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

#3501  Postby Fenrir » Jun 20, 2019 4:53 am

Jayjay4547 wrote:
theropod wrote:What I find interesting in all this is the fact that we have more complete, and better preserved, Tyrannosaurus rex skulls than some of our hominid cousins. What about this fascinates me? The millions of years separating them. Apparently our older relatives either were not very numerous, and or did not die in settings favorable to fossilization. Presevational bias may be playing a role here as well. A dead hominid would be much easier to scavenge than a multi ton theropod. My paleontologist mind sees a “problem” that needs solving.

RS

Gosh that is an interesting point. Here's a suggestion, just a possibility. In the case of general palaeontology, there is more neutral interest, so that you are likely to regard two speciments as simply "later" and "earlier" versions of one species. But in the hairily fraught world of human origins, there is a strong tendency to regard newly discovered fossils as in different species or even different genera. Palaeontologists Good. Palaeoanthropologists Bad.

OK I'm ducking out of here.


Gosh that is an interesting point. Here's a suggestion, just a possibility. In the case of pretty much everything, you demonstrably have little to no actual knowledge and are invariably left hand-waving and equivocating when people point out this easily observed fact. But in the hairily fraught world of fantasy ideologies there is a strong tendency to disregard reality, even when it slaps you repeatedly in the face. Critical thinking good. Whiny creationist gasbaging bad.
Religion: it only fails when you test it.-Thunderf00t.
User avatar
Fenrir
 
Posts: 3385
Male

Country: Australia
South Georgia and the South Sandwich Islands (gs)
Print view this post

Ads by Google


Re: How atheist ideology messed up the human origin story

#3502  Postby Fenrir » Jun 20, 2019 5:04 am

Jayjay4547 wrote:Predators on mammals crunch their bones to get at the marrow. Dinosaurs didn't have marrow in their bones so there was no point in crunching their bones.


Case in point.
Religion: it only fails when you test it.-Thunderf00t.
User avatar
Fenrir
 
Posts: 3385
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

#3503  Postby Cito di Pense » Jun 20, 2019 5:20 am

Jayjay4547 wrote:So, the comparative pics I put up were aimed at questioning the extent of that scientific sounding language. Look you, it’s not insolent for a layman to post images, nor is it to pretend to special expertise. I do it in the hope that the viewer will think to himself “Well Floris hobbit does look to have had a similar body plan to Australopithecus, maybe that 'different scaling' Spearthrower was on about, was pretentious bullshit”.


In one of your later posts you pointed out that what I had labelled as Australopithecus sediba was actually the Taung child. I apologise. Here is a revised copy of that pic, with a valid image of A.sediba and corrected labelling in red.


So 1) you're not aiming your tripe at an audience who appreciates Irather than despises, as you so clearly do) scientific expertise, and 2) while it's important for you to correct your text, it's a little too late, and doesn't offer any hope that you will ever have a fucking clue about the subject matter you've decided you're competent to address.

Jayjay4547 wrote:What was unexpected was that hominids with such small brains had existed so recently and so far from the most similar hominids.


You've already been instructed that brain size is not useful as an absolute measure of anything, but rather, is relevant in terms of ratios of brain weight to body weight. What I wouldn't give to know your cranial capacity, JJ, because it is almost surely near the average for modern humans. Microcepahlic humans with severely impaired cognition lack the capacity to engage in your verbal gyrations. If I knew that your brain weight was nearly normal, I would be even more puzzled about your apparent learning disabilities, which I take to result from emotional issues you're having about what you call the story of human origins.

Jayjay4547 wrote:The point I wanted to present using those images is if anything strengthened by that revision because according to Wikipedia, africanus is regarded as an ancestral species to sediba, so the older species looks more like the Flores hobbit than does the later (admittedly, juvenile) Australopithecus.


I guess you're just going to stick to the way things look to you. Strangely and sadly enough, that's just the way you wish things were.

