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

#3361  Postby Spearthrower » Jun 07, 2019 7:18 am

As I told JJ in the past - one of my friends had half his ear bitten off by a human male, and a friend of a friend had his nose bitten off by a human male.

Being 'formidable' in the biting department is largely relative to what it is you're biting, and what your teeth are adapted to bite.
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: 25218
Age: 43
Male

Country: Thailand
Print view this post

Ads by Google


Re: How atheist ideology messed up the human origin story

#3362  Postby Cito di Pense » Jun 07, 2019 7:20 am

Spearthrower wrote:As I told JJ in the past - one of my friends had half his ear bitten off by a human male, and a friend of a friend had his nose bitten off by a human male.

Being 'formidable' in the biting department is largely relative to what it is you're biting, and what your teeth are adapted to bite.


I'd bite someone's ear off just so they'd remember me the next time they butted into a conversation I was having.

Reality bites.

Jayjay4547 wrote:I’m arguing that the males of our closest relatives are formidable biters.


It's too bad, isn't it, that JJ seems to have lost interest in Australopithecus. He's more concerned with local biters. Oh, Lord, I know I'm one.
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: 28548
Age: 22
Male

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

Re: How atheist ideology messed up the human origin story

#3363  Postby Spearthrower » Jun 07, 2019 10:25 am

There’s pretty good and interesting evidence of this blinkering ideology, which I have been arguing recently...


From now on, whenever you refer to your 'atheist ideology' spiel, I will be reading it as being about your self-aggrandizing, delusional bigotry.
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: 25218
Age: 43
Male

Country: Thailand
Print view this post

Re: How atheist ideology messed up the human origin story

#3364  Postby Spearthrower » Jun 07, 2019 10:26 am

Cito di Pense wrote:
It's too bad, isn't it, that JJ seems to have lost interest in Australopithecus.



Only be expected: and endless retreat into the next or last babushka.
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: 25218
Age: 43
Male

Country: Thailand
Print view this post

Re: How atheist ideology messed up the human origin story

#3365  Postby Cito di Pense » Jun 07, 2019 10:36 am

Spearthrower wrote:
Cito di Pense wrote:
It's too bad, isn't it, that JJ seems to have lost interest in Australopithecus.


Only be expected: and endless retreat into the next or last babushka.


Jayjay4547 wrote:skewed the human origin narrative away from natural selection towards sexual selection that is, away from explanations depending on a struggle for existence in relation to other organic beings or to external conditions, towards a struggle between the individuals of one sex, generally the males, for the possession of the other sex.


Whatever way we look at it, it's all about natural conditions. JJ's problem is not that the origin story is skewed toward one natural explanation as opposed to another.
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: 28548
Age: 22
Male

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

Re: How atheist ideology messed up the human origin story

#3366  Postby Spearthrower » Jun 07, 2019 12:38 pm

Jayjay4547 wrote:
There’s pretty good and interesting evidence of this blinkering ideology, which I have been arguing recently, has skewed the human origin narrative away from natural selection towards sexual selection that is, away from explanations depending on a struggle for existence in relation to other organic beings or to external conditions, towards a struggle between the individuals of one sex, generally the males, for the possession of the other sex.


Oh and I forgot to address your outright lie in this text - that's what happens with mendacious Creationists: they spew forth so much bullshit that some minor fecal remnants slip past while addressing the most voluminous ordure.

http://www.rationalskepticism.org/creat ... l#p2698479

As I've explained to you before, dental morphology is primarily to do with mastication - there's no point in arguing otherwise. As with bird beaks, dental morphology is consistent with the types of food eaten because consumption of food is a clear and vital selection pressure. On top of that, there is ample evidence from dental wear and the ecology of the relevant areas that australopithecines foraged for tubers, nuts, and cereal grains.


There's that self-aggrandizing, delusional bigotry in action again.

Now what do you call someone who continually lies? A martyr, because they make correctly identifying the pattern a symbol of how hard done by they are.

Of course, in the real world, if you play stupid fucking games like this, you have no credibility and no one trusts anything you have to say anymore.
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: 25218
Age: 43
Male

Country: Thailand
Print view this post

Re: How atheist ideology messed up the human origin story

#3367  Postby Jayjay4547 » Jun 08, 2019 6:44 am

Spearthrower wrote:
Jayjay4547 wrote:
There’s pretty good and interesting evidence of this blinkering ideology, which I have been arguing recently, has skewed the human origin narrative away from natural selection towards sexual selection that is,...

Image

It would be difficult to find more explicit evidence that you come to this topic not out of a rational interest in human origins but to jeer. At the heart of rationality is a commitment to consider issues without being biased by what the majority might think.

Anyway your jeering image can be made relevant to my argument. First, notice how the well displayed upper front teeth of the male and female humans look almost the same. Quite unlike the male and female grins of our primate cousins. That is a characteristic we share with our deep ancestors going back a few million years to the Australopithecus genus. That difference in the way our ancestors have presented to the world around, demonstrates, to anyone willing to see, that they were not dangerous biters, but rather dangerous hand weapon users.

