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

#3381  Postby Spearthrower » Jun 10, 2019 4:51 am

Jayjay4547 wrote: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.



It's like you're attempting to furnish everyone with examples of how you simply do not understand what evolution entails.

You've tried to claim that this is 'smudgism' (a neologism you've coined as yet another babushka), or that the competition between members of the same species is not what Darwin was talking about with respect to a 'struggle for existence'. But you couldn't be more wrong if you tried to be wrong rather than just being wrong through ignorance.

In reality, where there are 2 different competing species coexisting in the same locality, the degree to which they compete is directly related to the overlap of their resource usage. The closer the requirements in resources of the 2 species, the more directly they compete for those resources.

And what could possibly be closer in terms of resource requirements than 2 members of the same species? :)

So really the only smudge here is your comprehension of evolution by natural selection, and it's a big inky black mark where you doodled on the back of an envelope instead of doing your homework.
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: 24363
Age: 43
Male

Country: Thailand
Print view this post

Ads by Google


Re: How atheist ideology messed up the human origin story

#3382  Postby Jayjay4547 » Jun 10, 2019 5:17 am

Spearthrower wrote:
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 [than in your image of 3 young people jeering] .


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.

Thus starts your latest responses, which play out to 19 pages in Word and in which you made some embarrassing arguments. In response to a group image of a haka war dance, demonstrating that human threats generally don’t involve showing the upper teeth, you said that the word “haka” refers to many different ceremonial displays, and then you put up pics of individual Mauri people grimacing.

You also embarrassingly responded to images comparing the damage done by chimps by biting humans with what a human can do by biting, by linking to other biting attacks by humans, in one of which a person bites off “half a cheek”. When chimps are able to bite off hands and even feet, let alone entire faces.

Your antagonism is carrying you away here and it’s unedifying. Your anxiety to disagree with me about absolutely everything harms your position. With your background you should be able to condescendingly agree about some things, with potentially devastating effect. But the dialectic is driving you into extremity. And one of the things I would like to discuss is the effect of the creationist-evolutionist schism on the presentation of evolution.

And by the way, I’m not a self-aggrandizing, delusional bigot or a narcissist as you accuse of, I’m just pretty stubborn. I have some insight into why I see things differently than youse, these have little to do with illusions about my smartness or arguing ability. They have a lot to do with the creative alchemical effect that external circumstances and relations have had on me.
User avatar
Jayjay4547
THREAD STARTER
 
Name: Jonathan
Posts: 1060
Male

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

Re: How atheist ideology messed up the human origin story

#3383  Postby Spearthrower » Jun 10, 2019 5:58 am

Jayjay4547 wrote:
Thus starts your latest responses,...


Profound.

I've noted that when a substance-less post is incoming, you always start by reporting back to me what I had written, as if I wasn't aware of having done so.


Jayjay4547 wrote:... which play out to 19 pages in Word and in which you made some embarrassing arguments.


Even assuming it was the case that I had made embarrassing arguments, I'd still have thousands and millions more pages of a Word document of embarrassing responses to catch up with you.


Jayjay4547 wrote: In response to a group image of a haka war dance, demonstrating that human threats generally don’t involve showing the upper teeth, you said that the word “haka” refers to many different ceremonial displays, and then you put up pics of individual Mauri people grimacing.


Individual Mauri people 'grimacing' while doing Haka, showing their teeth, in contradiction to your assertion to the contrary. So who exactly is embarrassed here? Not me because what I reported is true and accurate. And not you, because once again you're lying to my face, so you clearly have no shame at all.

And yes, that is what Haka means, and it's not a 'war dance' as I just told you. But do repeat the same errors after being shown wrong - that's what you do JJ.


Jayjay4547 wrote:You also embarrassingly responded to images comparing the damage done by chimps by biting humans with what a human can do by biting, by linking to other biting attacks by humans, in one of which a person bites off “half a cheek”. When chimps are able to bite off hands and even feet, let alone entire faces.


Humans can bite off hands and feet too, JJ. Or are you going to claim they cannot? I'll be happy to explain in detail if you ever want to manage to stake a claim rather than just half-doing so.

