Spin-off from "Dialog on 'Creationists read this' "
Moderators: Calilasseia, DarthHelmet86, Onyx8
newolder wrote:
Quote attributions fixed but Spearthrower might want to fix them in the proper place - (and I'll delete this after...)
Spearthrower wrote:
My recent inability to manage the quote function suggests I may well be becoming susceptible to Creationism!
Spearthrower wrote:Jayjay4547 wrote:Contrary evidence? All Spearthrower (or any other poster) needed to present was a pic of an Australopithecus male skull with long pointy canines. He didn’t present that. Instead he actually agreed that a Smithsonian note that Australopithecus like all later humans, had small canines.
And another lie! Fantastic!
As anyone can see, I haven't just posted a single picture of an australopithecine with sharp, pointy canines, I have posted several, and I did so within hours of JJ's initial claims that they did not possess them.
Jayjay4547 wrote:Actually, anyone can’t see that. Show that you posted several pictures of australopithecus skull with long, pointy canines, by posting those several pictures again.
Jayjay4547 wrote: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.
Jayjay4547 wrote:Spearthrower wrote:Jayjay4547 wrote:Contrary evidence? All Spearthrower (or any other poster) needed to present was a pic of an Australopithecus male skull with long pointy canines. He didn’t present that. Instead he actually agreed that a Smithsonian note that Australopithecus like all later humans, had small canines.
And another lie! Fantastic!
As anyone can see, I haven't just posted a single picture of an australopithecine with sharp, pointy canines, I have posted several, and I did so within hours of JJ's initial claims that they did not possess them.
Actually, anyone can’t see that. Show that you posted several pictures of australopithecus skull with long, pointy canines, by posting those several pictures again.
Spearthrower wrote:Jayjay4547 wrote:Actually, anyone can’t see that. Show that you posted several pictures of australopithecus skull with long, pointy canines, by posting those several pictures again.
YES, SIR, SIR!
Oh wait, did you mean to ask me politely to go to the trouble of finding pictures in this thread that I already posted?
And the observant will, of course, notice that the requirement you've set is not what I said I'd done, and those educated in the topic matter will also notice that the requirement is impossible to achieve - that being one of the troubles JJ himself is having.
Jayjay4547 wrote:
All I can observe is that YOU changed my “long, pointy” to the redundant “sharp, pointy” and my “Australopithecus” to “australopithecine”. Why can’t you just come right out and say what I changed.
Jayjay4547 wrote:After evading the challenge I put to you,...
Jayjay4547 wrote:... you went on to change the subject by posting pics I had put up.
Jayjay4547 wrote:That’s one of several options you could have taken:
Jayjay4547 wrote:(b) You could have actually re-posted these “several pics” of australopithecines with sharp [long] pointy canines. That would have simply ended my career on the ratskep forum and you would have got a deal of approval from your peers. There was every incentive for you to do that, if those pics existed.
Jayjay4547 wrote:(c) You could have withdrawn your accusation that I had lied. I don’t see that happening but like (b) above, it is on the face of it a theoretical possibility.
Jayjay4547 wrote:(d) You could have re-posted the pics that you actually had posted, from which I made this collation:
Jayjay4547 wrote:Then you would have had to make out that several of these pics were indeed of an Australopithecus male skull with long pointy canines.
Jayjay4547 wrote:In the first place, that would have been difficult because the only skull there with long pointy canines, doesn’t seem to even be a fossil.
Jayjay4547 wrote:What is really bothering me here, is my growing suspicion that you are playing me and I have been ludicrously falling for it.
Jayjay4547 wrote: I just can’t square your behaviour over those pics, with that of someone who as you say, has spent his adult life studying human evolution and teaching it to undergraduates.
Jayjay4547 wrote: In my experience, professional teachers are all over their material and eager to explain it; to take and own the role of mentor.
Jayjay4547 wrote: But here you put up a series of pics of clearly different provenance, without explaining any of them more than just saying “Ding Ding”.
Jayjay4547 wrote: Then you claim they have told a story that they clearly don’t.
Jayjay4547 wrote: And then you decline to re-post them for discussion,...
Jayjay4547 wrote:making out that to do so would be to “obey" (YES, SIR, SIR!) a layman.
Show that you posted several pictures of australopithecus skull with long, pointy canines, by posting those several pictures again.
Definition: Imperatives are verbs used to give orders, commands,warning or instructions, and (if you use "please") to make a request. It is one of the three moods of an English verb (indicative, imperative and subjunctive).
