Christian humility. Rofl.

Jayjay4547 wrote:

Agrippina wrote:Good point. If the Jewish version of creation is absolutely correct, then how come the rest of the world wasn't informed about it until Christian missionaries arrived on their doorsteps to steal their resources while handing out Bibles?

Well a lot of posters know that but do you know about the serious research that’s been done recently to back it up? It turns out that Anglo American the gold producers, initially wanted to give each miner his own house?

Citations?
Or is this yet more general, vague excrement?

Jayjay4547 wrote:Irrelevant guff

These red herrings won't hide the fact that you continue to lie and fail to deal with refutations of your arsewater.

Jayjay4547 wrote:

Anontheist wrote: What I've got so far from this thread:

Atheist ideology - description not provided - has influenced the scientific research - of individuals/institutions unnamed - and description of - by parties unresolved, bar the BBC - the genetic origins of homo sapiens as a species.

Atheist ideology is a set of beliefs about the world that make it seem natural to believe there is no God and almost impossible to imagine how there could be one.

OK I don't have any book-editing to do today, so I'll bite. Exercise my writing muscles as it were.

Firstly, there is no such thing as an "atheist ideology."

The word "ideology" means a "set of beliefs, ideas, principles, doctrines" etc. As there are no beliefs in non-belief, i.e. in the non-belief in the existence of deities, any deities, there can be no ideology. As there are no set ideas behind the non-belief in God, or any other supernatural being, there can be no ideology. As there are no set principles for non-belief, no requirements one has to meet in order to not believe in something, there can be no ideology. And because all of these statements also lead to there being no doctrine as a result of no set of beliefs, no ideas, no principles, regarding how not to believe, there is no doctrine, therefore no ideology exists.

Atheism does not involve "belief" it is non-belief. If you do not believe in a teapot flying around in space, then you have non-belief in the teapot. If you don't believe in Father Christmas, or Santa Claus, then you have no belief. If you have no belief, you cannot have an ideology.

It is possible to imagine how there could be a god, any god, not necessarily the God of the Bible, without believing that he/she/it exists. This has been shown throughout the history of humankind by the way that ancient people assigned the attributes of gods to animals. The Egyptians for example were amazed by the behaviour of animals, such as crocodiles, cats, jackals etc., so much so that they made images of them that they worshipped. They believed that if they worshipped the crocodile god, their children would be safe playing near the river. Even if they didn't believe in Ra, or Ptah, they might have worshipped the cat god, Bastet. Thus is it completely possible to imagine that there was some great cat god somewhere that controlled the behaviour of all cats, possibly because they observed that all cats behaved in the same way. For me, personally, I can imagine what a great, powerful, omniscient, omnipotent god would be. He would be a being that would remove drought and famine from the earth, would be able to cure amputees, would never let a child be born deformed, and so on. As there is no evidence for a god, not of any sort, I DO NOT believe that any god of any sort exists. It's not an ideology, is it a non-belief, just as death is non-life.

It’s influenced the scientific research of Adrian Treves and Paul Palmqvist, here
leading them to conclude a masterly reconstruction of the ecology of hominins with maybe the most deeply misleading statement that could be made about hominins:

We propose that the adaptive solution to the higher predation pressure of the end Miocene and Pliocene was a social adaptation that preceded any elaboration of material culture.

It first influenced Darwin to claim in effect that men did the evolving towards human while women egged them on.

That sounds like sexism to me. It makes me a little angry that people still make stupid statements about men being incompetent without women nagging them in the background.

Evolution, whether it was non-human or human, or plant, happened as a result of adaptation in order to survive, and had nothing to do with someone driving it. You need to learn what evolution is, and I'm sure Cali has given you enough scientific literature to study in order to learn what it is. I'm not going to explain it to you, read the literature he's offered you, the way I did.

On this forum though, the influence of atheism on the human origin narrative is alive in its most naked form. For example, in Oldskeptic showing a pic of a human bite on an arm that has left a cruel bruise, to discount the point that humans share with hominins an incapacity to bite defensively.