And not 'half a cheek' - also noses and ears being bitten off by humans. And let us recall that this is precisely what you were trying to claim chimpanzees could do that was different to humans.

So once again, the embarrassment should be in your court, but you apparently have no shame. You'll now try and twist the conversation even though the written record is still right there showing that you've changed your argument to try and score points.

If you ever admitted your errors JJ, things would go a lot more smoothly for you here. But you're not here for honest discourse; you're here to engage in self-aggrandizing, delusional bigotry.


Jayjay4547 wrote:Your antagonism is carrying you away here and it’s unedifying.


You are unedifiable because you presume you are always correct whatever utterance you make.

But I am not here to edify you JJ.


Jayjay4547 wrote: Your anxiety...


Your projection is amusing.


Jayjay4547 wrote:... to disagree with me about absolutely everything harms your position.


Harms my position with whom?

Exactly who are you speaking for?

Have you conducted a survey of readers to see whether or not this is the case?

Or are you really just referring to yourself?

Did I have a positive position with you to harm?

Just recently you were likening us to vicious dogs rending each other. I can only assume that the only way from there is up.



Jayjay4547 wrote:With your background you should be able to condescendingly agree about some things, with potentially devastating effect.


Condescendingly agree? :grin:

I would agree with you JJ if you wrote anything agreeable or truthful, but I'm afraid the ball is in your court there. If you continue to write things which are disagreeable or untruthful, then I am afraid I won't be able to offer you the validation you crave.


Jayjay4547 wrote:But the dialectic...


The truth of statements is grounded in how well they hove to evidence, JJ. Yours do not hove to evidence. My pointing out evidence that contradicts your statements should produce in you the desire to make more truthful statements, but of course, it doesn't - it induces you to talk about the style of presentation, the tone of discourse, the number of words used... basically every single factor that doesn't involve JJ changing his posting behavior because JJ is never wrong.


Jayjay4547 wrote: is driving you into extremity.


Extreme veracity.



Jayjay4547 wrote:And one of the things I would like to discuss is the effect of the creationist-evolutionist schism on the presentation of evolution.


Yes, I think we are all well aware of that after years of you having tried to pretend this is a controversial topic as per the Creationist play book.

Of course, in reality Creationists don't actually have a seat at the table when it comes to identifying observationally correct statements about the world around us.



Jayjay4547 wrote:And by the way, I’m not a self-aggrandizing, delusional bigot or a narcissist as you accuse of, I’m just pretty stubborn.


Self-aggrandizing = your refusal ever to acknowledge any of your errors, and your insistence that your dumb ideas are worthy even when shown wrong by evidence.

Delusional = your ad-hoc contrivance of inane and self-serving paradigms

Bigotry = your motivation for posting here and your contempt for the people of this website you choose to spend so much time haranguing.



Jayjay4547 wrote: I have some insight into why I see things differently than youse,...


No, you see things differently than me because you don't know anywhere near enough information but are instead guided by a presuppositional religious position that is not borne out by real world evidence.

Actually, you firmly lack insight into why you see things the way you do.


Jayjay4547 wrote: these have little to do with illusions about my smartness or arguing ability. They have a lot to do with the creative alchemical effect that external circumstances and relations have had on me.


Whatever the case, the outcome remains the same, and the last 5 years of this thread, the years preceding this thread, and even your engagement on the RDF forum provides a compelling weight of evidence that if you are telling what you think is the truth here above, then you are blind to your own motivations.
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: 24363
Age: 43
Male

Country: Thailand
Print view this post

Re: How atheist ideology messed up the human origin story

#3384  Postby Spearthrower » Jun 10, 2019 6:17 am

Incidentally, JJ... do you think all this drama-generation will obfuscate the fact that the thing you declared as being the worst crap you'd read on the forum turned out to be a substantive, technical and detailed demolition of your contention far beyond your ability to reply? And that when you did in fact (ridiculously) reply, it was simply to reiterate that you were right and that the technical, detailed, substantive post about morphological features of afarensis was somehow 'evidence' of what you'd been saying all along?