Jayjay4547 wrote:No that's not good enough, it could explain why there could seem to be more complete info about dinosaurs, because paleontologists clump their categories more broadly than paleoanthropologists. But it can't explain the more complete fossils of dinoaurs. In terms of RS scavenging, Could it be that as prey species, our ancestor's relatively fragile bones were regularly crunched up and totally destroyed by predators. Like RS is saying? I remember in a nature reserve where lions had brought down a zebra on a tarred road, finding the next morning just a wet area in the tar and a single little gland. The preservation of post-cranial bones in sediba could be because when alive, the animals crawled so far into the cave that their predator could get to them. And the Taung child skull might have just been dropped into a limey lake by the eagle carrying it, maybe a bigger eagle swooped down on it, that successive stealing is common amongst raptors?


Well, JJ, you have an unseemly obsession with bones and what crunches them, so much so that you want to make this the entire story of the history of life. If you really knew anything about biology, rather than just how biology looks to you, there might be a possibility that someday you would learn something useful to you in discussing biology and the history of life.

Scavengers have been around longer than predators, because dead organic matter is less of a hassle to eat than meat on the hoof. The scarcity of intact fossils is confounded by the fact that in the relevant epochs, scavenging is not unknown. Your conclusion that predation is so important in human and proto-human history is not a foundation. It's what you've concluded from your premise, which is defective.

Jayjay4547 wrote:Palaeontologists Good. Palaeoanthropologists Bad.


Competence and solid data, good. Fabrication and fantasy, bad. Unless you're merely trying to entertain. For all I know, that's what you're doing, in the limited hope that someone willing to expose so much blinkering, bigotry, and fabrication as you are might be watching. Such people look at losing and think it looks like winning.
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: 28488
Age: 22
Male

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

Re: How atheist ideology messed up the human origin story

#3504  Postby theropod » Jun 20, 2019 5:49 am

Jayjay4547 wrote:Predators on mammals crunch their bones to get at the marrow. Dinosaurs didn't have marrow in their bones so there was no point in crunching their bones.


Where the fuck did you get this idea? It’s seriously wrong.

RS
Sleeping in the hen house doesn't make you a chicken.
User avatar
theropod
RS Donator
 
Name: Roger
Posts: 7529
Age: 65
Male

Country: USA
United States (us)
Print view this post

Re: How atheist ideology messed up the human origin story

#3505  Postby Cito di Pense » Jun 20, 2019 5:58 am

theropod wrote:
Jayjay4547 wrote:Predators on mammals crunch their bones to get at the marrow. Dinosaurs didn't have marrow in their bones so there was no point in crunching their bones.


Where the fuck did you get this idea? It’s seriously wrong.

RS


Well, there you go then. JJ's interest is not in comparing dinosaurs and mammals. JJ's obsession is with predation. Somehow, in a way that is never made quite clear, evolution in the case of humans is driven by avoiding predation. JJ's already been instructed that predators select weak and isolated individuals from groups when their prey does not adopt a solitary habit. Note that I did not say "solitary hobbit".
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: 28488
Age: 22
Male

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

Re: How atheist ideology messed up the human origin story

#3506  Postby Cito di Pense » Jun 20, 2019 6:12 am

Jayjay4547 wrote:But in the hairily fraught world of human origins...


JJ, I'm not rejecting your nonsense just because it ignores facts which conflict with its premise. I reject it in no small way because its premise is that the world made us intentionally. There's an unfounded human conviction, which cannot be expressed except in language like yours, that the world has made us intentionally. It is that conviction that has produced the kind of insufferable arrogance you express.

If you just declared that the human project is the result of happy accidents, you'd still be left scrambling to say what's happy about it that is not entailed purely by the way the world looks to you.

You're just another theist writing sermons about why, when, and how we should express reverence. Arrogance is not the route to reverence.
Last edited by Cito di Pense on Jun 20, 2019 6:18 am, edited 1 time in total.
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: 28488
Age: 22
Male

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

Re: How atheist ideology messed up the human origin story

#3507  Postby Spearthrower » Jun 20, 2019 6:18 am

theropod wrote:What I find interesting in all this is the fact that we have more complete, and better preserved, Tyrannosaurus rex skulls than some of our hominid cousins. What about this fascinates me? The millions of years separating them. Apparently our older relatives either were not very numerous, and or did not die in settings favorable to fossilization. Presevational bias may be playing a role here as well. A dead hominid would be much easier to scavenge than a multi ton theropod. My paleontologist mind sees a “problem” that needs solving.

