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

#3401  Postby Jayjay4547 » Jun 12, 2019 3:28 am

Cito di Pense wrote:
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.


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.

I don’t apologise for focusing on the teeth of our ancestors and in particular the Australopithecine canines, so strikingly different from those of the apes. In the case that you cited above, it was my noticing the “minutia” of the different axis directions of chimp canines and incisors, that caused me to instantly drop a false line of argument. What I noticed should have been as obvious to you and other ratskeps and if one of you had pointed it out that would have shut me up on the line I was pursuing.
Cito di Pense wrote: 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.


Oh Wow Cito, you are really trying to drag me onto a different scent here. I’m not claiming something about “design”. I’m arguing from form-fits-function that the short blunt canines of our deep ancestors showed, about their relations with other species, that they were adapted away from biting in predator avoidance. I have been arguing FOR a natural selection perspective CONTRA sexual selection.

Cito di Pense wrote: 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.

I might have said I have no LIFE SCIENCES training. My SCIENTIFIC training is I guess fairly typical of posters, with a BSc (Eng) and an MSc. As to me being drowned by the expertise of others, I can be impressed by explicable demonstration, not by unlabelled and un-discussed pics of teeth or a pic of a line of jeering youths. Whether I am right or not about the ways that atheist ideology has messed up the human origin story, the ratskep contributions on this topic demonstrate an alarming collapse of commitment to simple rational discussion.

And if you think a land surveyor is not allowed to point to the length of australopithecus canines and talk about that, then that is just part of the collapse.

Cito di Pense wrote:
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.

I don’t know what you mean by “the puddle story”. Can you please clarify. Let’s have a little more minutia.
Cito di Pense wrote:
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.


Again, you have lost me. What “sub-standard operating system” are you talking about?
User avatar
Jayjay4547
THREAD STARTER
 
Name: Jonathan
Posts: 981
Male

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

Ads by Google


Re: How atheist ideology messed up the human origin story

#3402  Postby Cito di Pense » Jun 12, 2019 4:03 am

Jayjay4547 wrote:I’m not claiming something about “design”. I’m arguing from form-fits-function that the short blunt canines of our deep ancestors showed, about their relations with other species, that they were adapted away from biting in predator avoidance. I have been arguing FOR a natural selection perspective CONTRA sexual selection.


You can probably name a few species extant today that you could claim have "evolved away from" predator avoidance, but that didn't take up clubbing predators silly. Maybe your problem is that there are too many examples of evolution that shout sexual selection at you, hence you know sexual selection is important in general. You are claiming something about design, namely that humans are a special case in evolution (your 'talking apes" schtick) and you must either be taking me for a fool or somebody who didn't read your exchanges in the last few pages of this thread.

You only seem to care about the human story as far as defensive biting is concerned (or any other features, for that matter). You don't care about evolutionary principles in general, which you seem quite prepared to accept in every context except for human evolution. This is because you're trying to reach a pre-determined conclusion, a teleology. You're arguing that one lineage of primates lost its sharp, enlarged canines because it didn't need them any more. You're practically a Lamarckian in reverse, implying that features disappear when they're not used any more. But no, JJ. You only care about teeth. That's the story you made up, and you are sticking to it. The way you cling to that story, which is really just a "hoomins is speshul" story is comically obsessive and only seems directed at your conviction that you've come up with a Big Idea. The previous few pages of this thread have made that abundantly clear.

I read the same exchanges you had with Spearthrower, so I know you are claiming something from design. It's certainly not the case that Australopithecus was an extraordinarily successful branch on the human family tree, or they'd have left a better fossil record. The position of Australopithecus in the human evolution lineage mainly tells me they didn't reach a dead end. They had other stuff going for them besides teeth, but you're obsessed with teeth, and you put far too much effort into that to add anything else to your story. That's because it's an ad hoc story, something you fondle obsessively as your Big Idea, your approach to implying that a fairly large and accomplished body of science has a glaring error in it, that could only be ignored by idiots or ideologues, and nothing else will fit your precious, precious little story.
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: Ivar Poäng
Posts: 28113
Age: 22
Male

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

Re: How atheist ideology messed up the human origin story

#3403  Postby Cito di Pense » Jun 12, 2019 4:23 am

Jayjay4547 wrote:
I might have said I have no LIFE SCIENCES training. My SCIENTIFIC training is I guess fairly typical of posters, with a BSc (Eng) and an MSc.