That alone would have been where your credibility died - failing to acknowledge your error, pretending it supported your argument etc. - but you've done this dozens, maybe even hundreds of times in your tenure here. We humans are a social species and consequently we intently track those individuals who cheat, who deceive, and who refuse to play according to the rules. You can complain you're being unfairly treated, but this is one of those cases where it is actually a simple majority impression that counts.
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: 24363
Age: 43
Male

Country: Thailand
Print view this post

Re: How atheist ideology messed up the human origin story

#3385  Postby Jayjay4547 » Jun 10, 2019 3:05 pm

Spearthrower wrote:
Individual Mauri people 'grimacing' while doing Haka, showing their teeth, in contradiction to your assertion to the contrary. So who exactly is embarrassed here? Not me because what I reported is true and accurate. And not you, because once again you're lying to my face, so you clearly have no shame at all.


My emphasis. Like I said, if I continue to correspond with people who tell me I'm lying, that makes my position here impossible. So that's regrettably for me, the end of my correspondence with you.
User avatar
Jayjay4547
THREAD STARTER
 
Name: Jonathan
Posts: 1060
Male

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

Re: How atheist ideology messed up the human origin story

#3386  Postby Spearthrower » Jun 10, 2019 3:13 pm

Jayjay4547 wrote:
Spearthrower wrote:
Individual Mauri people 'grimacing' while doing Haka, showing their teeth, in contradiction to your assertion to the contrary. So who exactly is embarrassed here? Not me because what I reported is true and accurate. And not you, because once again you're lying to my face, so you clearly have no shame at all.


My emphasis. Like I said, if I continue to correspond with people who tell me I'm lying, that makes my position here impossible. So that's regrettably for me, the end of my correspondence with you.



Or you could just stop lying?

/shrug

Of course, it's got nothing whatsoever to do with you having been caught out, having no way of jabbering your way out of this one, and that you'd be forced to actually acknowledge that the very thing you called the worst crap you'd read on the forum was actually a wholesale rebuttal of one of your wilful flights of fantasy! :)

No, best pretend you can't respond to someone rightly calling your post a lie so that you can pretend like it all never happened! :)


But anyway, according to your own criterion, I've just won or something:

http://www.rationalskepticism.org/creat ... l#p2700268

Spearthrower wrote:
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? :)
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: 24363
Age: 43
Male

Country: Thailand
Print view this post

Re: How atheist ideology messed up the human origin story

#3387  Postby Cito di Pense » Jun 10, 2019 3:17 pm

Jayjay4547 wrote:if I continue to correspond with people who tell me I'm lying, that makes my position here impossible.


That's not what makes your position here impossible, and you know it; your threatened flounce is in plain view.
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: 28464
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

#3388  Postby Spearthrower » Jun 10, 2019 3:19 pm

http://www.rationalskepticism.org/creat ... l#p2700058

Here is a lie spelled out for you.

You assert that my position, due to blinkering ideology no less, is based on the flawed premise of solely intraspecific competition whereas I actually kicked the entire discussion off by making clear note of exactly the contrary: that dental morphology's adaptations are primarily to do with mastication of specific food sources, i.e. not intraspecific competition at all.

You made your bed, JJ... the truth is that if you're going to flounce when caught out for a lie and refuse to engage anyone who rightly identifies your lies, then the option is now made clear for everyone here tired of your bullshit.
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: 24363
Age: 43
Male

Country: Thailand
Print view this post

Re: How atheist ideology messed up the human origin story

#3389  Postby Spearthrower » Jun 10, 2019 3:23 pm

Looks like I'll be getting the last word then.

JJ's contention that atheist ideology messed up the human story is biased both through Creationist ideological predilections which refuse to acknowledge anything, regardless of evidence, that doesn't genuflect to their preferred notional deity, and JJ's personal self-aggrandizing delusional bigotry where he seeks to boost his own credentials as a novel thinker and simultaneously cast doubt on the motivations of everyone who doesn't agree with him, while also having an easy get-out-of-jail-free card to explain away how no scientific research, evidence or observational data anywhere in the history of science corroborates any of his claims.

As JJ can't respond to me anymore, then this is obviously the final conclusion of this thread.

