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

#3421  Postby Cito di Pense » Jun 12, 2019 3:27 pm

Spearthrower wrote:The male which intimidates others best, or successfully fights off other males has unrestricted access to females...


Then he gets to sing a few bars of "Fangs For The Mammaries"...
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: 28575
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

#3422  Postby Spearthrower » Jun 12, 2019 3:53 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: 25345
Age: 43
Male

Country: Thailand
Print view this post

Re: How atheist ideology messed up the human origin story

#3423  Postby Svartalf » Jun 12, 2019 4:04 pm

I just looked at pics of grey langurs, they don't have visible fangs.
PC stands for Patronizing Cocksucker Randy Ping

Embrace the Dark Side, it needs a hug
User avatar
Svartalf
 
Posts: 1407
Age: 50
Male

Country: France
Canada (ca)
Print view this post

Re: How atheist ideology messed up the human origin story

#3424  Postby Spearthrower » Jun 12, 2019 4:54 pm

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: 25345
Age: 43
Male

Country: Thailand
Print view this post

Re: How atheist ideology messed up the human origin story

#3425  Postby Svartalf » Jun 12, 2019 7:04 pm

Impressive indeed
PC stands for Patronizing Cocksucker Randy Ping

Embrace the Dark Side, it needs a hug
User avatar
Svartalf
 
Posts: 1407
Age: 50
Male

Country: France
Canada (ca)
Print view this post

Re: How atheist ideology messed up the human origin story

#3426  Postby Spearthrower » Jun 12, 2019 7:14 pm

You may have thought that tigers were endangered because of habitat loss and having their willies harvested for Chinese medicine, but as JJ will tell you - it's really due to being savagely mauled by these 15kg defensive biters.
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: 25345
Age: 43
Male

Country: Thailand
Print view this post

Re: How atheist ideology messed up the human origin story

#3427  Postby Cito di Pense » Jun 12, 2019 8:17 pm

Jayjay4547 wrote: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.


It's not an argument about anything. It's your commentary on this symbiotic relationship with objects you keep yammering into an empty lecture hall. There's nobody here who is mightily impressed by wibble-poetry about symbiotic relationships with objects. It's true, the objects are being selected, in a way... in a very figurative way, if we are talking about natural selection in the sense of biology.

I mean, I don't exactly see what the objects are getting out of this symbiotic relationship. They get the short end of the deal in some cases, where some completely pathetic little tyke smashes his toys and tosses them right out of the pram. There's something distinctive about human beings, for ya.

Jayjay4547 wrote: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.


This use of the word "kind" or "kinds" in a context like this one is a dead giveaway on creationists who don't bother to learn anything substantive about evolution because they don't think they need to. They have all the answers already. Answers in Genesis. Old earth or new earth, any pathetic little tyke can read the bible as fact or as poetry.

Jayjay4547 wrote: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.


Faustian pact, eh? Predator avoidance? You've long since been shown to know fuck-all about teeth, about predator avoidance, or about atheism. What have you got besides weird post-psychobabble language about "Faustian pacts" and "symbiotic relationships with objects"? Is that standard engineering terminology? Have you given up on evolution in favor of incoherent blathering, again? Incoherent blather is great for those tykes who find themselves caught out in a lie.
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: 28575
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

#3428  Postby Jayjay4547 » Jun 13, 2019 4:45 am

laklak wrote: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.


It may be fun to talk about a baboon biting a lion for its sneer value and there is long history on this thread of ratskeps doing that, going back to Calli’s tiger with paws the size of dinner plates. That sneering approach really cripples the ability of ratskeps to present a sensible picture. Let’s get practical: any prey species is bound to have a range of predators from some that can only take them under favourable circumstances , to predators against which they have no answer. Plus, the context is dynamic both for predator and prey. I mean, a starving old leopard might attack a person. And on the other hand baboons might cross a stream (after looking carefully and long) although they know crocodiles live in it. But generally the prey species can optimise its access to resources by making itself invulnerable to as formidable a predator as possible. And Australopithecus showed by its range that it could access resources in a variety of habitats. That was why Dart called it the SOUTHERN ape; because Taung was a thousand miles south of the nearest forest Ape habitat. The island of Flores was even further away and was reached by animals with similar brains and body plan. And Australopithecus males lacked the long pointy canines by which other primates stretch out the envelope of predators they can deter.
User avatar
Jayjay4547
THREAD STARTER
 
Name: Jonathan
Posts: 1128
Male

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

Re: How atheist ideology messed up the human origin story

#3429  Postby Spearthrower » Jun 13, 2019 5:14 am

Jayjay4547 wrote:
It may be fun to talk about a baboon biting a lion for its sneer value...