It’s tempting to see a biting threat in that jeering display but it seems to me that a genuine threat of violence by humans often doesn’t involve a tooth display. That is my second point. Consider this image of the traditional haka below. There are some flashes of teeth, but more, the teeth are well covered by the lips, the mouth is wide open and the main signals of aggression are the direct stare and the fighting body stance. The protruding tongue brings the message ”I will kill you, cook you and then eat you.” But first I will beat you at rugby.
Image
User avatar
Jayjay4547
THREAD STARTER
 
Name: Jonathan
Posts: 1116
Male

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

Ads by Google


Re: How atheist ideology messed up the human origin story

#3368  Postby Jayjay4547 » Jun 08, 2019 7:29 am

Spearthrower wrote:
away from explanations depending on a struggle for existence in relation to other organic beings...

Other individuals of one's own species are 'other organic beings'.
or to external conditions,

Other individuals are 'external conditions'.
... towards a struggle between the individuals of one sex,

Other members of one's species are just as much 'environment' as individuals of other species. Reproduction is what all the other stuff's about.
... generally the males, for the possession of the other sex.

A very blinkered way of looking at it. Of course, one could easily say that the males are vying for female attention, ergo that it's the females who instigate the behavior in the males.
Either way, they're still external organic beings from you, unless you're completely ignorant, close-minded and solipsistic.

That is a tactic of smudgism; ie. obscuring a point being made rather than recognising it. By “other organic beings or to external conditions” Darwin was referring to the world around us, in which we and all creatures struggle for existence. By contrast, a struggle between the individuals of one sex, generally the males, for the possession of the other sex” is all within the gene pool of the population; you can draw a geographical line around it.

Spearthrower wrote: I already summarized all this JJ: You simply don't understand what evolution entails.

There's a reason for this: you're actually hostile to evolution, regardless of your convoluted pretense to the contrary. That's why you keep doing the equivalent of Ray Comfort and trying to get science to conform to your silly, poorly-conceived and under-evidenced notions because if it were to do so, then it would be far more manageable for you to undermine and discredit.

But your thoughts on the topic are not worth anything whatsoever because you lack even an elementary comprehension.


I am certainly hostile to your presentation of human evolution, which is the extreme reflection of a fashion trend started by Darwin, of representing human origins in terms of self-creation within the gene pool. All the snobbery you are so invested in derives from that being threatened, even by one person in this one thread.

Because the creation is ruled by huge logic, even the most untrained eye can see that a fish is suited to swim in the sea. This is an explicable place. And when you fulminate instead of addressing the comparison of skulls I put up, even though you are a specialist in comparative primate physiology, it looks like you are debunking creationism by claiming that only a specialist can see that evolution is true. And you don’t need to explain that to ordinary people.
User avatar
Jayjay4547
THREAD STARTER
 
Name: Jonathan
Posts: 1116
Male

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

Re: How atheist ideology messed up the human origin story

#3369  Postby Spearthrower » Jun 08, 2019 8:10 am

Jayjay4547 wrote:
It would be difficult to find more explicit evidence that you come to this topic not out of a rational interest in human origins but to jeer.


That's your self-aggrandizing, delusional bigotry speaking.

My rational interest in human origins involved actually going through an accreditation process with one of the best universities in the world, then getting a job teaching it, and spending my life learning about the evidence for it.

Your 'interest' is to contrive a load of bollocks on the internet in favour of your belief that religious fantasy trumps the findings of scientific study, and to express extended disdain for a group of people you demean to boost your flagging ego.

So yeah, pop that back in your pipe lad.


Jayjay4547 wrote: At the heart of rationality...


Probably best you go and look up the word before engaging in one of your usual flights of fancy.


Jayjay4547 wrote:... is a commitment to consider issues without being biased by what the majority might think.


I have considered the issue without bias which is why your glaring, self-aggrandizing delusional bigotry is not convincing.


Jayjay4547 wrote:Anyway your jeering image can be made relevant to my argument.


JJ back playing the martyr card again. Oh poor me! These people are just so terrible to me! These people that I recently likened to wild dogs snapping at each other. These people who I continually express self-aggrandizing delusional bigotry against aren't nice to me! :waah:



Jayjay4547 wrote:First, notice how the well displayed upper front teeth of the male and female humans look almost the same.


HA!

Like you've got any credibility to discuss this topic? Pull the other one JJ.



Jayjay4547 wrote: Quite unlike the male and female grins of our primate cousins.


You don't know what you're talking about.



Jayjay4547 wrote: That is a characteristic we share with our deep ancestors going back a few million years to the Australopithecus genus.


No it's not - you're talking ignorant hogwash.



Jayjay4547 wrote: That difference in the way our ancestors have presented to the world around, demonstrates, to anyone willing to see, that they were not dangerous biters, but rather dangerous hand weapon users.