RS



There are many forms of preservational bias, I would say. There are the obvious ones, like whether the species lived in a biome that is suitable for fossilization - something that disfavours a lot of primate fossil preservation - but there's also another bias in size differences; the larger the bone, the more likely it is to survive in-tact the period between its organism's death and the beginning of mineralization.
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: 24896
Age: 43
Male

Country: Thailand
Print view this post

Ads by Google


Re: How atheist ideology messed up the human origin story

#3508  Postby Spearthrower » Jun 20, 2019 6:18 am

Jayjay4547 wrote:
theropod wrote:What I find interesting in all this is the fact that we have more complete, and better preserved, Tyrannosaurus rex skulls than some of our hominid cousins. What about this fascinates me? The millions of years separating them. Apparently our older relatives either were not very numerous, and or did not die in settings favorable to fossilization. Presevational bias may be playing a role here as well. A dead hominid would be much easier to scavenge than a multi ton theropod. My paleontologist mind sees a “problem” that needs solving.

RS

Gosh that is an interesting point. Here's a suggestion, just a possibility. In the case of general palaeontology, there is more neutral interest, so that you are likely to regard two speciments as simply "later" and "earlier" versions of one species. But in the hairily fraught world of human origins, there is a strong tendency to regard newly discovered fossils as in different species or even different genera. Palaeontologists Good. Palaeoanthropologists Bad.

OK I'm ducking out of here.



You're crackpotting out here.
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: 24896
Age: 43
Male

Country: Thailand
Print view this post

Re: How atheist ideology messed up the human origin story

#3509  Postby Jayjay4547 » Jun 20, 2019 6:33 am

theropod wrote:
Jayjay4547 wrote:Predators on mammals crunch their bones to get at the marrow. Dinosaurs didn't have marrow in their bones so there was no point in crunching their bones.


Where the fuck did you get this idea? It’s seriously wrong.

RS


Well Hokay. I thought dinosaurs had hollow bones.
User avatar
Jayjay4547
THREAD STARTER
 
Name: Jonathan
Posts: 1092
Male

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

Re: How atheist ideology messed up the human origin story

#3510  Postby Cito di Pense » Jun 20, 2019 6:54 am

Jayjay4547 wrote:
theropod wrote:
Jayjay4547 wrote:Predators on mammals crunch their bones to get at the marrow. Dinosaurs didn't have marrow in their bones so there was no point in crunching their bones.


Where the fuck did you get this idea? It’s seriously wrong.

RS


Well Hokay. I thought dinosaurs had hollow bones.


What you mean is that you thought dinosaurs did not have bones with soft tissue? All dinosaurs? Why did you think that? Or did you just make it up on the spot because you thought it lent support to your crackpotting? If you said "some dinosaurs had air spaces in their bones", who could argue? What you thought was your point was elsewhere, back at "predation" and "preservation". You've already been told that preservation owes much to the environment where the animal died and how soon the bones were buried so they could be mineralized, and about the sizes of the bones. But no. With you it's always about predation, and how the australopithecines repelled predators. But you've already been schooled about how predators select their prey, and about how an individual with a stick is not going to come out on top against a predator two or three times larger in mass.

You've been schooled about so very many features that relate to the story you want to tell. I can read the responses that correct your errors and remember that you have been schooled. You're the only one here who fails to acknowledge how very many times you have been schooled. And all we get from you is "Hokay" to a correction that notes how seriously wrong you were, and no seeming recognition that you lack the humility even to ask how the xex of an individual fossil skull is determined. You think that amending the text with which you incorrectly labeled a fossil species means that you demonstrated so little curiosity in posting it initially that your carelessness, laziness, and lack of curiosity were on display for hours or days. You so energetically pursue what Spearthrower calls your 'babushkas" that you've nothing left to pursue relevant facts.