:)

JJs martyr card is being played for all it's worth.


Jayjay4547 wrote:... and there is long history on this thread of ratskeps doing that,


Very nearly as long as JJ's incessant bullshitting. Fancy that, it's almost as if they're related.

I mean, it's not like refusing to admit errors, refusing to acknowledge evidence to the contrary, and repeating the same bullshit incessantly could possibly warrant jeering, is it? That's just an outrageous reaction on everyone else's part.


Jayjay4547 wrote:... going back to Calli’s tiger with paws the size of dinner plates.


I very much doubt it was Cali's tiger, it was just a tiger.


Jayjay4547 wrote: That sneering approach really cripples the ability of ratskeps to present a sensible picture.


Whereas JJ's refusal to admit errors, refusal to acknowledge evidence countering his claims, and incessant repetition of bullshit doesn't cripple JJ's sensible presentation in the slightest.


Jayjay4547 wrote: Let’s get practical: any prey species is bound to have a range of predators from some that can only take them under favourable circumstances , to predators against which they have no answer.


Ahhh we're being sensible now are we? :)


Jayjay4547 wrote: Plus, the context is dynamic both for predator and prey. I mean, a starving old leopard might attack a person.


A young, fit and healthy leopard might attack a person too.




Jayjay4547 wrote: And on the other hand baboons might cross a stream (after looking carefully and long) although they know crocodiles live in it. But generally the prey species can optimise its access to resources by making itself invulnerable to as formidable a predator as possible.


Invulnerable as possible?

So now absolutes are relative... isn't this rather contrary to another thread JJ was involved with? :)


Jayjay4547 wrote: And Australopithecus showed by its range that it could access resources in a variety of habitats.


For the edification of others who might be mislead by JJ's incessant wibble, Australopithecus is a genus comprised of 6 species; further, JJ is using the term 'australopithecus' as one would use the term 'australopithecine' indicating a subtribe of the Homini tribe comprised of a dozen species which existed over a period of at least 3 million years.

I openly and fairly gave JJ this information on several occasions with the recommendation that he try to apply the accurate vocabulary so that his presentation wasn't so confused, but he refuses to amend his error.


Jayjay4547 wrote: That was why Dart called it the SOUTHERN ape; because Taung was a thousand miles south of the nearest forest Ape habitat.


Fancy that, apes adapted to living in forests live in forests. Apes not adapted to living in forests don't. I wonder what more wet water insights are in store.


Jayjay4547 wrote: The island of Flores was even further away and was reached by animals with similar brains and body plan.


Similar insofar as they're both hominids, sure. But that would leave a rather large swathe of distinction untracked. Among the glaring factors is that the flores apes were from the genus Homo, that they lived millions of years apart from australopithecines, left vastly more sophisticated material culture, and had different scaling in essentially all their anatomical features.

Regardless, I smell a new babushka incoming.


Jayjay4547 wrote: And Australopithecus males lacked the long pointy canines...


See? There's just no other word you can use when someone insists that contrary to evidence presented, their assertions supersede objective facts.

Once may be considered a mistake, twice perhaps ignorance, thrice? bull-headed arrogance? Dozens of times... it's just a lie.


Jayjay4547 wrote:... by which other primates stretch out the envelope of predators they can deter.


See? There's just no other word you can use when someone insists that contrary to evidence presented, their assertions supersede objective facts.

Once may be considered a mistake, twice perhaps ignorance, thrice? bull-headed arrogance? Dozens of times... it's just a lie.


JJ bullshits, then when caught and shown evidence countering his claims, rather than changing his contentions to match the data, he simply whines about how people call his posts deceitful, then just goes straight back to making those same mendacious assertions again.
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: 25345
Age: 43
Male

Country: Thailand
Print view this post

Re: How atheist ideology messed up the human origin story

#3430  Postby Spearthrower » Jun 13, 2019 5:23 am

:whistle:


Spearthrower wrote: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: 25345
Age: 43
Male

Country: Thailand
Print view this post

Re: How atheist ideology messed up the human origin story

#3431  Postby Spearthrower » Jun 13, 2019 5:32 am

As so often happens with JJ threads, the point being discussed (in this case, the terrible jeering JJ is suffering from the nasty atheists) has disappeared back into the mists of time.

http://www.rationalskepticism.org/creat ... l#p2700028

So there it is again in all its glory.