Delusional, self-aggrandizing bullshit you have repeatedly failed to establish as credible, and have ignored all evidence to the contrary.



Jayjay4547 wrote:It’s tempting to see a biting threat...


Of course it is because you a) make it all up as you go along and b) love implying your interlocutors as being less than human.

Of course, you'll see what you want to see regardless of the facts, as this thread has firmly established.


Jayjay4547 wrote:... in that jeering display...


That jeering display is a result of your idiocy.



Jayjay4547 wrote:... but it seems to me that a genuine threat of violence by humans often doesn’t involve a tooth display.


Wrong as usual.



Jayjay4547 wrote: That is my second point.


:crazy:

It's tempting to see something which would contradict all your claims, but then you won't, so it's your second point.

Do you actually think you have any credibility, JJ? You can barely even maintain a coherent thought across 2 sentences.



Jayjay4547 wrote:Consider this image of the traditional haka below.


Here we go.



Jayjay4547 wrote:There are some flashes of teeth, but more, the teeth are well covered by the lips, the mouth is wide open and the main signals of aggression are the direct stare and the fighting body stance.


Brilliant. JJ once again cherrypicking a single frame to support his ludicrous argument.

Image

Image

Image

Image

Image


The real question is whether you could ever hope to alight on anything approximating reality when all you ever do is pervert truth in the cause of narcissism.


Jayjay4547 wrote:The protruding tongue brings the message ”I will kill you, cook you and then eat you.” But first I will beat you at rugby.


Fantastically ignorant. Haka are traditionally performed for funerals, welcoming visitors, special ceremonial occasions... and most importantly, as a celebration of life.

But don't let reality get in the way of your self-aggrandizing delusional bigotry, JJ.
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: 25218
Age: 43
Male

Country: Thailand
Print view this post

Re: How atheist ideology messed up the human origin story

#3370  Postby Spearthrower » Jun 08, 2019 8:27 am

Jayjay4547 wrote:
That is a tactic of smudgism;...


Ooh look!

JJ's made up another new word on the spot to engage in self-aggrandizing delusional bigotry.


Jayjay4547 wrote:ie. obscuring a point being made rather than recognising it.


Or it's accurate.

So the choice appears to be either a) a word you just made up to sort of not really respond to the topic or b) it's accurate.

Seems like most rational people would consider the latter to be the case.


Jayjay4547 wrote: By “other organic beings or to external conditions” Darwin was referring to the world around us,...


As was I, but also you don't get to pretend you're accurately portraying Darwin.


Jayjay4547 wrote:... in which we and all creatures struggle for existence.


As was I, but you ignored the point to engage in some self-aggrandizing.


Jayjay4547 wrote: By contrast, a struggle between the individuals of one sex, generally the males, for the possession of the other sex” is all within the gene pool of the population; you can draw a geographical line around it.


This is fatuously ignorant.

The gene pool of a population can never be described by anyone credible or competent as 'self'.


Jayjay4547 wrote:
Spearthrower wrote: I already summarized all this JJ: You simply don't understand what evolution entails.

There's a reason for this: you're actually hostile to evolution, regardless of your convoluted pretense to the contrary. That's why you keep doing the equivalent of Ray Comfort and trying to get science to conform to your silly, poorly-conceived and under-evidenced notions because if it were to do so, then it would be far more manageable for you to undermine and discredit.

But your thoughts on the topic are not worth anything whatsoever because you lack even an elementary comprehension.


I am certainly hostile to your presentation of human evolution, which is the extreme reflection of a fashion trend started by Darwin,...


And there you go.

That 'fashion trend' being.... *drum roll* the entire concept of evolution.

So yeah, just what I said: you're hostile to evolution because it doesn't genuflect to your sky fairy.


Jayjay4547 wrote:... of representing human origins in terms of self-creation within the gene pool.


Yes, abject nonsense. You simply don't understand what evolution entails.


Jayjay4547 wrote: All the snobbery you are so invested in derives from that being threatened, even by one person in this one thread.


Threatened?

By YOU?

:lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:

JJ... you're a fucking joke. You're terminally fucking ignorant of the topic matter, yet splurge your vacuous crap at people because it makes you feel superior.

It's self-aggrandizing, delusional bigotry all the way down.

The only reason you're here is because you hate us with a passion, and desperately want to make sure we never forget it. What a pathetic waste of life.


Jayjay4547 wrote:Because the creation is ruled by huge logic,...


Bollocks.


Jayjay4547 wrote:... even the most untrained eye can see that a fish is suited to swim in the sea.


It's called 'evolution', you know - that thing you can't bear and so spend all your time trying to undermine. Of course, some things do take a little training and competency to see, which is ever the refuge of the narcissistic Creationist who wishes credibility could be attained simply through assertion.


Jayjay4547 wrote:This is an explicable place. And when you fulminate instead of addressing the comparison of skulls I put up,...