Oldskeptic's image refuted your claim that humans are unable to bit defensively. Please if you want evidence of this, try biting down on your own tongue, and when a piece falls off, come back and tell us that you don't have the teeth or the force in your jaw to cause serious bodily harm. (Actually I recommend you don't try that, you will be sorry).

The influence of ideology hasn’t been on” the science of the genetic origins of homo sapiens as a species. “ Whatever that means, exactly. It’s been on the origin story presented in the name of evolution, as one of self-creation.

The Theory of Evolution does not say anything about "self-creation" that's a nonsense invention of theists. Self-creation implies a thinking, acting organism able to reproduce by magical poofing things into place. That's what creationism says, evolution does not say that. Read the goddamned literature.

Anontheist wrote: Because science is apparently driven by opposition to the two mildly contradictory creation stories that certain Jewish tribes formed around 2700 years ago, and not, it seems, by 150 years of painstaking and often controversial assessment of the evidence. Science is apparently defined by its opposition to myths, not as I've been under the misapprehension, a reasoned assessment of the available evidence to provide an understanding.

You are changing your line here. Before you said, accurately, that my position is that ideology has influenced research. Now you make out that I’m claiming that science has been driven by opposition to Genesis. That’s not accurate. Historians have gathered a lot of facts about the documented history of man, likewise anthopologsts have assembled a lot of facts about our distant past. But unlike historians, anthropologists haven’t scoped the breadth of stories that can be built out of that data.

They have, read the literature.
Also what is "a lot of facts" and "assembled a lot of facts" supposed to mean. If you mean that in the past hundred years, archaeology, and anthropology have been able to confirm evolution, and to disprove the stories of the Bible, yes that is true. The history in the Bible, while containing actual characters who have been shown to have existed, outside of biblical text, is factually completely incorrect. History did not happen the way it is told in the Bible. I know, I spent ten years studying ancient history, and a further five studying the Bible and as much research as I could lay my hands on, about the period between the 15th millennium BCE and the 5th century CE, and I have found absolutely no evidence whatsoever to corroborate the stories told in both the Old and New Testament, except that some of the characters mentioned did exist, but that their stories are placed out of context in the Old Testament. People like the kings of Persia, for example.

Anontheist wrote: Also Australopithecus, something something, defensive biting, something something, self-creation narrative, something something, canines, something something.

The short blunt canines of Australopithecus shows that they had abandoned defensive biting that makes other primates dangerous to predators.

Humans have still not abandoned defensive biting. My grandson had to be cured of doing that. Anecdotal evidence but something I've observed. To use your numbering style, a lot of babies bite as a defence mechanism. So to claim that humans don't bite is nonsense. We have to be taught not to do it. (Oh yes, I also spent 10 years studying psychology so I know that babies do that from some books I've read, maybe you should try a different one, put the Bible away and open a book of non-fiction for a change).

Together with a number of other things, that shows that, millions of years before our ancestors started knapping stones, they defended themselves using hand weapons.

So what? Modern orang utans and chimps use hand tools they've made for themselves, they still bite though.
Here you go, let's start your non-fiction reading with a paper on how chimps use tools.
http://www.eva.mpg.de/primat/staff/boesch/pdf/fol_prim_tool_use_making.pdf

Abstract:
Reported incidences of tool use and tool making for three wild chimpanzee populations increase from Mahale (12 and 3 types of use and making, respectively), Gombe (16 and 3) to Tai (19 and 6). Sticks are commonly used and prepared at all three sites. However, Tai chimpanzees seem to perform more modifications on the material before using it. They are also the only chimpanzees seen to pound objects with tools and to combine two different tool uses to get access to one food item. Tool making is the rule for abundant material (grass, twigs), but appears to be rarer for scarce, hard material (clubs, stones). Fac- tors involved in the acquisition and the benefit of tool use are discussed along with factors affecting the frequency and complexity of tool making in chimpanzees.