Over and over you claim that the jeering and sneering at your idiotic and rambling postings is because of ideological differences, but it's because of the strange mismatch between your arrogance and your incompetence to pursue this topic.
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: 28488
Age: 22
Male

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

Re: How atheist ideology messed up the human origin story

#3511  Postby Spearthrower » Jun 20, 2019 7:24 am

Jayjay4547 wrote:
In that passage you demonstrated the unerring bias of authoritarianism in science, away from signal and towards noise.


In this passage you have demonstrated the vacuous wibble of peudoscientific Creationists who are desperate for the veneer of scientific legitimacy without ever conforming to how and why science works.


Jayjay4547 wrote:The discovery of the Floris hobbits was arguably the most unexpected discovery in human origins since the Taung child.


What the fuck are you wibbling about now?

Do you think that other hominid finds were expected? So sediba, for example, when it was found everyone just went 'yeah, knew it was gonna happen'?

You do love making up a load of bollocks and pretending it's fact, dontcha?


Jayjay4547 wrote: It was so unexpected that there were several attempts to make out that the fossils were one or other kind of sports of nature.


Non-sequitur.

Whether something is expected or not expected, this doesn't mean that gibberish follows.

Of course, your rendition of history is basically just you prattling on about some nonsense.


Jayjay4547 wrote:What was unexpected was that hominids with such small brains had existed so recently and so far from the most similar hominids. That went against the preconceptions of human origins.


You really do talk a load of tosh, JJ. What the fuck has floriensis got to do with 'human origins'? Whether you're talking in numptyism about the hominid family or H sapiens, neither's origin is impacted by the existence of floriensis.

Floriensis was unexpected because the trend over millions of years in hominid evolution was towards a whole slew of morphological characteristics, such as increasing brain size, and this species bucked that trend.

But the mechanism by which that occurred isn't 'surprising' as it's been known about for decades and has been observed in dozens of species: insular dwarfism.

Another surprising thing about floriensis is how recently it lived - 60-100kya

But none of this has to do with preconceptions about human origins. You really should work for one of those rag magazines that makes every occurrence an amazingly sensational click-baity formulation.


Jayjay4547 wrote:What is unexpected, is signal.


Wha?


Jayjay4547 wrote: And what you were doing in your original passage above, was denying that signal;


Oh here we go. JJ makes up another term to play as a babushka.


Jayjay4547 wrote: you were expressing distance between early ancestors and the Flores hobbits. And you did so partly by using the scientific sounding language “had different scaling in essentially all their anatomical features.”


:lol:

Scientific sounding language?

You're off your tree chap. I wrote it in plain English so I didn't lose you again like the last time I used technical jargon.


Jayjay4547 wrote:So, the comparative pics I put up were aimed at questioning the extent of that scientific sounding language.


:lol:

Which I already pointed out is fucking hilarious. Like some pics are going to resolve this compared to actual measurement. And what are those pics?

One made up curiosity, one misidentified species, and the skeletal remains of the type specimen that turned out not to be very typologically useful.

And just by eye-balling these, JJ thinks he can alight on some world-shattering insight... even while not being aware of what it is he's looking at. The hubris, oh the hubris.


Jayjay4547 wrote: Look you, it’s not insolent for a layman to post images, nor is it to pretend to special expertise.


What are you wanking yourself off over now? Having a good tug are we?

I never used the term 'insolent' - I never expressed *any* such notion in the slightest, so don't fucking lie like that again JJ, or I will report you for willfully mischaracterizing me.

In fact, I said quite the opposite: there's absolutely no problem whatsoever sharing resources widely found on the internet, but putting up pics rather requires that you know what it is that's contained in those pics, and you clearly don't. That's not because you're a 'layman' - it's because your motivation is purely ideological, so you cherrypick whatever you want without even bothering to check to see whether you're right: that's why, for example, you've put up entirely the wrong species and built such a mountain of bullshit on it.