You didn't put up a comparison of skulls - how clueless can one person be? - you put up a comparison of assorted replicas and composites.

Plus, I've already seen how well you managed to engage in substantive discussion about hominid skull morphology:

http://www.rationalskepticism.org/creat ... l#p2700024

:lol:


Jayjay4547 wrote:... even though you are a specialist in comparative primate physiology,...


Um no JJ - not physiology, of anatomy.

And of course, the reason I am not 'addressing' the topic with you is because you lack any competence, are prejudiced and close-minded to anything that contradicts your wild assertions, and because you're simply not worth anything other than to jeer.


Jayjay4547 wrote: it looks like you are debunking creationism by claiming that only a specialist can see that evolution is true.


You should try observing reality sometime rather than having your bigoted prejudice provide you all your images of the outside world.


Jayjay4547 wrote:And you don’t need to explain that to ordinary people.


Ordinary people you ain't.
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: 25218
Age: 43
Male

Country: Thailand
Print view this post

Re: How atheist ideology messed up the human origin story

#3371  Postby Spearthrower » Jun 08, 2019 8:37 am

I genuinely mean it when I say that I don't think I've ever met anyone so deceitful or so egotistical as you, and both vastly outstrip your competence.

You are truly a Creationist through and through.

What's funny though is how badly you'd perform among other Creationists because, over the years, you've contrived so many idiosyncratic babushka dolls to pretend you weren't shown wrong by teh evilutionists, that by now your message is a perversion even of Creationism. Were you to go and engage somewhere like Uncommon Descent, you'd encounter a far more hostile audience than you get here, and we know all about your lies, blagging, narcissism and refusal ever to acknowledge any of your errors.
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: 25218
Age: 43
Male

Country: Thailand
Print view this post

Re: How atheist ideology messed up the human origin story

#3372  Postby Spearthrower » Jun 08, 2019 8:51 am

Analogizes the forum members as vicious dogs rending each other...

Jayjay4547 wrote:Same thing happens when I walk past a house defended by pack of dogs. They get so worked up they start biting each other.


Extending the analogy and poking fun at it...

Spearthrower wrote:They can smell the rotten meat in your pants.


And then the self-pitying violins come out in full force...

Martry Card wrote:What? That doesn’t even make sense; it’s just a vicious personal slur. IMHO you and Thomas Eshuis are out of line.


Martry Card wrote:all that shows is that in 5 years YOU evolved from impolite to abusive.


Martry Card wrote:That was just a pointless vicious slur.


And now the martyr card is about jeering at JJ, such awful people we are!

Of course, the object of jeering is JJ's laughably inept post where, after spending a dozen posts pretending he knew what he was talking about when it comes to australopithecine anatomy, then seeing a post detailing in technical and comprehensive detail why he was wrong, immediately fled the original argument but still wanted it to be...


... pretty good and interesting evidence of this blinkering ideology, which I have been arguing recently, has skewed the human origin narrative away from natural selection towards sexual selection



Why do people laugh at Creationists?

You're why, JJ.
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: 25218
Age: 43
Male

Country: Thailand
Print view this post

Re: How atheist ideology messed up the human origin story

#3373  Postby Spearthrower » Jun 08, 2019 8:54 am

I earlier typified the difference between male and female gorilla (skulls) as that the male showed a greater capacity to take damage and dish it out


My addition to help clarity in red.

I earlier asserted some nonsensical wibble as if it were fact, ignored all arguments and evidence to the contrary, and thus it remains gospel according to narcissism.
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: 25218
Age: 43
Male

Country: Thailand
Print view this post

Re: How atheist ideology messed up the human origin story

#3374  Postby Spearthrower » Jun 08, 2019 9:16 am

I guess this post of mine JJ ignored is an example of me being 'threatened' by JJ's radical brilliance.

Spearthrower wrote:
WHAT? Where do you find that Australopithecus males differed from females in having fangs like a male gorilla? I have read a lot of crap on this forum but seldom something as rubbish as that.


And here goes JJ, once again displaying abject ignorance about the topic matter he's pretending expertise in. Ignorance begetting confidence - how very Darwinian.


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: 25218
Age: 43
Male

Country: Thailand
Print view this post

Re: How atheist ideology messed up the human origin story

#3375  Postby Jayjay4547 » Jun 09, 2019 5:25 am

Spearthrower wrote:As I told JJ in the past - one of my friends had half his ear bitten off by a human male, and a friend of a friend had his nose bitten off by a human male.

Being 'formidable' in the biting department is largely relative to what it is you're biting, and what your teeth are adapted to bite.

You repeat an argumentative point, most outrageously made by others who cited the boxer Evander Holyfield being bitten by Mike Tyson in 1997. In order to make a necessary point without giving too much offense to my friends, I post small comparative images of chimp victims Charla Nash before her face transplant and St James Davis who has had 60 operations and Holyfield after the Bite Fight.
ChimpVictimsNashDavis.jpg
ChimpVictimsNashDavis.jpg (28.28 KiB) Viewed 179 times

The point I want to make from those image is that chimps are capable of doing far more damage by biting than are human beings. When they use weapons, modern man is surely capable of doing worse. I read that after the Great War, special park benches were made for disfigured soldiers. Even I wouldn’t be prepared to post images of their faces.