You are typical of 'posters,' JJ, but 'posters' are not your competition. Your competition are people who are trained in the relevant disciplines. At least one of them has shown up in this thread and abundantly shown that your Big Idea is idiotic. "Posting" is the only context in which you can deceive yourself into thinking you're more educated than you really are. You are not showing any capacity to use any kind of scientific training, and that's because your scientific training doesn't apply to the topic you're trying to tackle. Engineering is all about design, JJ, and that is where you're coming from. Just for grins, JJ, what is M. Sc. in surveying good for? Learning to use laser ranging without blinding yourself? I honestly don't know, and am curious.

You're here, anonymously, specifically to avoid requirements for credentials, and yet you're trying to flash your credentials, never having tried to demonstrate that anything lies behind them. Your credentials are entirely irrelevant unless you can show you learned something in the process of applying them. Spearthrower has not flashed his credentials; rather, he has shown that he has learned something in applying them.

Jayjay4547 wrote:nd if you think a land surveyor is not allowed to point to the length of australopithecus canines and talk about that, then that is just part of the collapse.


Nobody has said you're not allowed, JJ. The reason you haven't been banned as a troll is because the emotional difficulties you are having in dealing with facts are manifest over the years and years of your mindless drum-beating and science-baiting. It's because you are a living lesson in illustrating the corner that creationists and religionists paint themselves into when trying to deal with facts.

Look up the puddle analogy. You seem to think your spiel is more sophisticated than that, but it isn't.

Jayjay4547 wrote:
Again, you have lost me. What “sub-standard operating system” are you talking about?


Aww, c'mon, JJ. You're a highly-trained engineer; surely you can recognize what's implied in a joke about operating systems, especially when it's directed at a tedious creationist. Give us a better threat-display than pretending that someone else's joke is beneath you by playing the dickless pantomime that it's over your head.

Jayjay4547 wrote:As to me being drowned by the expertise of others, I can be impressed by explicable demonstration, not by unlabelled and un-discussed pics of teeth or a pic of a line of jeering youths.


Your conduct in general makes it abundantly clear that you do possess the capacity to recognize expertise when it smacks your feeble narrative silly. That's why you decline to engage with Spearthrower at this stage of the game. It was, if you recall, a discussion of dentition that has made that abundantly clear, and led to pointing out several cases in which you have lied.

Jayjay4547 wrote:that would have shut me up on the line I was pursuing.


The point is not to shut you up, JJ. This is not a scientific society and you're not presenting the results of your research to an audience of peers; you're just serving as the creationist chew toy du jour. If you had a modicum of self-assessment, you'd shut up on your own recognizance. We've found that pointing out your lies, when backed by expertise even you can recognize, is an effective way to shut you up in exchanges with particular posters. By pointing this out to you, by showing that I myself recognize when and where you have lied, I hope to shut off the spigot of intellectual sewage that constitutes your replies to me.
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: Ivar Poäng
Posts: 28113
Age: 22
Male

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

Re: How atheist ideology messed up the human origin story

#3404  Postby Spearthrower » Jun 12, 2019 10:39 am

laklak wrote:Neither will the baboon with the stick schtick stick.


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

Learn Stuff. Stuff good. https://www.coursera.org/
User avatar
Spearthrower
 
Posts: 23070
Age: 43
Male

Country: Thailand
Print view this post

Re: How atheist ideology messed up the human origin story

#3405  Postby Spearthrower » Jun 12, 2019 10:54 am

Jayjay4547 wrote:
I don’t apologise for focusing on the teeth of our ancestors...