Jayjay4547 wrote: I do it in the hope that the viewer will think to himself “Well Floris hobbit does look to have had a similar body plan to Australopithecus, maybe that 'different scaling' Spearthrower was on about, was pretentious bullshit”.


Well, I have to say that you really must be smoking crack if you think that's the outcome.

Similar body plan? THEY'RE BOTH FUCKING HOMINIDS you drongo! Of course they've got similar body plans! :doh:

And given that comparative anatomy and species identification doesn't occur even among experts by looking at a single picture, how is it you think that non-experts are going to achieve this?

Nah, in reality you're blagging a load of bollocks again.

The different scaling cannot be apparent in a picture, that's a moronic notion which shows you don't have a fucking clue what you're talking about.

And let's just suppose momentarily that there was some value in using 3 pictures to compare scaling (wut?) the conclusion you've drawn in ignorance is laughably inept. The africanus specimen is a 2 or 3 year old CHILD JJ - how abjectly fucking clueless can you be while continuously pretending to be authoritative? :lol:

Talk about not know your arse from your elbow!


Jayjay4547 wrote:In one of your later posts you pointed out that what I had labelled as Australopithecus sediba was actually the Taung child. I apologise.


You apologize?

What for JJ? An apology would suggest you'd done it on purpose and got caught! :)

Of course, in reality this blows your whole schtick out of the water, doesn't it?

Given how you'd warbled romantically about leaving in shame if you'd been shown wrong about one picture of a hominid, this is a test case for whether all that was just hot air... and of course, as I predicted, you barely even blink an eye and just continue pretending you have credibility.

So despite your numerous protestations about your special insight into the very essence of the animal, you're now on record showing yourself incapable of recognizing the sex, the species, and the age of these animals! :lol:


Jayjay4547 wrote:Here is a revised copy of that pic, with a valid image of A.sediba and corrected labelling in red.


Oh I see: you meant 'thank you for correcting my embarrassing mistake"


Jayjay4547 wrote:The point I wanted to present using those images is if anything strengthened by that revision...


TAAA DAAAAA!

Exactly as I predicted, because this is exactly what you did last time you were shown abjectly wrong. Even though you made an argument that was based on entirely faulty premises, the complete revision of those premises just proves you're right... even more so!

It's clownish behavior, JJ. You've become Robert Byers.


Jayjay4547 wrote:...because according to Wikipedia, africanus is regarded as an ancestral species to sediba, so the older species looks more like the Flores hobbit than does the later (admittedly, juvenile) Australopithecus.


According to Wikipedia is probably about the best you can ever hope to achieve.

Of course, what X looks like to you is about as valid and valuable as what the bloke down the pub says when you've shown yourself unable to recognize the differences between two species, between males and females of a species, and the juvenile morphology of a species.

Aren't you aware of how badly this has destroyed your credibility, JJ?


Jayjay4547 wrote:
Spearthrower wrote:
Great. So can you now explain how that contradicts what I wrote?


I added the emphasis to show where that passage addressed the signal not the noise you were trying to cloud the story with. Where you claimed difference between Flores hobbits and Ausstralopithecus, it points to similarity. And it dares (”possibly”) to suggest my inference that a small brained bipedal hominins with short canines (body plan) were able to trek so far from their African creation. That would show that they were darn good at defending themselves using hand held kinetic weapons.


How hilariously inept.

Similar is relative, JJ. Similar doesn't mean 'quite the same'. Surely the mere fact that the study shows similarities between floriensis and THREE different species should give you the inkling of a clue as to why you're talking hogwash again?

Of course, the inane gibbering is then used as support for your nonsensical contention which has been shown wrong a dozen times already.

But of course, if you put away your hubris and discussed in good faith, JJ, then you'd be able to say 'I don't have the faintest idea what this Bayesian analysis entails' and therefore can't be sure that it means what I think it means... but you can't do that because it's all hubris driving you. Regardless, whether you say that or not, it's still manifestly apparent that you don't have a damn clue. That analysis doesn't show that floriensis's anatomical scaling was the same or even very like sediba, Homo habilis and Dmanisi Man... it shows that the scaling is most similar to those species, as in, comparative to other species.