Spearthrower wrote:
Jayjay4547 wrote:
There’s pretty good and interesting evidence of this blinkering ideology, which I have been arguing recently, has skewed the human origin narrative away from natural selection towards sexual selection that is, away from explanations depending on a struggle for existence in relation to other organic beings or to external conditions, towards a struggle between the individuals of one sex, generally the males, for the possession of the other sex.


Oh and I forgot to address your outright lie in this text - that's what happens with mendacious Creationists: they spew forth so much bullshit that some minor fecal remnants slip past while addressing the most voluminous ordure.

http://www.rationalskepticism.org/creat ... l#p2698479


You haven’t clarified this lie you allege I made. But I have found that once I respond to posts where I am accused of lying that makes it impossible to continue with the argument. I have never accused my opponents of lying, partly because I believe they are sincere though often unscrupulous. So be aware that if you say I am lying again, or use any like weasel words e.g. mendacious, I won’t be able to respond to your later posts. I suppose you know that already.

Spearthrower wrote: As I've explained to you before, dental morphology is primarily to do with mastication - there's no point in arguing otherwise. As with bird beaks, dental morphology is consistent with the types of food eaten because consumption of food is a clear and vital selection pressure. On top of that, there is ample evidence from dental wear and the ecology of the relevant areas that australopithecines foraged for tubers, nuts, and cereal grains.


What you call “explaining” fails to explain why the word “canine” is associated with dogs, whose canines were used by their ancestors to tear into their prey which they then consumed using their carnassals. Your explanation would also fail to explain why lions, leopards and hyena have long sharp canines. And it would also fail to explain why chimps are so capable of biting off the hands and faces of others.

Spearthrower wrote: There's that self-aggrandizing, delusional bigotry in action again.

You piling in the colour words there Spearthrower, it would look better for “science” if you stuck to the subject rather than my personal defects. If by “bigotry” you are referring to Australopthecus having foraged for tubers, nuts and cereal grains then please understand the point I am trying to make: Australopithecine lack of long sharp canines shows that they didn’t bite defensively that is, for predator avoidance. Whereas an explanation in terms of natural selection (the true but boring mechanism) for primates generally having long sharp canines is for predator avoidance.

Whereas all the teeth in a leopard’s mouth have to do with killing and then eating its prey, the teeth in a male baboon, that like Australopthecs, eats tubers nuts and cereal grains, are evidence of two quite different uses. The ones at the front give caution to other species and the ones at the back, look pathetically like our own molars.

And my greater point is that, in the open-ended world of Natural selection the strange habit of using hand weapons for predator avoidance opened the logical path to a symbiotic relationship between our ancestors and wieldy objects, and to human speech, that requires a large brain, incompatible with using the same head in a biting predator avoidance.

Spearthrower wrote: Now what do you call someone who continually lies? A martyr, because they make correctly identifying the pattern a symbol of how hard done by they are.

Of course, in the real world, if you play stupid fucking games like this, you have no credibility and no one trusts anything you have to say anymore.


If I continued to talk to someone who called me a liar, that would certainly be to become martyr. Please stop that.
User avatar
Jayjay4547
THREAD STARTER
 
Name: Jonathan
Posts: 1116
Male

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

Ads by Google


Re: How atheist ideology messed up the human origin story

#3376  Postby Cito di Pense » Jun 09, 2019 5:49 am

Jayjay4547 wrote:I have never accused my opponents of lying, partly because I believe they are sincere though often unscrupulous.


Unscrupulous about what? Telling the truth? Make up your fucking mind, JJ. Is it that you think scruples are more important than competence? In that case, getting it wrong is still only to be incompetent. Getting it wrong repeatedly is at least incompetent, and possibly unscrupulous. Now we are just arguing again about facts, where data wins out over desire.

Jayjay4547 wrote:
If I continued to talk to someone who called me a liar, that would certainly be to become martyr. Please stop that.


I guess incompetence is more desirable, at least for you. There you go with your scruples, again. Take that principled stand, JJ, against the evil ideology. It's your choice to continue this, armed only with your scruples and a lot of incompetence. Your incompetence is smeared all over this thread, and you're begging people to stop pointing it out to you. Laughable.

Jayjay4547 wrote:And it would also fail to explain why chimps are so capable of biting off the hands and faces of others.