I don't think anyone's asking you to apologize, just to get a clue.


Jayjay4547 wrote:... and in particular the Australopithecine canines, so strikingly different from those of the apes.


Ummmm.... they are apes?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homininae

Homininae, also called "African hominids" or "African apes", is a subfamily of Hominidae.[1][2] It includes two tribes, with their extant as well as extinct species: 1) the Hominini tribe (with the genus Homo including modern humans and numerous extinct species; the subtribe Australopithecina, comprising at least two extinct genera; and the subtribe Panina, represented only by the genus Pan, which includes common chimpanzees and bonobos)―and 2) the Gorillini tribe (gorillas).


See? You purport to have special insight that strips away generations of institutional ideological bias, but at the same time factually exhibit not even a passing comprehension with the topic matter you wish your pontifications to be taken seriously in.

There's a fundamental mismatch between your ability and how well you think you're doing. This entire thread is basically that in long form.


Jayjay4547 wrote:... In the case that you cited above, it was my noticing the “minutia” of the different axis directions of chimp canines and incisors, that caused me to instantly drop a false line of argument. What I noticed should have been as obvious to you and other ratskeps and if one of you had pointed it out that would have shut me up on the line I was pursuing.


It was, you didn't. You never shut up on anyone else's account JJ - it doesn't matter how clearly, robustly, and comprehensively someone else responds to your claims, the mere fact that you made the claim always supersedes every other aspect.


Jayjay4547 wrote:
Oh Wow Cito, you are really trying to drag me onto a different scent here. I’m not claiming something about “design”.


Factually, you are. We may well be dozens of babushkas down from it, but it's the ultimate argument you want to make.


Jayjay4547 wrote: I’m arguing from form-fits-function...


No, you're not. Form fits function when it comes to teeth primarily means mastication. You keep ignoring that and talking about the devious agenda of atheistoevolutionalistamalouts imposing self-creation wibble-flibble on what is obviously designedness from the ineffable creative force.


Jayjay4547 wrote:... that the short blunt canines of our deep ancestors showed, about their relations with other species, that they were adapted away from biting in predator avoidance.


Nonsense repeated just becomes even more nonsensical. Other primates don't use their sharper canine teeth for 'biting predators' - that's really fucking stupid, and yet you refuse ever to acknowledge that it's really fucking stupid. See the point above where you lament that no one told you something was stupid and how you would have changed your tune if only someone had so told you.


Jayjay4547 wrote: I have been arguing FOR a natural selection perspective CONTRA sexual selection.


That's gibberish. Sexual selection is part of natural selection as you've been informed dozens of times. This is one of the reasons why it's clear that you simply do not understand what evolution entails.


Jayjay4547 wrote:
I might have said I have no LIFE SCIENCES training. My SCIENTIFIC training is I guess fairly typical of posters, with a BSc (Eng) and an MSc.


Not really scientific training as applied sciences doesn't require any scientific capability at all.

It is interesting to note that Creationists who have degrees tend to be trained either as engineers, dentists, or computer scientists. There's a bloody good reason why training in directed design might lead you to see things as being designed by direction. If you had training in Biology though, you'd know that simply does not withstand scrutiny.


Jayjay4547 wrote:As to me being drowned by the expertise of others, I can be impressed by explicable demonstration, not by unlabelled and un-discussed pics of teeth or a pic of a line of jeering youths.


Says the guy who got detailed, explained demonstration about afarensis cranial morphology and responded by pretending that this provided evidence that he was right.

It's that response which provoked the jeering, JJ. It's always amusing to watch you pretend to not be a partner in this terrible tango.


Jayjay4547 wrote:Whether I am right or not about the ways that atheist ideology has messed up the human origin story,...


You're not just not right, the entire concept is a non-starter.


Jayjay4547 wrote:...the ratskep contributions on this topic demonstrate an alarming collapse of commitment to simple rational discussion.


It's that tango again, JJ. You have never demonstrated even a passing fancy at rational discussion, so it's hardly everyone else's onus to so engage you.