Right?
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: 24363
Age: 43
Male

Country: Thailand
Print view this post

Re: How atheist ideology messed up the human origin story

#3390  Postby felltoearth » Jun 10, 2019 5:55 pm

:eager:
"Walla Walla Bonga!" — Witticism
User avatar
felltoearth
 
Posts: 11609
Age: 52

Canada (ca)
Print view this post

Re: How atheist ideology messed up the human origin story

#3391  Postby Cito di Pense » Jun 10, 2019 6:35 pm

Spearthrower wrote:Looks like I'll be getting the last word then.

JJ's contention that atheist ideology messed up the human story is biased both through Creationist ideological predilections which refuse to acknowledge anything, regardless of evidence, that doesn't genuflect to their preferred notional deity, and JJ's personal self-aggrandizing delusional bigotry where he seeks to boost his own credentials as a novel thinker and simultaneously cast doubt on the motivations of everyone who doesn't agree with him, while also having an easy get-out-of-jail-free card to explain away how no scientific research, evidence or observational data anywhere in the history of science corroborates any of his claims.

As JJ can't respond to me anymore, then this is obviously the final conclusion of this thread.

Right?


JJ knows his claims to being able to comment legitimately on evolutionary theory and what he thinks is wrong with it have been roundly shown to be fraudulent. It took somebody with qualifications in human paleontology to demonstrate the fraud that he's been trying for years to perpetrate. Nobody took his shit seriously, but as in the case of so many fraudulent claims, JJ put all his effort into obfuscating the fraud, rather than trying to learn any facts. We knew there was fraud at the core, and inducing somebody like that to contend with relevant facts is difficult, but it can be done, as shown here.

Blast from the past (2011)

Jayjay4547 wrote:I used Microosoft Paint to draw this critter, whose main feature is two tusk-like teeth that it rams into its foes. I dishonestly claimed, this pic came from a still from a BBC film by David Attenburgh (lie #2). the aim of this deception was to make a point about chimp teeth, where the incisors slope outwards. The point I had wanted to make was that chimps bite and when they bite hard, against a predator, they must use their arms to grab andpull while biting into their antagonist- else they risked breaking their incisors through bending stress. And this was all about how different chimps are from humans, in their way of reacting to predatory attacks on them. I worked out the ratio of compressive force to pulling in force, from images of chimp skulls.


Ah, technical language. Ain't it grand?
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: 28464
Age: 22
Male

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

Re: How atheist ideology messed up the human origin story

#3392  Postby Jayjay4547 » Jun 11, 2019 4:06 am

Cito di Pense wrote:

Blast from the past (2011)

Jayjay4547 wrote:I used Microosoft Paint to draw this critter, whose main feature is two tusk-like teeth that it rams into its foes. I dishonestly claimed, this pic came from a still from a BBC film by David Attenburgh (lie #2). the aim of this deception was to make a point about chimp teeth, where the incisors slope outwards. The point I had wanted to make was that chimps bite and when they bite hard, against a predator, they must use their arms to grab andpull while biting into their antagonist- else they risked breaking their incisors through bending stress. And this was all about how different chimps are from humans, in their way of reacting to predatory attacks on them. I worked out the ratio of compressive force to pulling in force, from images of chimp skulls.


Ah, technical language. Ain't it grand?

That was an embarrassing misstep on my part. Drawing a vector along the axis of a chimp skull’s sloping incisors I worked out orthogonal components of biting force and force towards an object being bitten. I got quite invested in that. But then I dropped it like a hot potato, not because of anything other posters said, but because I noticed that the axis of the chimp’ canines told a different story: they were aligned along the biting axis. That’s how I recall it.

Plus, I have graduated from Paint.exe to Paint.Net
User avatar
Jayjay4547
THREAD STARTER
 
Name: Jonathan
Posts: 1060
Male

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

Re: How atheist ideology messed up the human origin story

#3393  Postby Jayjay4547 » Jun 11, 2019 5:52 am

Alan B wrote:
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 can’t help you with a Gawd ideology, but what the contrast between australopithecus canines and ape canines has to do with atheist ideology can be explained from the historical path taken by the presentation of evolution.

