 2019 7:44 am

The self-deception is strong with ^this one^.
"Respect for personal beliefs = "I am going to tell you all what I think of YOU, but don't dare retort and tell what you think of ME because...it's my personal belief". Hmm. A bully's charter and no mistake."
User avatar
Thomas Eshuis
 
Name: Thomas Eshuis
Posts: 30129
Age: 30
Male

Country: Netherlands
European Union (eur)
Print view this post

Re: How atheist ideology messed up the human origin story

#3327  Postby Cito di Pense » Jun 04, 2019 8:06 am

Jayjay4547 wrote:You still rely purely on an appeal to your authority. Plus, you throw in insults: “hubris, know fuck all, mendacity, ignorance”.


As far as convincing you that your ignorance of the topic is plain, I guess that might be so. Don't forget, others with scientific training (and some exposure to human paleontology and comparative anatomy) might be present, and are also capable of spotting your fraudulent attempts to portray yourself as an expert. However, JJ, noting the limitations you manifest in discussing this topic, in comparison to the recognizable expertise displayed by Spearthrower, is not to insult you. You could, of course, take your sordid tale and put it on the desk of a human paleontologist at some university thereupon to be told face to face that your claims to expertise are idiotic.
Хлопнут без некролога. -- Серге́й Па́влович Королёв

Translation by Elbert Hubbard: Do not take life too seriously. You're not going to get out of it alive.
User avatar
Cito di Pense
 
Name: Amir Bagatelle
Posts: 28495
Age: 22
Male

Country: The Heartland
Mongolia (mn)
Print view this post

Ads by Google


Re: How atheist ideology messed up the human origin story

#3328  Postby Fenrir » Jun 04, 2019 8:24 am

Religion: it only fails when you test it.-Thunderf00t.
User avatar
Fenrir
 
Posts: 3386
Male

Country: Australia
South Georgia and the South Sandwich Islands (gs)
Print view this post

Re: How atheist ideology messed up the human origin story

#3329  Postby Cito di Pense » Jun 04, 2019 8:33 am

Jayjay4547 wrote:Correction: you CLAIMED that was a female australopithecine, without explaining why you made that claim and in the face of the major fact that to a good first approximation, male and female australopthecines had similar teeth. So much so that there was at one time a rational discussion whether gracile and robust specimens just reflected female and males of one species: their sex wasn’t obvious from their canines.


You know, JJ, there might be other features useful for sexing a reconstructed australopithecine skull. You don't suppose...?

Spearthrower wrote:More egregiously, you've gone from 'small canine teeth like other early humans' to 'lack of dental sexual dimorphism' - clearly the 2 aren't synonymous. They could have small canine teeth and yet still present dimorphism. That is actually the case, and it is more or less pronounced depending on the species of australopithecine. Even the species with the least pronounced dental dimorphism, A. boisei (i.e. best case scenario for you), still has some sexual dimorphism present, so your usage of the word 'lack' needs to be clarified because, as I am well aware, you are trying to hang far too much on it.


Do you really suppose that, after experiencing years and years of your going round in circles with amateurish bluster, anyone owes you a detailed exposition every time you demand it, following upon years and years of observing your failure to learn anything that does not fit your preconceived schemes of how a very small part of the universe actually functions?

Jayjay4547 wrote:
A practically important fact about our primate cousins is that they are extremely dangerous biters; the famous cases


The "practicality" of your latest idiotic tactic depends in no small way on the fact that our contemporaneous primate cousins are not ancient australopithecines. Round and round you go, and much of the time, your dizziness is manifest.

You've been with the professors, and they've all liked your looks
With great lawyers you have discussed lepers and crooks
You've been through all of F. Scott Fitzgerald's books
You're very well-read it's well known...

But you know something is happening here, and you don't know what it is, do you, Mr. Jones


Хлопнут без некролога. -- Серге́й Па́влович Королёв

Translation by Elbert Hubbard: Do not take life too seriously. You're not going to get out of it alive.
User avatar
Cito di Pense
 
Name: Amir Bagatelle
Posts: 28495
Age: 22
Male

Country: The Heartland
Mongolia (mn)
Print view this post

Re: How atheist ideology messed up the human origin story

#3330  Postby Cito di Pense » Jun 04, 2019 8:53 am

Jayjay4547 wrote:To the extent that human beings aren’t equipped with the canines needed to do this level of damage, we share that incapacity with Australopithecus. That doesn’t mean we are nicer to others than chimps or that our deep ancestors were, but that we do serious damage using hand weapons


So, what?

and so, apparently, did Australopithecus.