Be the change you want to see in the world, chap.


Jayjay4547 wrote:And if you think a land surveyor is not allowed to point to the length of australopithecus canines and talk about that, then that is just part of the collapse.


Oh they can, but then when they're shown to be wrong, they need to back the fuck up and start questioning why it is they were so damn wrong. You, of course, don't. You take being shown wrong as evidence of you being right. It's right there written for posterity.


Jayjay4547 wrote:
I don’t know what you mean by “the puddle story”. Can you please clarify. Let’s have a little more minutia.


Douglas Adams wrote:This is rather as if you imagine a puddle waking up one morning and thinking, 'This is an interesting world I find myself in — an interesting hole I find myself in — fits me rather neatly, doesn't it? In fact it fits me staggeringly well, must have been made to have me in it!'


Basically, it's a warning against self-conceited teleological thinking.
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: 23070
Age: 43
Male

Country: Thailand
Print view this post

Re: How atheist ideology messed up the human origin story

#3406  Postby Jayjay4547 » Jun 12, 2019 1:08 pm

Cito di Pense wrote:
Jayjay4547 wrote:I’m not claiming something about “design”. I’m arguing from form-fits-function that the short blunt canines of our deep ancestors showed, about their relations with other species, that they were adapted away from biting in predator avoidance. I have been arguing FOR a natural selection perspective CONTRA sexual selection.


You can probably name a few species extant today that you could claim have "evolved away from" predator avoidance, but that didn't take up clubbing predators silly

Minor correction: I said, "adapted away from biting in predator avoidance”, not “away from predator avoidance”. Yes the use of biting for predator avoidance is itself unusual, though common amongst primates. Just try to grab a vervet monkey you caught in a trap. And the use of kinetic hand weapons might have been unique to our ancestors. But the evidence is right there in their canines and the hominin body plan. Many animals have other nearly unique adaptations, consider the elephant’s trunk. But our ancestor’s habit was numinous. For one thing it freed females from being held back from developing language, by a biting habit of their males.
Cito di Pense wrote:Maybe your problem is that there are too many examples of evolution that shout sexual selection at you, hence you know sexual selection is important in general.

Nope, that’s not my problem Cito.

Cito di Pense wrote: You are claiming something about design, namely that humans are a special case in evolution (your 'talking apes" schtick) and you must either be taking me for a fool or somebody who didn't read your exchanges in the last few pages of this thread.

There is something rather distinct about human beings: speech and a symbiotic relationship with objects. These are causing the sixth extinction, maybe the most significant situation since the Cambrian. Distinctiveness in our ancestors led to more and wider distinctiveness in us. But that’s not an argument about design.
Cito di Pense wrote: You only seem to care about the human story as far as defensive biting is concerned (or any other features, for that matter). You don't care about evolutionary principles in general, which you seem quite prepared to accept in every context except for human evolution.

I think “evolutionary principles” did apply in human evolution, just that atheist ideology biased its presentation so strongly as to make the story tellers to not understand what KIND of animals human ancestors were.

Cito di Pense wrote:This is because you're trying to reach a pre-determined conclusion, a teleology. You're arguing that one lineage of primates lost its sharp, enlarged canines because it didn't need them any more. You're practically a Lamarckian in reverse, implying that features disappear when they're not used any more. But no, JJ. You only care about teeth. That's the story you made up, and you are sticking to it. The way you cling to that story, which is really just a "hoomins is speshul" story is comically obsessive and only seems directed at your conviction that you've come up with a Big Idea. The previous few pages of this thread have made that abundantly clear.


Well teeth are pretty important guides to how an animal interfaces with its environment. And female primates give a good guide to the best tooth forms, for every purpose except predator avoidance- which they leave to the males in a rather Faustian pact. I have never yet come across a sentence with the word “teleology”, that seemed to be going anywhere.