We can go into much more detail about this if you like JJ - I'll be happy to educate you about it as it's apparent you don't have even an elementary comprehension here. Or you could run off and Google something so you can pretend you've got a clue if that's what tickles your fancy, but remember that will mean your apparent knowledge is veneer-thin and you're likely to make another obvious cock up that I will immediately notice.


Jayjay4547 wrote:
Spearthrower wrote: You also talked about the wonderful democratization of knowledge the internet provides us, whereby we no longer really even need experts, so even some random dude on the internet's pontifications have just as much value as, say, someone with actual accreditation and academic and field experience, because you know, all the information is just waiting there to be hoovered up by anyone.

Yeah, yeah, I know you're trying to change the topic JJ, but it's not going to change. I am going to have fun with this because your arrogance is outstripped only by your ignorance of the topic matter.


I have no interest in changing the topic. There has indeed been a wonderful democratization of knowledge via the internet. It doesn’t mean we can do without experts but it does mean that people who rely on their expertise and the ignorance of people who disagree with them, can expect some concrete blowback.


:lol:

Seriously, if you think you're being challenging, then you really do live in cloud cuckoo land.

You realize that to even discuss these subjects with you, I have to employ non-technical language just so you can understand what I am saying? When it comes to technical topics like Bayesian analysis of comparative scaling, I have to explain it in terms a kid could understand so that I don't lose you along the way.

You're not 'blowing back' anything at all JJ - you're flailing ineptly at me. You're just a self-declared expert like so many other internet cranks.


Jayjay4547 wrote:The discussion could move forward if you could present some data to support your claim of “different scaling in essentially all their anatomical feature” between A. sediba (not afarensis as you said at the top of this post, above) and Flores hobbits.


What discussion? I told you the facts which contradicted your previous assertion, you then pretended that a 3 sentence Wikipedia entry meant I was wrong, but you don't even understand the paragraph you're citing.

Again, you act like I have some responsibility to engage with you to a vastly higher standard than you engage with me. No, no such obligation JJ.

If you stopped prancing and preening and pretending you had special knowledge and asked me honestly and openly (as I've pointed out to you half a dozen times already) then I would be happy to provide some elementary education on these topics. But the way you're acting, I am not here to help you JJ. Stop pretending that I have to do something to cross the discoursive bar when you're the one setting the bar so low.


Jayjay4547 wrote:Here is an image of A. sediba compared with modern human and a chimp (?) skeletons, seemingly aimed at showing actual differential scaling.


Why is there a question mark in there, JJ? If you don't know what you're looking at, what exactly could you even hope to achieve by naive eyeballing even if that were a valid way of evaluating scaling? :scratch:

Regardless, you've put a picture up.... and?

Is this your cue for me to produce an article for a scientific journal? Do you expect me to rustle up a curriculum based on this picture?

You don't say what this picture is meant to be, only that you've put up a picture. Yes, yes, we know you've worked out how to attack pictures JJ - but discussion tends to require a little more. Is there a premise you're angling at here? Are you about to leap into naive eyeballing mode and declare yourself right?
Last edited by Spearthrower on Jun 20, 2019 7:27 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: 24896
Age: 43
Male

Country: Thailand
Print view this post

Re: How atheist ideology messed up the human origin story

#3512  Postby Spearthrower » Jun 20, 2019 7:26 am

Jayjay4547 wrote:No that's not good enough, it could explain why there could seem to be more complete info about dinosaurs, because paleontologists clump their categories more broadly than paleoanthropologists.


:scratch:

What?


Jayjay4547 wrote:The preservation of post-cranial bones in sediba could be because when alive, the animals crawled so far into the cave that their predator could get to them. And the Taung child skull might have just been dropped into a limey lake by the eagle carrying it, maybe a bigger eagle swooped down on it, that successive stealing is common amongst raptors?