Ah! you're apparently thinking about the mechanical leopard again. The primates in those pictures are not, you may note, Australopithecus of any species. Watching god-botherers falling apart over science is hilarious. There are at least three members of this forum with scientific training reading your drivel, and not a one of them is you.
Хлопнут без некролога. -- Серге́й Па́влович Королёв

Translation by Elbert Hubbard: Do not take life too seriously. You're not going to get out of it alive.
User avatar
Cito di Pense
 
Name: Amir Bagatelle
Posts: 28495
Age: 22
Male

Country: The Heartland
Mongolia (mn)
Print view this post

Re: How atheist ideology messed up the human origin story

#3331  Postby Fenrir » Jun 04, 2019 8:59 am

You'd think JJ would have learnt that posting random images from the internet without checking what they are first is likely to turn around and bite you by now.
Religion: it only fails when you test it.-Thunderf00t.
User avatar
Fenrir
 
Posts: 3386
Male

Country: Australia
South Georgia and the South Sandwich Islands (gs)
Print view this post

Re: How atheist ideology messed up the human origin story

#3332  Postby Cito di Pense » Jun 04, 2019 9:34 am

Fenrir wrote:You'd think JJ would have learnt that posting random images from the internet without checking what they are first is likely to turn around and bite you by now.


One thing sets JJ's Old Earth Creationism apart from, say, that of William Lane Craig. Craig starts from a purely philosophical principle, "everything that begins to exist must have a cause" and works its way forward from there, but it's obvious theology from the get-go. JJ, on the other hand, starts with the puddle analogy, "look how perfectly-adapted to containing its water is this humble depression in the tarmac". He seems to be in awe of human capability, but he's only comparing humans to the rest of the living world, in the temporary present we observe. The teleology falls out naturally from the awe, the fee-fees that require the predetermined conclusion.

Working his way backward from that awe, JJ (almost immediately) concludes a divine intelligence is responsible for it all. I'll at least give this to JJ: He begins with an observation. No, scratch that. JJ begins with his deepity. He's not different to Craig.

This is how we conclude that JJ not only doesn't understand how science works, he actually despises how science works. It looks like a double-delusion of creationism mixed with mimicking the forms of scientific discourse. Cargo-cult science, in other words. Very goal-oriented if your ambition is to get up your own arse.

I mean, why? Why, JJ? Why all this elaborate imitation of science to promote the idea that the hand of the Creator is manifest in the wonders of nature? This means that pre-scientific people are barred in principle from understanding God. This just makes it obvious that it's an imitation of science, presented to a presumably scientific audience, to say what is wrong with atheism. Maybe that's all JJ really seeks to accomplish. Science has it all wrong by seeking to deduce an understanding from the observations, rather than divining the obvious that should not require any observation in the first place.
Хлопнут без некролога. -- Серге́й Па́влович Королёв

Translation by Elbert Hubbard: Do not take life too seriously. You're not going to get out of it alive.
User avatar
Cito di Pense
 
Name: Amir Bagatelle
Posts: 28495
Age: 22
Male

Country: The Heartland
Mongolia (mn)
Print view this post

Re: How atheist ideology messed up the human origin story

#3333  Postby Scot Dutchy » Jun 04, 2019 12:42 pm

Why is the discussion solely around what JJ wishes to discuss? He wont look outside the earth which of course is ridiculous.
Myths in islam Women and islam Musilm opinion polls


"Religion is excellent stuff for keeping common people quiet.” — Napoleon Bonaparte
User avatar
Scot Dutchy
 
Posts: 43020
Age: 70
Male

Country: Nederland
European Union (eur)
Print view this post

Re: How atheist ideology messed up the human origin story

#3334  Postby Cito di Pense » Jun 04, 2019 1:38 pm

Scot Dutchy wrote:Why is the discussion solely around what JJ wishes to discuss? He wont look outside the earth which of course is ridiculous.


That, Scot, is because this is a discussion about human origins. Just as pertains in many other areas of science, we don't try to assess human origins by examining the evolution of the entire solar system, local galaxy, or the cosmos as a whole. JJ has quit making assertions about the mysterious 'biome', because it's been shown that he doesn't know (or care to know) its relation to any other part of the universe. The topic has been dropped, at least for the time being.

Had you more to contribute on any of these topics besides spitballs, I could take your critique more seriously. In what area are you an expert? Digital networking techology, or something like that, right? As of about 1980.
Хлопнут без некролога. -- Серге́й Па́влович Королёв

Translation by Elbert Hubbard: Do not take life too seriously. You're not going to get out of it alive.
User avatar
Cito di Pense
 
Name: Amir Bagatelle
Posts: 28495
Age: 22
Male

Country: The Heartland
Mongolia (mn)
Print view this post

Re: How atheist ideology messed up the human origin story

#3335  Postby Spearthrower » Jun 04, 2019 1:49 pm

JJ wrote:Your posts on this issue are consistent with your having assumed that skull was female because it lacked sharp canines but now it turns out that both male and female australopithecus lacked sharp canines, so you throw insults around.


DING DING DING

Reality calling: come in JJ, come in!