What provoked the jeering?

Well, 4 pages of JJ pretending to know what he was talking about with respect to australopithecines, calling my sexing of fossils the worst load of crap he'd ever read on the forum, and then finally when I put him out of his misery and explained in robust, technical detail why I'd immediately called his bluff on a previous point... rather than acknowledge his error, rather than admit that he didn't know what he was talking about, rather than making concessions given the hard empirical evidence contradicting his pages of wrangling.... instead he opted to declare that the very thing destroying his claims was in fact evidence that he was right all along! :lol:

THAT's why there was jeering. And boy was it justified.
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: 25345
Age: 43
Male

Country: Thailand
Print view this post

Re: How atheist ideology messed up the human origin story

#3432  Postby Spearthrower » Jun 13, 2019 5:34 am

Incidentally, there's still so much beautiful irony I haven't even unpacked yet. I really imagined JJ was going to double down, but instead he waved his hand, pretended that the conversation never happened, contrived an excuse to ignore my posts just so he could go back to repeating all the same falsehoods all over again.
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: 25345
Age: 43
Male

Country: Thailand
Print view this post

Re: How atheist ideology messed up the human origin story

#3433  Postby Spearthrower » Jun 13, 2019 5:40 am

Image

Caption: I am INVULNERABLE!
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: 25345
Age: 43
Male

Country: Thailand
Print view this post

Re: How atheist ideology messed up the human origin story

#3434  Postby Spearthrower » Jun 13, 2019 6:00 am

Let’s get practical: any prey species is bound to have a range of predators from some that can only take them under favourable circumstances , to predators against which they have no answer.


So let's return to gorillas then, as this was a neat little babushka for a while.

What range of predators do gorillas have where sharp canines might hope to present favourable circumstances to ward off being eaten compared to predators against which they have no answer?

So what is the range of possible predators gorillas face? Well, it ranges from leopards to.... well, leopards. So that's a pretty small envelope of predators to deter, so one might assume that explicit adaptations to warding off just one single predator might be highly efficacious. But leopards don't appear to have got the memo.

Instead, as has been pointed out several times, leopards frequently take juvenile, sick and isolated gorilla. Bearing in mind that leopards are stealth predators that hunt at night, it's not a surprise that gorillas nest in trees overnight. And what do gorillas do when they spot a predator? Signal and organize, present a unified front making it far more difficult for any would-be stealth predator to achieve its desired end.

And what of the male silverback? Well, it's a 1.8 metre tall heavily muscled ape weighing upwards of 250kg, compared to the male leopard coming in on average 140cm long (averaged between species) and weighing at the very most 90kg. Leopards are plucky little buggers and will definitely take on prey bigger than them... but not *that* much bigger. Fuck the teeth, the leopard's not going anywhere near something 3 or 4 times heavier than it.

So what will challenge a male silverback gorilla?

I expect everyone has the answer already by now. I expect my 6 year old son could have alighted on this apparently impossible concept unaided.
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: 25345
Age: 43
Male

Country: Thailand
Print view this post

Re: How atheist ideology messed up the human origin story

#3435  Postby Thomas Eshuis » Jun 13, 2019 10:04 am

Jayjay4547 wrote:
laklak wrote: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.


It may be fun to talk about a baboon biting a lion for its sneer value and there is long history on this thread of ratskeps doing that, going back to Calli’s tiger with paws the size of dinner plates. That sneering approach really cripples the ability of ratskeps to present a sensible picture. Let’s get practical: any prey species is bound to have a range of predators from some that can only take them under favourable circumstances , to predators against which they have no answer. Plus, the context is dynamic both for predator and prey. I mean, a starving old leopard might attack a person. And on the other hand baboons might cross a stream (after looking carefully and long) although they know crocodiles live in it. But generally the prey species can optimise its access to resources by making itself invulnerable to as formidable a predator as possible. And Australopithecus showed by its range that it could access resources in a variety of habitats. That was why Dart called it the SOUTHERN ape; because Taung was a thousand miles south of the nearest forest Ape habitat. The island of Flores was even further away and was reached by animals with similar brains and body plan. And Australopithecus males lacked the long pointy canines by which other primates stretch out the envelope of predators they can deter.