Well, why and wherefore are not scientific questions, JJ. If you just want to practice theology, just fucking admit it. Like every religious apologist, you're more interested in promoting your personal truths rather than in facts available to everyone. Can you relate the behavior of modern chimpanzees to that of Australopithecus without making a hash of it. Were these chimpanzees being threatened by predators when they bit human beings? Who predates on chimpanzees when they mix with modern humans? Are they good to eat, or something?
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: 28548
Age: 22
Male

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

Re: How atheist ideology messed up the human origin story

#3377  Postby Spearthrower » Jun 09, 2019 7:38 am

Jayjay4547 wrote:
You repeat an argumentative point, most outrageously made by others who cited the boxer Evander Holyfield being bitten by Mike Tyson in 1997. In order to make a necessary point without giving too much offense to my friends, I post small comparative images of chimp victims Charla Nash before her face transplant and St James Davis who has had 60 operations and Holyfield after the Bite Fight.


Because these are comparable, right JJ?

Fuck me, either you are lost in your own navel, or you think people here are thick as shit. Probably both given the evidence to date.

As you have had explained to you before... so you are once again lying by omission... both incidents of chimpanzee attacks cannot be characterized truthfully as being victims of chimpanzee bitings.

That's where it ALL goes wrong for your silly little babushka.

How did St James Davis' cheek bones and eye sockets get broken, JJ?

It wasn't from the chimp BITING him, was it?

No. Of course not. What happened was the chimpanzee beat him senseless with its superior physical strength. The chimpanzee's attack cannot be characterized by the chimpanzee lunging forth with gaping maws to savage the victim with its canine teeth as a canid would. That's where you cross the line into fiction. You propose evidence that contradicts the very essence of your claim.

It would be laughable if it wasn't demented and perverse that you continually lie about a savage human tragedy to prop up your wilful bullshit.

In reality, the chimpanzee pummeled the 2 victims insensate and then bit them. A human being could do exactly the same if they were minded to, in fact, a sufficiently stronger human being could do it without even beating their victim insensate.

https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-england-oxf ... e-47444128

A man has been jailed for nine years for biting off a man's cheek in an Oxford nightclub.


https://metro.co.uk/2019/03/04/man-bite ... k-8801054/

Keenan then lunges towards Nikitas’ face and repeatedly sinks his teeth into his cheek, tearing off a ‘large portion’ of flesh.


Party-goers who witnessed the unprovoked attack on April 8 2017, claim they saw flesh ‘fly’ across the dance floor.


http://time.com/4456501/florida-face-bi ... -harrouff/

Man Who Tried to Bite Murder Victim's Face Off Is Recovering in Hospital, Police Say


https://www.express.co.uk/news/uk/64827 ... rty-horror

A MUM-of-two was left with 'half her cheek' on the floor after another woman ripped a chunk out of her face during a party.



"But she came back into the house and bit me on the face.

"I was so shocked and scared. Someone eventually pulled her off me but it was too late to save half of my cheek, which was in front of me on the floor and there was so much blood.



So as usual, and just as happened before when you retreated to this manufactured evasive babushka, your claims do not stand up to reality. Even modern humans with modern human dentition could bite the nose, ears, and cheeks off another person if they so chose.


Jayjay4547 wrote:
The point I want to make from those image is that chimps are capable of doing far more damage by biting than are human beings.


No, not really. The difference is that a chimpanzee is more likely to be able to render a human victim unconscious or insensate and unable to flee/retaliate before commencing the biting.

Flesh is very susceptible to shearing motions from sharp objects.


Jayjay4547 wrote: When they use weapons, modern man is surely capable of doing worse.


A red herring. A modern *human* is capable of doing very similar damage without weapons.


Jayjay4547 wrote:I read that after the Great War, special park benches were made for disfigured soldiers. Even I wouldn’t be prepared to post images of their faces.


Even you? HA

If you saw some argumentative profit in it, you'd leap at the chance.


Jayjay4547 wrote:
You haven’t clarified this lie you allege I made.


I clarified it IN the text of the post you cited.


Jayjay4547 wrote:But I have found that once I respond to posts where I am accused of lying that makes it impossible to continue with the argument.


Being caught lying does make it hard to continue making the same deceitful argument which is precisely why they are identified as such, and contrary to your statement, you have shown more than willing to continue repeating the same bullshit arguments for eons after they've been identified as lies.


Jayjay4547 wrote: I have never accused my opponents of lying, partly because I believe they are sincere though often unscrupulous.


:lol:

There's a shit-eating grin if ever I've seen one.

So you wouldn't stoop to calling labeling your interlocutors as deceitful, only that they possess no moral principles! :ask:

But anyway, this is a nice little martyr card, but I fear you're rather missing the point. You may not be able to call other peoples' posts deceitful, but then it may stand to reason that it's because their posts are not deceitful. Whereas, perhaps it's just you that engages in deceitful behavior, and consequently only your posts which are then so labelled?

You could, of course, stop being deceitful JJ. I fear, though, that would rather take away the majority of your ability to engage here.


Jayjay4547 wrote:So be aware that if you say I am lying again, or use any like weasel words e.g. mendacious, I won’t be able to respond to your later posts. I suppose you know that already.