When Darwin published The Descent of Man a decade after the blockbuster Origin of Species he devoted 2/3 of it to the novel concept of sexual selection. Whereas there had long been rumbling about natural selection in scientific society and it was Wallace’s similar ideas that had forced Darwin’s publishing hand, sexual selection was (so far as I know) Darwin’s own idea. And to a great extent, human origins have been presented in term of sexual selection, ever since. Thus on this thread, the long sharp canines of male chimps have been presented as mainly used in displays by alpha males to put the scare into the beta males. If that is the main mechanism used in explanation, then primate evolution is driven mainly by internal elements: you could draw a geographical line around a population of apes and these main causative elements will all be inside it.

By contrast, if you view primate canines in term of natural selection then they have to do with the interface of the population in its struggle for existence in relation to other organic beings. If you wander into a gorilla group you might first encounter the silverback and be effectively driven back. When the first Europeans encountered the Mauri they might have met the haka as a war dance, and been impressed. Those external relations are unbounded and hugely creative in terms of novel functionality that is seldom forgotten once acquired.

So I’m arguing that there has been a consistent trend amongst those presenting human origins, towards explaining human origins in term of internal factors, which has the effect of drawing attention away from external creativity that has the basic qualities associated with God. An agnostic might claim that society invented the concept of God to explain this unpredictable creative quality in the world.

Where the short blunt canines of Australopithecus males come in, is that, if you view them in terms of natural selection then you must immediately conclude that Australopithecus were deeply adapted into defensive kinetic weapon use. Because they faced the same predators as other primates and those canines would have been ineffective to put off predators. If the Australopithecus genus had occupied an island without predators, then one might expect their male canines to be like the females, but historically Australopithecus species and ones with similar body plans and similar teeth, spread widely out of Africa almost to the ends of the Earth.

If you look at human origins in that light it comes to look oddly MECHANICAL rather than inspirational. One aspect is that a head that doesn’t need to bite effectively, is freed from compromises that the human skull is clearly free from, and our heads support speech. There seems to be some evidence that human brains have been shrinking since around the time human speech appeared. Whether that line of argument is true or not, it sure is obvious.

And it’s curious that all the elements of that argument are vigorously opposed in this little laboratory of atheist thought.
User avatar
Jayjay4547
THREAD STARTER
 
Name: Jonathan
Posts: 1060
Male

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

Re: How atheist ideology messed up the human origin story

#3394  Postby Cito di Pense » Jun 11, 2019 5:57 am

Jayjay4547 wrote:
Cito di Pense wrote:

Blast from the past (2011)

Jayjay4547 wrote:I used Microosoft Paint to draw this critter, whose main feature is two tusk-like teeth that it rams into its foes. I dishonestly claimed, this pic came from a still from a BBC film by David Attenburgh (lie #2). the aim of this deception was to make a point about chimp teeth, where the incisors slope outwards. The point I had wanted to make was that chimps bite and when they bite hard, against a predator, they must use their arms to grab andpull while biting into their antagonist- else they risked breaking their incisors through bending stress. And this was all about how different chimps are from humans, in their way of reacting to predatory attacks on them. I worked out the ratio of compressive force to pulling in force, from images of chimp skulls.


Ah, technical language. Ain't it grand?

That was an embarrassing misstep on my part. Drawing a vector along the axis of a chimp skull’s sloping incisors I worked out orthogonal components of biting force and force towards an object being bitten. I got quite invested in that. But then I dropped it like a hot potato, not because of anything other posters said, but because I noticed that the axis of the chimp’ canines told a different story: they were aligned along the biting axis. That’s how I recall it.