Cito di Pense wrote:
Jayjay4547 wrote:
I might have said I have no LIFE SCIENCES training. My SCIENTIFIC training is I guess fairly typical of posters, with a BSc (Eng) and an MSc.


You are typical of 'posters,' JJ, but 'posters' are not your competition. Your competition are people who are trained in the relevant disciplines. At least one of them has shown up in this thread and abundantly shown that your Big Idea is idiotic. "Posting" is the only context in which you can deceive yourself into thinking you're more educated than you really are. You are not showing any capacity to use any kind of scientific training, and that's because your scientific training doesn't apply to the topic you're trying to tackle. Engineering is all about design, JJ, and that is where you're coming from. Just for grins, JJ, what is M. Sc. in surveying good for? Learning to use laser ranging without blinding yourself? I honestly don't know, and am curious.


It was about generalised matrix inverses, specifically the form introduced to surveyors by the Swedish geodesist Arné Bjerhammar as the Stochastic Ring Inverse but known usually as the Moore-Penrose or “pseudo” inverse. It turns out to have useful properties in rigorous survey adjustments for example of so called “as built” surveys.

Cito di Pense wrote: You're here, anonymously, specifically to avoid requirements for credentials, and yet you're trying to flash your credentials, never having tried to demonstrate that anything lies behind them. Your credentials are entirely irrelevant unless you can show you learned something in the process of applying them. Spearthrower has not flashed his credentials; rather, he has shown that he has learned something in applying them.


I just put you right about your claim that I had admitted to having no scientific training.

Cito di Pense wrote:
Jayjay4547 wrote:
Again, you have lost me. What “sub-standard operating system” are you talking about?

Aww, c'mon, JJ. Give us a better threat-display than that. Playing dumb is not a very effective threat display, and we are not competing for females, here.

What threat? Come on Cito, what “sub standard operating system” were you talking about? Just name it, what is your problem?

Cito di Pense wrote:
Jayjay4547 wrote:As to me being drowned by the expertise of others, I can be impressed by explicable demonstration, not by unlabelled and un-discussed pics of teeth or a pic of a line of jeering youths.


Your conduct in general makes it abundantly clear that you do possess the capacity to recognize expertise when it smacks your feeble narrative silly. That's why you decline to engage with Spearthrower at this stage of the game. It was, if you recall, a discussion of dentition that has made that abundantly clear, and led to pointing out several cases in which you have lied.


Jayjay4547 wrote:that would have shut me up on the line I was pursuing.


The point is not to shut you up, JJ. This is not a scientific society and you're not presenting the results of your research to an audience of peers; you're just serving as the creationist chew toy du jour. If you had a modicum of self-assessment, you'd shut up on your own recognizance. We've found that pointing out your lies, when backed by expertise even you can recognize, is an effective way to shut you up in exchanges with particular posters. By pointing this out to you, by showing that I myself recognize when and where you have lied, I hope to shut off the spigot of intellectual sewage that constitutes your replies to me.


Once a poster reaches the level of personal animus of calling another a liar, it really does end all prospects of rational discussion, and Spearthrower persisted in that with open eyes. And so are you now, please stop doing that.
User avatar
Jayjay4547
THREAD STARTER
 
Name: Jonathan
Posts: 981
Male

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

Re: How atheist ideology messed up the human origin story

#3407  Postby Spearthrower » Jun 12, 2019 1:12 pm

I have been arguing FOR a natural selection perspective CONTRA sexual selection.


I have been arguing FOR a gravitational perspective CONTRA a mass exerting an attracting force perspective.

I have been arguing FOR an atomic theory perspective CONTRA a matter being composed of discrete units perspective.

I have been arguing FOR a plate tectonics perspective CONTRA a seafloor spreading perspective.
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: 23070
Age: 43
Male

Country: Thailand
Print view this post

Ads by Google


Re: How atheist ideology messed up the human origin story

#3408  Postby Spearthrower » Jun 12, 2019 1:13 pm

Yes the use of biting for predator avoidance is itself unusual, though common amongst primates.


Bullshit.