Be aware that I don't give a fuck whether you reply or not. If you don't want to hear these words directed at your posts, then manage yourself better and strive to achieve a higher standard of argumentation.



Jayjay4547 wrote:
What you call “explaining” fails to explain why the word “canine” is associated with dogs, whose canines were used by their ancestors to tear into their prey which they then consumed using their carnassals.


Eh?

A fantastic non-sequitur. Why would I need to engage in some kind of biological etymological fallacy to talk about the diets of hominids?


Jayjay4547 wrote:Your explanation would also fail to explain why lions, leopards and hyena have long sharp canines.


No, it really wouldn't. I won't call this lying on your part, I will just call it missing the point by miles. It's like you don't even read the contents of posts, you just read what you want to be there.


Jayjay4547 wrote: And it would also fail to explain why chimps are so capable of biting off the hands and faces of others.


Approximately as capable of biting off appendages as modern humans, so there's nothing that actually needs explaining there.

Jayjay4547 wrote:
You piling in the colour words there Spearthrower, it would look better for “science” if you stuck to the subject rather than my personal defects.


No, I tell you what: I'll do whatever the fuck I like and won't be directed by you what I should or shouldn't do. You've exhibited neither interest nor ability in science, so it's hardly like you're in a spectacular position to be decreeing what would be ideal for discussions focused on it.


Jayjay4547 wrote: If by “bigotry” you are referring to Australopthecus having foraged for tubers, nuts and cereal grains then please understand the point I am trying to make: Australopithecine lack of long sharp canines shows that they didn’t bite defensively that is, for predator avoidance. Whereas an explanation in terms of natural selection (the true but boring mechanism) for primates generally having long sharp canines is for predator avoidance.


By bigotry I am talking about you, not australopithecines. You and your behavior at this forum. You and this thread. You and your utterly pathetic attempts to manipulate conversations, your refusal to engage in substance, your inability to acknowledge your errors, your attempts to belittle everyone and your motivation which is all about tussling with the heathen.

Your animal defensive biting hogwash is part of the self-aggrandizing delusion. The reason why you're posting it is the bigotry element.


Jayjay4547 wrote:Whereas all the teeth in a leopard’s mouth have to do with killing and then eating its prey,...


Not entirely true, but where it is true, it contradicts your claims about hominids. Hilariously lost in your own arguments. You're trying to argue against my point which is that dental morphology is primarily about the consumption of food and this being a pressing evolutionary driver, yet this is the very conclusion you arrive at when it comes to leopards. Funny.

Of course, I then go onto making the point that when we see sexual dimorphism in a species, it's predominantly linked to reproductive strategies, i.e. males fighting males for access to mates, and this is just as true of craniodental size dimorphism. Amusingly and beautifully ironically, this is also true of leopards (as it is of all felids), which exhibit sufficient dimorphism that it is possible to sex them from morphometric analysis of just the teeth.

It's like you think you can just wish the world to be the way you want it to be without ever bothering to even look into any of the evidence that should be at the basis of your claims.

What's the difference with our ancestors? Well, first of all there's the fact that we are a highly social species - I erected this point in the past even with chimpanzees, but you ignored it because it's not convenient for you - and as such, any reproductive strategies that relied on male contests for mates would produce a selection pressure to maximize those traits. Were we and our ancestors physically competing for access to females, our teeth and general sexual dimorphism would be much greater. So this is what we can reliably draw from the minimal size differences between male and female hominids: that competition for mates isn't simply physical.

If you were genuinely interested in discovering the truth here, you would look through all the candidate species you've mentioned and see how well this pans out. Where we see high level dimorphism, do we see reproductive strategies that consist of male aggression? Where we see low levels of dimorphism, do we see the converse? There are some interesting outliers on this scale, but by and large, it's actually well established and evidenced across the entire field of biology. Of course, your refusal to engage it just means you're ignorant of the preponderance of evidence for it, and in true Creationist fashion, rather than doing all that hard 'learning stuff', it's just so much easier to assert whatever you feel like and ignore everything that doesn't conform. As an extremely narcissistic version of a Creationist, you go one step further and whenever you're served evidence on a plate showing your contentions are wrong, you pretend that it's all due to some heebie-jeebie inducing evil ideology set against you and your silly beliefs.


Jayjay4547 wrote: the teeth in a male baboon, that like Australopthecs, eats tubers nuts and cereal grains, are evidence of two quite different uses.


Evidence of two quite different uses of what? Of teeth. That's the same use, JJ: consumption of food. It's the food sources which are different, not the usage.


Jayjay4547 wrote: The ones at the front give caution to other species and the ones at the back, look pathetically like our own molars.


The ones at the front give no caution whatsoever to a species that weighs 5 times as much and which specifically hunts them. That's a fantasy scenario you've become trapped in. When faced with a leopard, a chimpanzee all by itself doesn't square up and bare its fangs... because if it does, it just dies all the quicker.