Spearthrower wrote:Image



Image


Image


Image
I'm not an atheist; I just don't believe in gods :- that which I don't belong to isn't a group!
Religion: Mass Stockholm Syndrome

Learn Stuff. Stuff good. https://www.coursera.org/
User avatar
Spearthrower
 
Posts: 24962
Age: 43
Male

Country: Thailand
Print view this post

Ads by Google


Re: How atheist ideology messed up the human origin story

#3336  Postby Spearthrower » Jun 04, 2019 1:55 pm

As usual, empirical evidence contradicts JJ's claims.

So what does he do?

Does he amend his decrees, his assertions of knowledge, his claims?

Does he fuck.

Instead, he doubles down, pretending he's right regardless of the evidence unmistakably contradicting him.

That's why JJ's a Creationist. If this world's not good enough to support your idea, simply make up whatever you want to be true.

JJ has a special level of hubris, though. While most Creationists think their garbled book of Iron Age mythology supersedes evidence, JJ thinks his proclamations have the weight of divine decree. Henry Morris' version was:

No geological difficulties, real or imagined, can be allowed to take precedence over the clear statements and necessary inferences of Scripture.


Whereas JJ's version is: No factual difficulties, real or imagined, can be allowed to take precedence over the clear statements and necessary inferences of my confident assertions.
I'm not an atheist; I just don't believe in gods :- that which I don't belong to isn't a group!
Religion: Mass Stockholm Syndrome

Learn Stuff. Stuff good. https://www.coursera.org/
User avatar
Spearthrower
 
Posts: 24962
Age: 43
Male

Country: Thailand
Print view this post

Re: How atheist ideology messed up the human origin story

#3337  Postby Spearthrower » Jun 04, 2019 2:03 pm

I do emphatically claim that the Australopithecus genus all lacked long sharp canines. And the Smithsonian Institution would back me up. And you agreed. Just above here.


Nope. That's not what the Smithsonian said. That's a bait and switch, JJ. It's what you always do - latch onto minor ambiguity to pretend everything you've ever said is justified.

The tiny excerpt you cited from the Smithsonian said they had 'small canine teeth', not that they lacked sharp canine teeth, nor that male and female canine teeth were monomorphic.

You can try lying through your teeth if you like, but it's going to be very hard to pull fast ones like this on someone who actually knows the topic matter. As I've already shown: afarensis had canine sexual dimorphism approximately equivalent to modern pygmy chimpanzees, so your claim is wrong. Flat wrong. Going to amend your claim now? :lol:
I'm not an atheist; I just don't believe in gods :- that which I don't belong to isn't a group!
Religion: Mass Stockholm Syndrome

Learn Stuff. Stuff good. https://www.coursera.org/
User avatar
Spearthrower
 
Posts: 24962
Age: 43
Male

Country: Thailand
Print view this post

Re: How atheist ideology messed up the human origin story

#3338  Postby Spearthrower » Jun 04, 2019 2:05 pm

I was taught all that in 2003 by a bouncy and knowledgeable NYT poster called j.fear (juniper) . And I anticipated it in my post when I said “some might be thinking of the correlation between polygamous primate habits and their canine dimorphism”.


Whereas, of course in reality, I was talking about this 2 pages ago.
I'm not an atheist; I just don't believe in gods :- that which I don't belong to isn't a group!
Religion: Mass Stockholm Syndrome

Learn Stuff. Stuff good. https://www.coursera.org/
User avatar
Spearthrower
 
Posts: 24962
Age: 43
Male

Country: Thailand
Print view this post

Re: How atheist ideology messed up the human origin story

#3339  Postby Spearthrower » Jun 04, 2019 2:08 pm

Your extracts from that article by Lockwood, Kimbel and Johanson seem to contradict the Smithsonian information that all later humans had small canines.


No. They don't contradict the 6 words you extracted from a brief synopsis by the Smithsonian. They contradict your claims that a) australopithecines had no sharp canine teeth, and that there was no sexual dimorphism in canine teeth in the australopithecines.
I'm not an atheist; I just don't believe in gods :- that which I don't belong to isn't a group!
Religion: Mass Stockholm Syndrome

Learn Stuff. Stuff good. https://www.coursera.org/
User avatar
Spearthrower
 
Posts: 24962
Age: 43
Male

Country: Thailand
Print view this post

Re: How atheist ideology messed up the human origin story

#3340  Postby Spearthrower » Jun 04, 2019 2:11 pm

It’s not a babushka. It is what would occur to many people, not living in some ideological blizzard.


What would occur to many people with no relevant knowledge who live in an ideological blizzard known as Creationism.
I'm not an atheist; I just don't believe in gods :- that which I don't belong to isn't a group!
Religion: Mass Stockholm Syndrome

Learn Stuff. Stuff good. https://www.coursera.org/
User avatar
Spearthrower
 
Posts: 24962
Age: 43
Male

Country: Thailand
Print view this post

PreviousNext

Return to Creationism

Who is online

Users viewing this topic: No registered users and 1 guest