Given the evidence presented in this thread, this can only be described as a lie.

It's not ignorance on your part: you've been educated.

It's not a simple mistake: you keep repeating it.

It's not excusable in any other way - it's just a lie.

Hanlon's Razor only works for a while, beyond which it becomes naive.


So why do you keep lying JJ? You realize that whatever you build on the foundation of a lie is suspect, right?

Yes, I'm appealing to your actual area of expertise.
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: 23070
Age: 43
Male

Country: Thailand
Print view this post

Re: How atheist ideology messed up the human origin story

#3409  Postby Spearthrower » Jun 12, 2019 1:17 pm

Once a poster reaches the level of personal animus of calling another a liar, it really does end all prospects of rational discussion, and Spearthrower persisted in that with open eyes. And so are you now, please stop doing that.


Once a poster keeps repeating lies, then it really does end all prospects of rational discussion and you JJ have persisted in that with open eyes.
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: 23070
Age: 43
Male

Country: Thailand
Print view this post

Re: How atheist ideology messed up the human origin story

#3410  Postby Spearthrower » Jun 12, 2019 1:23 pm

Again, this raises an intriguing notion.

I doubt anyone who's been involved with this thread would hesitate to say that JJ has lied in this thread.

So what happens if everyone commences their next interaction with JJ by declaiming his lies?

Does he then stop responding to everyone? Does that mean he stops posting in this thread? Or does he just use this forum as a personal blog ignoring all responses?

It might be worth a trial run.
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: 23070
Age: 43
Male

Country: Thailand
Print view this post

Re: How atheist ideology messed up the human origin story

#3411  Postby Svartalf » Jun 12, 2019 1:24 pm

I could not say JJ has lied, his posting style is such that I can't read his stuff.
PC stands for Patronizing Cocksucker Randy Ping

Embrace the Dark Side, it needs a hug
User avatar
Svartalf
 
Posts: 848
Age: 49
Male

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

Re: How atheist ideology messed up the human origin story

#3412  Postby Spearthrower » Jun 12, 2019 1:25 pm

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gaslighting

Gaslighting is a form of psychological manipulation in which a person seeks to sow seeds of doubt in a targeted individual or in members of a targeted group, making them question their own memory, perception, and sanity. Using persistent denial, misdirection, contradiction, and lying, gaslighting involves attempts to destabilize the victim and delegitimize the victim's belief.


If it's so terrible that people consider your posts to contain lies, then it would surely suggest that you change your posting behavior accordingly, not blame everyone else for pointing out mendacity.
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: 23070
Age: 43
Male

Country: Thailand
Print view this post

Re: How atheist ideology messed up the human origin story

#3413  Postby Spearthrower » Jun 12, 2019 1:27 pm

Svartalf wrote:I could not say JJ has lied, his posting style is such that I can't read his stuff.



Well, a simple lie oft repeated is that other primates (meaning not from the human line) bite predators to evade predation, as in, that's a coherent strategy they use.

This is just a lie. To a first order of accurate explanation, no primate bites a predator to evade predation because it's fucking ridiculous to think that their tiny little teeth are going to ward off a creature that weighs 5 or 10 times as much as them and possesses teeth that can actually cause serious harm.
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: 23070
Age: 43
Male

Country: Thailand
Print view this post

Re: How atheist ideology messed up the human origin story

#3414  Postby Svartalf » Jun 12, 2019 1:38 pm

When I see a cheetah or panther or lioness with Baboon bites, I'll believe that argument.
PC stands for Patronizing Cocksucker Randy Ping

Embrace the Dark Side, it needs a hug
User avatar
Svartalf
 
Posts: 848
Age: 49
Male

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

Re: How atheist ideology messed up the human origin story

#3415  Postby Spearthrower » Jun 12, 2019 1:48 pm

If you check out the Gray Langur monkey, you will notice that the males have extremely long and pronounced canine teeth.

According to JJ, this is due to their strategy of defensive biting.

So what predates on langurs? Well, tigers do.