Orders
Adults do not usually give each other orders, unless they are in a position of authority. However, adults can give orders to children and to animals.
Jayjay4547 wrote: It just doesn’t compute.
Spearthrower wrote:Here's a little clue for you, JJ.Jayjay4547 wrote: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.
Does that help you attain an epiphany?
Spearthrower wrote:Jayjay4547 wrote:The Wiki entry on Homo floresiensis doesn’t support your claim a about different scaling in essentially all the anatomical features
In 2015, the results of Bayesian analysis were published, which used more than 300 morphological characteristics of fossil hominins; the analysis was unable to distinguish between the different early hominin trees, but the greatest similarity of H. floresiensis was with Australopithecus sediba, Homo habilis and Dmanisi Man, raising the possibility that the ancestors of Homo floresiensis left Africa before the appearance of Homo erectus, possibly even becoming the first hominins to do so and evolved further in Asia.[21] (Wiki Homo floriensis)
Great. So can you now explain how that contradicts what I wrote?
Spearthrower wrote:Jayjay4547 wrote:That’s one of several options you could have taken:
Oooh! You're going to give ME options about what action I might elect to do?
You really are being spectacularly arrogant today, aren't you JJ? Are you on the attack so that you don't have to defend the nonsense you posted last?
Spearthrower wrote:Jayjay4547 wrote:(b) You could have actually re-posted these “several pics” of australopithecines with sharp [long] pointy canines. That would have simply ended my career on the ratskep forum and you would have got a deal of approval from your peers. There was every incentive for you to do that, if those pics existed.
Which obviously contains a whole heap of inane assumptions.
Firstly, the notion that you would leave the website on account of anything factual - I already talked about this a page or two back - given your track record for simply evading reality and concocting fairy tales, for outright reality-denial... are we supposed to believe that a mere picture is going to send you scampering off with your tail between your legs?
Spearthrower wrote: Secondly, you assume I want you to leave the forum. That's genuinely ridiculous and something I've certainly never expressed, but undoubtedly generates a whole lot of the victimhood and martyrdom narrative threads that certain types of Christian thrive on. Who says I want you to leave the forum, JJ? In reality, all you'll ever see me asking of you is that you stop bullshitting. For me, there's space enough for everyone here, so long as they can abide by simple universal etiquette.
Spearthrower wrote: Thirdly, I neither expect nor aim for anyone's approval - not in this life, chap!My peers, in terms of rational skepticism, includes you - we're all equal members here, after all. In terms of this topic, who is supposed to be my peer here? There used to be some very knowledgeable palaeoanthropological folks here like Gib and Steviepinhead, and their presence would have made this discussion much more interesting for me (they'd have spotted the same errors you made, for example, and would also probably have noted some of the amusement I intentionally generated which you missed completely), and they'd have been able to actually have a technical conversation with me about anatomy which you can't.
Spearthrower wrote: Fourthly, when I've already made a post, it is not really my obligation to scurry off and find it on your command. Whether you acknowledge reality or not, there it remains.
Spearthrower wrote:Jayjay4547 wrote:(c) You could have withdrawn your accusation that I had lied. I don’t see that happening but like (b) above, it is on the face of it a theoretical possibility.
Well, I could also just as easily have compiled a list of your lies, because it's not like I've forgotten them JJ. This is just one example where you claim I haven't posted any pics of australopithecine crania when anyone reading this thread knows I have.
Spearthrower wrote:Jayjay4547 wrote:Then you would have had to make out that several of these pics were indeed of an Australopithecus male skull with long pointy canines.
What's fascinating here is how you appear to have willfully forgotten what happened the last time I explained to you in technical terms the morphological characteristics of an australopithecine skull. Remember how you abjectly failed to engage in discussion about said features, instead simply waving it away while declaring that it represented evidence about how you're completely right?
You may find such games amusing, but given your willingness to tell me what I am supposed to be incentivized by, you haven't explained to me what's in it for me to go into technical detail that you seem both unwilling and unable to engage with.
Spearthrower wrote:Jayjay4547 wrote:In the first place, that would have been difficult because the only skull there with long pointy canines, doesn’t seem to even be a fossil.
Which is pretty funny coming from the guy who relies wholly on casts apparently comprised of substantial artistic creativity, and which you don't seem to realize aren't really representing the thing you think they are.![]()
Sendraks wrote:The argument is pointless but, the material posted in this thread by those with actual subject knowledge is highly educational. I just skip JayJay's nonsense and read the responses because there I actually learn stuff.
Users viewing this topic: No registered users and 3 guests