Plus, I have graduated from Paint.exe to Paint.Net


Look, JJ, I was just having another little laugh at your expense. If you would just stop amending minutiae in this or that report of yours, as if you were some junior surveyor on a construction site, and get to the point of something besides the teeth. Since you are a creationist (old- or young-earth, doesn't matter to me) and what you're obviously trying to do is find signs of the hand of some god somewhere, sometime -- you have to stop cherry picking cases you think demonstrate design. There are so many cases that demonstrate crappy design (many have been repeatedly pointed out to you). You aren't the first creationist who has ever tested his ideas in public, but I've never seen someone so desperate to keep away from the obvious cases that have not been designed (cases where function can simply not be attributed to the mysterious divine aims). I mean, really, JJ: Give us an account of the design features of the human male prostate gland, wrapped as it is around the human male's urethra. You may even be old enough to know how this is a bad design. Alan B certainly is. For instance, you could make up a story about putting away childish things.

My only point is that the last few pages of this thread have shown that your interest in human paleontology is not backed up by sufficient expertise for anything you say on the topic to be taken seriously, at least not by anyone with scientific training. The latter is something you readily admit you do not possess. The upshot is just reviewing your resentment of both atheism and technical expertise yet another round. Your ability to feel shame about your ignorance (and lying, too) is all down to the holy mission you find yourself on. Anglicanism is not an excuse.

Jayjay4547 wrote:
If you look at human origins in that light it comes to look oddly MECHANICAL rather than inspirational. One aspect is that a head that doesn’t need to bite effectively, is freed from compromises that the human skull is clearly free from, and our heads support speech. There seems to be some evidence that human brains have been shrinking since around the time human speech appeared. Whether that line of argument is true or not, it sure is obvious.

And it’s curious that all the elements of that argument are vigorously opposed in this little laboratory of atheist thought.


The reason is that it's long since obvious that your entire output is an obsessively repetitive account of how taken you are by the puddle story. Everything fits into the picture, if you expend enough effort on making it fit. The puddle story obviously doesn't flatter your pretensions to scientific knowledge, insight, and critical faculties, but there's nothing there to be flattered, as you yourself readily admit.

Jayjay4547 wrote:
Plus, I have graduated from Paint.exe to Paint.Net


You have selected a sub-standard operating system on which to run your software. So, what else is new? Choose any software you like: If you run it in a clunky operating system, you're stuck with that clunky operation, and all you can do is make it work for you. You can't make it work for anyone else who's not satisfied with less than the best available. There's a lesson there about creationism, JJ.
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: 28464
Age: 22
Male

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

Re: How atheist ideology messed up the human origin story

#3395  Postby Spearthrower » Jun 11, 2019 7:11 am

Jayjay4547 wrote:
That was an embarrassing misstep on my part. Drawing a vector along the axis of a chimp skull’s sloping incisors I worked out orthogonal components of biting force and force towards an object being bitten. I got quite invested in that. But then I dropped it like a hot potato, not because of anything other posters said, but because I noticed that the axis of the chimp’ canines told a different story: they were aligned along the biting axis. That’s how I recall it.

Plus, I have graduated from Paint.exe to Paint.Net



:lol: :lol: :lol:

Teeth aligned along the biting axis.

In JJ's next experiment, he will alight on the heady discovery that water is wet.



Edit: quotes
Last edited by Spearthrower on Jun 11, 2019 9:01 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: 24363
Age: 43
Male

Country: Thailand
Print view this post

Ads by Google


Re: How atheist ideology messed up the human origin story

#3396  Postby Cito di Pense » Jun 11, 2019 7:18 am

Spearthrower wrote:
In JJ's next experiment, he will alight on the heady discovery that water is wet.


This leads to the natural conclusion that whales are wet. Let's not go too far, though; when we save the whales, let's stop short of ministering to them.
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: 28464
Age: 22
Male

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

Re: How atheist ideology messed up the human origin story

#3397  Postby Spearthrower » Jun 11, 2019 7:41 am

Jayjay4547 wrote:
I can’t help you with a Gawd ideology, but what the contrast between australopithecus canines and ape canines has to do with atheist ideology can be explained from the historical path taken by the presentation of evolution.


No, that's what you have tried to establish and have resoundingly failed to do.

Aside from the fact that it's just wrong, it's also nonsensical and somewhat disturbed. It's the product of obsessive compulsive reaction to the existence of non-believers, and the lack of interest in your god that the modern means of understanding the universe employs.


Jayjay4547 wrote:When Darwin published The Descent of Man a decade after the blockbuster Origin of Species he devoted 2/3 of it to the novel concept of sexual selection.