Now, we have a Grey Langur weighing approximately 13kg.

And a Bengal Tiger weighing as much as 325kg.

How do you imagine that proceeds?

The Bengal Tiger charges at the monkey which weighs 25 times less than it, the monkey turns on the tiger and bares its impressive fangs, and the tiger thinks 'fuck this for a game of hunty-monkey' and buggers off.

The tiger's canine teeth are over 10 cm long... the entire head and body of the langur is about 60cm long... but JJ wants us to believe that their comparatively tiny (to the tiger) canines are going to be a coherent defensive strategy against being eaten by a tiger.

Half the langur's body can comfortably fit in the tiger's mouth... JJ's fiction is constructed in his arm-chair and has no relationship with the real world whatsoever.

Now... what species *might* be intimidated by, impressed with or attracted to the langur's canine teeth display? Have you guessed it yet? Yes, other langur monkeys. :)
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: 23070
Age: 43
Male

Country: Thailand
Print view this post

Ads by Google


Re: How atheist ideology messed up the human origin story

#3416  Postby Spearthrower » Jun 12, 2019 2:02 pm

Svartalf wrote:When I see a cheetah or panther or lioness with Baboon bites, I'll believe that argument.



Well, to be more accurate, you'd need to see a living baboon with cheetah, panther, or lioness flesh stuck in its teeth.
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: 23070
Age: 43
Male

Country: Thailand
Print view this post

Re: How atheist ideology messed up the human origin story

#3417  Postby Svartalf » Jun 12, 2019 2:11 pm

point to you.
PC stands for Patronizing Cocksucker Randy Ping

Embrace the Dark Side, it needs a hug
User avatar
Svartalf
 
Posts: 848
Age: 49
Male

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

Re: How atheist ideology messed up the human origin story

#3418  Postby Spearthrower » Jun 12, 2019 2:16 pm

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

Learn Stuff. Stuff good. https://www.coursera.org/
User avatar
Spearthrower
 
Posts: 23070
Age: 43
Male

Country: Thailand
Print view this post

Re: How atheist ideology messed up the human origin story

#3419  Postby laklak » Jun 12, 2019 2:37 pm

I have no doubt that a baboon will bite the shit out of a lion or anything else that attacks it, they don't have those big doggie muzzles and teeth for nothing. How often it works as a defense is unknown. I know I'm not fucking with one.
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: 19257
Age: 65
Male

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

Re: How atheist ideology messed up the human origin story

#3420  Postby Spearthrower » Jun 12, 2019 3:08 pm

laklak wrote:I have no doubt that a baboon will bite the shit out of a lion or anything else that attacks it, *snipped a bit for after* How often it works as a defense is unknown. I know I'm not fucking with one.


Undoubtedly true, but for this to work under the banner of evolution, it has to be selected for. How does it get selected for when the baboon that's biting the shit out of the lion then dies? How is that retained by selection? That's JJ's scenario, and one of the many reasons it's clear he doesn't understand how evolution works.

Push comes to shove, if you were being attacked by a lion, you'd bite it too. The problem, of course, is that if your mouth or the baboon's mouth is close enough to be biting on lion flesh, you're already fucked.

The lion, obviously, isn't going to give a primate's privates either which way as you and the baboon are still food, just with a little added wriggly spice. How often biting a lion back works is basically never. There may be the occasional newbie lioness that gets a bit confused that its food is snarling at her and looks like it wants a scrap, but to a first order of accuracy, it would never work - the lion is adapted to kill baboons, but baboons are not adapted to kill lions.

The largest male baboon might weigh 40kg, whereas a lioness on average would weigh 160kg. When something 3 or 4 times the size of you wants to play, it plays by its rules.


laklak wrote:they don't have those big doggie muzzles and teeth for nothing.


Indeed not. They have them to intimidate and fight other male baboons for reproductive access. The male which intimidates others best, or successfully fights off other males has unrestricted access to females... and there we can see something natural selection can actually 'see' and retain.
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: 23070
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