So much whining about tone, such a failure to defend your claims or refute rebuttals. :roll:
"Respect for personal beliefs = "I am going to tell you all what I think of YOU, but don't dare retort and tell what you think of ME because...it's my personal belief". Hmm. A bully's charter and no mistake."
User avatar
Thomas Eshuis
 
Name: Thomas Eshuis
Posts: 30157
Age: 30
Male

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

Ads by Google


Re: How atheist ideology messed up the human origin story

#3436  Postby Alan B » Jun 13, 2019 10:06 am

Why are we bothering with this 'Fake News' thread?

Creationism is Fake News.
Atheist Ideology is Fake News expounded by the Creationist Fake News nutters.

(Although the science-based discussions on primates is quite interesting).
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: 9624
Age: 83
Male

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

Re: How atheist ideology messed up the human origin story

#3437  Postby Spearthrower » Jun 13, 2019 10:48 am

Thomas Eshuis wrote:
So much whining about tone, such a failure to defend your claims or refute rebuttals. :roll:



Contrary to what JJ claimed earlier, he's actually shown that he has more than a passing familiarity with rhetoric and debate tactics.

He got hammered, absolutely murdered, on the logos - logic, facts, evidence reason - and had to retreat from it sharpish or show how utterly out of his depth he was.

His first line of retreat is always to the ethos - the atheist ideology is blinkering y'all, although this is a poor strategy given his audience does not share his vitriol towards atheists, although it doesn't stop him from trying and it usually nets at least the semblance of a diversion... but I made sure to directly link this as a means of him evading evidence, so it's a bit tenuous ground for him at the moment.

So now all he's got left is the pathos, the poor widdle me card, look how badly I am being treated, the sneering, the jeering, oh my! The suggestion he's trying to convey is that there must be some value to his contentions or else people wouldn't engage like this with him, they'd only be interested in 'rational conversation'.

Of course, the pathos is lowest common denominator bollocks, and certainly can't hope to work when you've likened people to crazed dogs rending each other, nor when they've got years and years of experience of seeing him continuously play silly buggers in the realm of reasoned discourse.

Basically, he's hung out to dry and there's no clear way back at this point, so he'll try anything.
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: 25345
Age: 43
Male

Country: Thailand
Print view this post

Re: How atheist ideology messed up the human origin story

#3438  Postby Spearthrower » Jun 13, 2019 10:55 am

Alan B wrote:
Atheist Ideology is Fake News expounded by the Creationist Fake News nutters.


Ready for the appeal to pathos?

Poor widdle me incoming.
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: 25345
Age: 43
Male

Country: Thailand
Print view this post

Re: How atheist ideology messed up the human origin story

#3439  Postby Jayjay4547 » Jun 14, 2019 5:04 am

Spearthrower wrote:
Let’s get practical: any prey species is bound to have a range of predators from some that can only take them under favourable circumstances , to predators against which they have no answer.


So let's return to gorillas then, as this was a neat little babushka for a while.

What range of predators do gorillas have where sharp canines might hope to present favourable circumstances to ward off being eaten compared to predators against which they have no answer?

So what is the range of possible predators gorillas face? Well, it ranges from leopards to.... well, leopards. So that's a pretty small envelope of predators to deter, so one might assume that explicit adaptations to warding off just one single predator might be highly efficacious. But leopards don't appear to have got the memo.

Instead, as has been pointed out several times, leopards frequently take juvenile, sick and isolated gorilla. Bearing in mind that leopards are stealth predators that hunt at night, it's not a surprise that gorillas nest in trees overnight. And what do gorillas do when they spot a predator? Signal and organize, present a unified front making it far more difficult for any would-be stealth predator to achieve its desired end.

And what of the male silverback? Well, it's a 1.8 metre tall heavily muscled ape weighing upwards of 250kg, compared to the male leopard coming in on average 140cm long (averaged between species) and weighing at the very most 90kg. Leopards are plucky little buggers and will definitely take on prey bigger than them... but not *that* much bigger. Fuck the teeth, the leopard's not going anywhere near something 3 or 4 times heavier than it.

So what will challenge a male silverback gorilla?

I expect everyone has the answer already by now. I expect my 6 year old son could have alighted on this apparently impossible concept unaided.


I assume that Spearthrower expects an answer “no predator will challenge a male silverback gorilla”, and that he considers this a counterpoint to the quote from me at the start of his post. Can I start by strengthening his point. Don’t forget also the male gorilla’s canines; as typical among primates with the startling exception of Australopithecus species and all later humans, gorilla males have long canines which they use in threat displays. And their skulls are well buttressed against the stresses and damage likely when biting a predator that is itself a professional biter and has slashing claws.