For historical accuracy, Darwin had already talked at length about this in On the Origin of Species.


Jayjay4547 wrote: Whereas there had long been rumbling about natural selection in scientific society and it was Wallace’s similar ideas that had forced Darwin’s publishing hand,...


This is insufficiently accurate.

There were no rumblings about 'natural selection'. There were observations which people groped at explanations for but failed to properly formulate regarding observed traits and adaptation to environments, but no one had produced an explanatory framework or produced evidence for any hypothesis.


Jayjay4547 wrote:... sexual selection was (so far as I know) Darwin’s own idea.


It is part and parcel of the very same thing: natural selection. Ergo, if there were rumblings about natural selection, then sexual selection was similarly rumbled.


Jayjay4547 wrote: And to a great extent, human origins have been presented in term of sexual selection, ever since.


Categorically false. This falsehood of yours is manufactured out of nothing, and is simply not correspondent with any degree of truthful analysis.


Jayjay4547 wrote: Thus on this thread, the long sharp canines of male chimps have been presented as mainly used in displays by alpha males to put the scare into the beta males.


No alpha or beta males involved. Nor just 'scare'. To contend with other males for a shared, desirable resource.


Jayjay4547 wrote: If that is the main mechanism used in explanation, then primate evolution is driven mainly by internal elements:...


A non-sequitur because those males also have to eat and survive. Given you've already had this slammed into your face several times, your repetition of this falsehood has to be labelled a 'lie'. If you don't like that, amend the presentation of falsehoods.


Jayjay4547 wrote:... you could draw a geographical line around a population of apes and these main causative elements will all be inside it.


A nonsensical notion that has no bearing in reality. There is no 'geographical line' other than the extend of a population's range. And of course, it simply does not follow at all that this becomes the 'main causative agent'.

There are more holes in your claims than there is substance. All the bits you need to show to have your idea taken seriously, you simply skip over with assertions.


Jayjay4547 wrote:By contrast, if you view primate canines in term of natural selection then they have to do with the interface of the population in its struggle for existence in relation to other organic beings.


That is already the case because 'existence' biologically speaking, and as Darwin noted, is primarily about reproduction. Natural selection's impact is on successive generations, not on individuals. You simply do not understand what evolution entails.


Jayjay4547 wrote: If you wander into a gorilla group you might first encounter the silverback and be effectively driven back. When the first Europeans encountered the Mauri they might have met the haka as a war dance, and been impressed.


Fuck me, you are arrogant as hell. They are not 'haka war dances' - they are haka. Haka are used for many reasons, as you've already been told.

And were the Europeans to come across a group of chanting Mauris, one might think they'd pull their rifles and commence firing, not pull back impressed.


Jayjay4547 wrote: Those external relations are unbounded and hugely creative in terms of novel functionality that is seldom forgotten once acquired.


Salad.


Jayjay4547 wrote:So I’m arguing that there has been a consistent trend amongst those presenting human origins, towards explaining human origins in term of internal factors,...


You are asserting it in the absence of evidence and despite evidence to the contrary, and the basis on which you have formulated your argument is a deep ignorance of the topic matter you are supposedly engaging.


Jayjay4547 wrote:... which has the effect of drawing attention away from external creativity that has the basic qualities associated with God.


A complete non-sequitur that has nothing even to do with your argument. Even if chimpanzees' teeth are because of the reason you've decreed, it doesn't then stand to reason that it offers so much as a jot of support for a fictional deity character. Another vast gulf in your reasoning.

But I know why this gulf appeared: it's babushkas. What you want to argue is that a Creator is necessary for observations we make in the world, unable to muster any degree of argument for that, you've made increasingly dependent arguments that have less and less bearing on that desired position.


Jayjay4547 wrote:An agnostic might claim that society invented the concept of God to explain this unpredictable creative quality in the world.


Or they might not bother at all because they might never buy into the notion of there being an 'unpredictable creative quality in the world'.


Jayjay4547 wrote:Where the short blunt canines of Australopithecus males come in,...