JJ's forgotten his old arguments where contingency is merely an illusion.
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: 24896
Age: 43
Male

Country: Thailand
Print view this post

Re: How atheist ideology messed up the human origin story

#3513  Postby Spearthrower » Jun 20, 2019 7:31 am

I submit that it is beyond doubt now that JJ doesn't know his

Image

from his

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: 24896
Age: 43
Male

Country: Thailand
Print view this post

Re: How atheist ideology messed up the human origin story

#3514  Postby Spearthrower » Jun 20, 2019 7:34 am

Cito di Pense wrote:JJ's already been instructed that predators select weak and isolated individuals from groups when their prey does not adopt a solitary habit. Note that I did not say "solitary hobbit".



The adoption of solitary hobbits is a peculiar defensive strategy only observed in the species P. jacksoniensis.
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: 24896
Age: 43
Male

Country: Thailand
Print view this post

Re: How atheist ideology messed up the human origin story

#3515  Postby Spearthrower » Jun 20, 2019 7:35 am

Jayjay4547 wrote:
Well Hokay. I thought dinosaurs had hollow bones.



Better stick to what you now best: comparative primate anatomy!






:lol: :lol: :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: 24896
Age: 43
Male

Country: Thailand
Print view this post

Ads by Google


Re: How atheist ideology messed up the human origin story

#3516  Postby Spearthrower » Jun 20, 2019 7:38 am

Quick check in here JJ.

Do you acknowledge that you've made these errors.

You were unable to tell the anatomical difference in sexes of A. afarensis
You were unable to tell the difference between A. sediba and A. africanus
You were unable to tell the difference between an adult and a juvenile A. africanus
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: 24896
Age: 43
Male

Country: Thailand
Print view this post

Re: How atheist ideology messed up the human origin story

#3517  Postby Cito di Pense » Jun 20, 2019 7:43 am

Spearthrower wrote:
Cito di Pense wrote:JJ's already been instructed that predators select weak and isolated individuals from groups when their prey does not adopt a solitary habit. Note that I did not say "solitary hobbit".



The adoption of solitary hobbits is a peculiar defensive strategy only observed in the species P. jacksoniensis.


That's a load of coccyx! :naughty2:
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: 28488
Age: 22
Male

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

Re: How atheist ideology messed up the human origin story

#3518  Postby Spearthrower » Jun 20, 2019 7:47 am

Cito di Pense wrote:
Spearthrower wrote:
Cito di Pense wrote:JJ's already been instructed that predators select weak and isolated individuals from groups when their prey does not adopt a solitary habit. Note that I did not say "solitary hobbit".



The adoption of solitary hobbits is a peculiar defensive strategy only observed in the species P. jacksoniensis.


That's a load of coccyx! :naughty2:



Pah you atheistic ideologically driven ivory tower authoritative specialist types and your dismissal of the little guy who's just looking for a hole in the ground to call his home!
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: 24896
Age: 43
Male

Country: Thailand
Print view this post

Re: How atheist ideology messed up the human origin story

#3519  Postby Spearthrower » Jun 20, 2019 7:55 am

Here you go JJ... it's a CHALLENGE (cos I know you like them)

Below is a picture of 2 plant pots both containing chilli plantlings.

The red pot on the left contains a dozen or so, while the pot on the right contains just one.

In which pot - red or black - would you say there is more selection pressure occurring?

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: 24896
Age: 43
Male

Country: Thailand
Print view this post

Re: How atheist ideology messed up the human origin story

#3520  Postby Cito di Pense » Jun 20, 2019 7:57 am

Spearthrower wrote:
Cito di Pense wrote:
Spearthrower wrote:
Cito di Pense wrote:JJ's already been instructed that predators select weak and isolated individuals from groups when their prey does not adopt a solitary habit. Note that I did not say "solitary hobbit".



The adoption of solitary hobbits is a peculiar defensive strategy only observed in the species P. jacksoniensis.


That's a load of coccyx! :naughty2:



Pah you atheistic ideologically driven ivory tower authoritative specialist types and your dismissal of the little guy who's just looking for a hole in the ground to call his home!


My legal work here is all pro boner.
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: 28488
Age: 22
Male

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

PreviousNext

Return to Creationism

Who is online

Users viewing this topic: No registered users and 5 guests