Rather, when a male chimpanzee squares off against another male chimpanzee, they make threat displays at each other - hackles raise, branches are shaken, hoots are bellowed, and fangs are grinned. Why do they do this, JJ? Because it's actually superior for both individuals to be able to resolve this contest without drawing blood; the victor may well be so damaged from the conflict that it cannot enjoy the fruits of its victory, and may lose those fruits to a much weaker male that happens along.

You appear to actually be stuck in the 1800's when it comes to understanding of species' behavior. You really don't seem to have a grasp of anything relevant at all.


Jayjay4547 wrote:And my greater point is that,...


None of your points are greater than any other: they're all the proud production of the contents of your navel.


Jayjay4547 wrote:... in the open-ended world of Natural selection the strange habit of using hand weapons for predator avoidance opened the logical path to a symbiotic relationship between our ancestors and wieldy objects, and to human speech, that requires a large brain, incompatible with using the same head in a biting predator avoidance.


You could save yourself some words and just type "I simply do not understand what evolution entails".


Jayjay4547 wrote:
Spearthrower wrote: Now what do you call someone who continually lies? A martyr, because they make correctly identifying the pattern a symbol of how hard done by they are.

Of course, in the real world, if you play stupid fucking games like this, you have no credibility and no one trusts anything you have to say anymore.


If I continued to talk to someone who called me a liar, that would certainly be to become martyr. Please stop that.


No, it would make you a masochist. As such, you've been here for years and years before that on RDF, then if this makes you a masochist, then you must be an obsessive one.

Don't tell me I can't call your lies 'lies'. If you don't like the label, stop doing it.
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: 25218
Age: 43
Male

Country: Thailand
Print view this post

Re: How atheist ideology messed up the human origin story

#3378  Postby Alan B » Jun 09, 2019 11:34 am

Jayjay4547 wrote:Because the creation is ruled by huge logic, even the most untrained eye can see that a fish is suited to swim in the sea.
So are whales. But then, they were once land animals...

I've tried to follow this 'skull' argument but what I don't get is, WTF has this Gawd ideology (and it is an 'ideology' and all that that implies) got to do with teef?
:scratch:
I have NO BELIEF in the existence of a God or gods. I do not have to offer evidence nor do I have to determine absence of evidence because I do not ASSERT that a God does or does not or gods do or do not exist.
User avatar
Alan B
 
Posts: 9620
Age: 83
Male

Country: UK (Birmingham)
United Kingdom (uk)
Print view this post

Re: How atheist ideology messed up the human origin story

#3379  Postby Spearthrower » Jun 09, 2019 11:37 am

Jayjay4547 wrote:So be aware that if you say I am lying again, or use any like weasel words e.g. mendacious, I won’t be able to respond to your later posts.

...

If I continued to talk to someone who called me a liar, that would certainly be to become martyr. Please stop that.



A slight problem with consistency has arisen here JJ, but I am sure you'll be able to quickly resolve it with half a pound of vacuous spiel and some frantically waved hands

You see, you've indicated in the past that you see a lack of reply as giving ground, as if the act of not responding to something gives the impression of having the last word.


Jayjay4547 wrote:... the atheists were determined to keep up the no-talkies. And I was content to let the impression stand, that a creationist had had the last word. Once before, when the shoe was on the other foot and I had just walked away, an opposite impression had been left.


And well we know you can't let anyone else have the last word, and well we know that impressions are all you're playing for.

So I expect I could call your posts 'lies' each and every day, and you'd still feel the obsessive compunction to respond.

But it does give a convenient way to give the pretense of wanting to engage even if you lack the competence to actually respond and therefore can't without gibbering. You know, like you did when I showed you the anatomical characteristics that allowed me to identify an Australopithecine afarensis as a female, something you'd previously declared the biggest load of crap you'd read on this forum. It's no wonder you've dropped that topic now as you've effectively been shown not just plain wrong, but astoundingly conceited in your wrongness. But you're still typing words, so you're winning, right? :)
Last edited by Spearthrower on Jun 09, 2019 11:44 am, edited 1 time in total.
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: 25218
Age: 43
Male

Country: Thailand
Print view this post

Re: How atheist ideology messed up the human origin story

#3380  Postby Spearthrower » Jun 09, 2019 11:41 am

Alan B wrote:
I've tried to follow this 'skull' argument but what I don't get is, WTF has this Gawd ideology (and it is an 'ideology' and all that that implies) got to do with teef?
:scratch:



It's JJ's argumentum ab babushka

JJ erects proposition A.
Proposition A is shown wrong via evidence or logic.
JJ erects proposition B.
Proposition B is shown wrong.
JJ erects proposition C.
Proposition C is shown wrong.
... ad infinitum...
JJ erects proposition Z which is a mish-mash of already shown wrong propositions K, M, and S.
JJ then declares that this supports proposition A, therefore he was right all along.
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: 25218
Age: 43
Male

Country: Thailand
Print view this post

PreviousNext

Return to Creationism

Who is online

Users viewing this topic: No registered users and 4 guests