Is in a fantasy world that is not planet Earth because australopithecine males don't have short, blunt canines.


Jayjay4547 wrote:... is that, if you view them in terms of natural selection then you must immediately conclude that Australopithecus were deeply adapted into defensive kinetic weapon use.


No 'must' - that's your silly notion that is just a babushka you manufactured, and actually has no logical underpinning whatsoever. Certainly the leap to 'defensive kinetic weapon use' is outright batshit nonsense.


Jayjay4547 wrote: Because they faced the same predators as other primates...


As which other primates, and why don't those primates have "adaptations" for "defensive kinetic use"?


Jayjay4547 wrote:... and those canines would have been ineffective to put off predators.


As if sharp canines in other primates put off predators.

It's so damn silly, JJ - your own contentions debunk your argument. Predators routinely feed on primates with sharp canines, that's because those sharp canines are not about defending against predators which are factually adapted to hunt and kill their prey.

A 40kg primate could have canines the size of a sabretooth tiger and it's still not going to cause even a momentary speed-bump to a 100+kg predator.

You refuse to engage in reality.


Jayjay4547 wrote: If the Australopithecus genus had occupied an island without predators, then one might expect their male canines to be like the females, but historically Australopithecus species and ones with similar body plans and similar teeth, spread widely out of Africa almost to the ends of the Earth.


Which has nothing whatsoever to do with your argument. Australopithecines didn't use canines or kinetic weapons to evade predation, JJ.


Jayjay4547 wrote:If you look at human origins in that light it comes to look oddly MECHANICAL rather than inspirational.


Even if that were true, which it obviously isn't, it's not like human origins are obliged to inspire you any more than slug origins.


Jayjay4547 wrote: One aspect is that a head that doesn’t need to bite effectively, is freed from compromises that the human skull is clearly free from, and our heads support speech.


Our heads don't 'support speech' JJ - yet more nonsense. Speech isn't produced by the head, it's produced primarily by the throat, and modulated with tongue and lips.

And our 'heads' do need to bite effectively, JJ. You're completely contradicting your own supposed argument - you're now appealing to this woo-laden self-creation element, whereas factually, humans of all stripes still need to eat food, and consequently need to bite effectively.


Jayjay4547 wrote:There seems to be some evidence that human brains have been shrinking since around the time human speech appeared.


Does there? Really? Are you sure?


Jayjay4547 wrote: Whether that line of argument is true or not, it sure is obvious.


Whether it's true or not, it's obvious. :lol:


Jayjay4547 wrote:And it’s curious that all the elements of that argument are vigorously opposed in this little laboratory of atheist thought.


In conclusion, 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: 24363
Age: 43
Male

Country: Thailand
Print view this post

Re: How atheist ideology messed up the human origin story

#3398  Postby Fenrir » Jun 11, 2019 7:58 am

I stopped reading at:

JJ wrote:And to a great extent, human origins have been presented in term of sexual selection, ever since.


After a howler like that I didn't see much point.

Ideology indeed.
Religion: it only fails when you test it.-Thunderf00t.
User avatar
Fenrir
 
Posts: 3359
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

#3399  Postby Spearthrower » Jun 11, 2019 9:00 am

Fenrir wrote:I stopped reading at:

JJ wrote:And to a great extent, human origins have been presented in term of sexual selection, ever since.


After a howler like that I didn't see much point.

Ideology indeed.



That schtick simply won't stick.
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: 24363
Age: 43
Male

Country: Thailand
Print view this post

Re: How atheist ideology messed up the human origin story

#3400  Postby laklak » Jun 12, 2019 3:14 am

Neither will the baboon with the stick schtick stick.
A man who carries a cat by the tail learns something he can learn in no other way. - Mark Twain
The sky is falling! The sky is falling! - Chicken Little
I never go without my dinner. No one ever does, except vegetarians and people like that - Oscar Wilde
User avatar
laklak
RS Donator
 
Name: Florida Man
Posts: 19641
Age: 65
Male

Country: The Great Satan
Swaziland (sz)
Print view this post

PreviousNext

Return to Creationism

Who is online

Users viewing this topic: No registered users and 3 guests