Then can I put in a couple of caveats. Firstly, lion might sometime enter a gorilla habitat and kill them. I was trying to find a report I had read about that, but the internet is hugely cluttered up. There are plenty of videos of silverbacks giving lions a pretty hard time. In one, a gorilla has a lion by the tail in a river and the poor lion is trying to get away. And the gorilla is wearing trousers. Oh well. Better wear asbestos gloves when looking up data in that area of animal fights.

Second caveat, the greatest challenge to a male silverback is another primate species, that is modern humans. Today the silverback has no answer to the AK47 but historically, humans have hunted gorilla. I remember as a child seeing a black and white documentary of tribesmen hunting them with spears, ending with a picture of a totally ruined ghastly silverback. There was lots of screaming going on, with the family high in trees trying to dodge the vigorously thrown spears. I was just horrified but today a western audience would be more inclined to wish a medal for that silverback and jail for his tormentors. A pic of a severed gorilla head sold as bush meat is just bad publicity for tribal Africa. But stepping back a bit, it is likely that hominins have predated on gorilla for a very long time, the more so because gorilla might stand their ground and so face the defensive kinetic weapon fighting skills of our ancestors. Humans and human ancestors might well have been a main restrictor of the range of other primates. The fact that we perceive a gorilla threat as “hideous visage” (to quote Dart) is exactly what the gorilla male is adapted to make us see. We are meant to be impressed.

I can’t get around to disagreeing with Spearthrower because his mistake is just to not look at the wider context the gorilla male is part of. Firstly, the actor in predation, the one with initiative, is the predator and the function of the gorilla male is to change the calculation that predator makes while lurking. That calculation is, whether he can get some bush meat and an opportunity to eat it, without having to encounter the silverback. What will happen if the predator does encounter the silverback? That is endlessly tested in real encounters; it would not work for gorilla if it turned out their canines were just banana falsies.
Second, our attention is focused on the silverback, but that’s just what we are meant to see; what is really going on has to do with the relatively puny females who manufacture babies. The bossy alpha male is just there to put the scare into the predators. At some cost to the rest; they have to eat more “fall back” food, they get bullied, lorded over. It’s a Faustian pact.
User avatar
Jayjay4547
THREAD STARTER
 
Name: Jonathan
Posts: 1128
Male

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

Re: How atheist ideology messed up the human origin story

#3440  Postby Jayjay4547 » Jun 14, 2019 6:00 am

Cito di Pense wrote:

I don't exactly see what the objects are getting out of this symbiotic relationship [between hominins and objects]. They get the short end of the deal in some cases, where some completely pathetic little tyke smashes his toys and tosses them right out of the pram. There's something distinctive about human beings, for ya.

The objects get to breed. Look in any rubbish dump.

Cito di Pense wrote:
Jayjay4547 wrote: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.


This use of the word "kind" or "kinds" in a context like this one is a dead giveaway on creationists who don't bother to learn anything substantive about evolution because they don't think they need to. They have all the answers already. Answers in Genesis. Old earth or new earth, any pathetic little tyke can read the bible as fact or as poetry.

As the fat boy said, I does it to make your flesh creep. But I could say “gestalt”. It took 20 years for science to acknowledge the position of Australopithecus in our ancestry and another 70 to air brush out the gestalt that Dart had seen, sitting in his office in a new university he hadn’t wanted to go to, in a strange country, holding the little Taung skull in his hand. Truly that was an epiphany.
Cito di Pense wrote:
Jayjay4547 wrote: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.


Faustian pact, eh? Predator avoidance? You've long since been shown to know fuck-all about teeth, about predator avoidance, or about atheism..


I just know the most basic things about primate teeth; that generally their males have long sharp canines, their females don’t and their molars aren’t carnassal like dogs have.

And I know the most basic things about predator avoidance; that in primate troops it often involves males threatening to bite the outsider. And though they will do almost anything to avoid actually biting, God help whom they actually do bite.

And I do know the most basic feature of atheists on this site, that will do everything possible to make it look as if humans created themselves, without being creatively squeezed by their environment. And to present an authoritarian position where dissent is deemed basically illegitimate.
User avatar
Jayjay4547
THREAD STARTER
 
Name: Jonathan
Posts: 1128
Male

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

PreviousNext

Return to Creationism

Who is online

Users viewing this topic: monkeyboy and 3 guests

cron