That’s why they looked so spectacularly different from baboons, who do bite defensively.

Nonsense hominids look " so spectacularly different from baboons" not because they didn't "bite defensively" but because the evolutionary tree had split, making baboons enough of a different species for them not to be able to interbreed with humans.
Some more reading for you:
http://www.pasttime.org/2013/08/episode-5-throwing-in-human-evolution/

You can see from this image that we are nowhere nearly related to baboons.
http://www.pasttime.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/08/Ape-Family-tree.jpg?43e184
Unfortunately the image is copyright-protected, so you have to click on the link to see it.

Yet during those millions of years, the australopiths didn’t evolve towards larger brains; that happened to genus Homo. Those facts conflict with an origin story where humankind evolved by developing “smarts” which were so self-evidently adaptive that they naturally became tool-makers, developed fire then language, culture and finally science.

See the link above, a larger brain isn't what made us make tools, necessity is always the mother of invention.

The facts do support a story that hyena, sticks and baboons together squeezed the hominins into being highly adept weapon-users and that competence in that speciality created a new set of circumstances that squeezed them into developing language, the great game changer. The first story is one of self-creation, the second is of foreign agency (counting hyena, sticks and baboons as foreign). The first is the story expressed by ratskep posters, the second is the one denied by them. And ratskep posters aren’t alone, they have “science” behind them.

Rubbish hyenas had nothing to do with the development of tool use, necessity was all it took. It was easier to use a stick to spear a fish than to risk drowning or being eaten by a crocodile to do it. It was easier to use a rock to chip open nuts than to not eat them because the shells were too hard.

Anontheist wrote: It's JayJay vs the world. And, he's not going to stop, because public flagellation is a time-honoured Christian tradition. Some people don't feel like they're achieving anything good unless they're suffering for it.

Nah. Atheist posters are hitting themselves on the head right here on this forum. It’s distressing to watch sometimes.

Not this atheist, nor any other member here. It's the nonsense that Christians believe in and that they blame non-believers because they choose to remain ignorant who do the self-flagellating.
[

quote="Anontheist";p="2221111"]

I wonder why all those scientists - theists or atheists - from cultural backgrounds that don't even consider the Jewish creation myth - Chinese, Japanese, Indian, etc - haven't pulled up the rest of the scientific world for simply being anti-Genesis?

They don’t have a horse in that race plus western ex-Christian science rules in this area at present. Or is science international? [/quote]
The rules of science do not have borders. They apply no matter where you are.

You are an Aussie? Haven’t you been struck by the weird spat over the inconvenient truths of the flores hobbits(homo floresiensis) discovered by Australian scientists? The Wikipedia entry describes 5 scenarios where they could be fossils of deformed or diseased animals. A few years ago I heard a guy with thick Aussie accent being asked on the radio about that and he answered something like “Well we have the skulls of several individuals so what about that? “ That’s actually a killer argument; to find several similar skulls with the same supposed severe and crippling deformity would be too improbable to consider. And yet, a few years later we can see on Wikipedia that the ridiculous is given serious consideration. Even an Aussie can be shouted down. Another one was Raymond Dart, who named Australopithecus. The great metropolitan cultures have tremendous clout and the bunch of posters here know that, it’s what warms their hearts. But it’s not the truth.

What warms my heart is when an ex-theist admits that he doesn't know something, and asks to be taught, then admits that he was wrong.

Metropolitan cultures and their clout have nothing to do with what scientific examination demonstrates. Maybe the next time you're ill you should refuse to see a medical doctor, and go to visit a shaman instead. You don't want difficult science cluttering up the process of your healing. Maybe you should stop using a computer, and go back to drawing stick-figures on caves, because that's what people did in the pre-scientific past. You can't use science-created technology to beat atheists, then claim that "great metropolitan cultures" are responsible for the cognitive dissonance you experience when you are shown to be wrong.

Edit to fix typos.

Jayjay4547 wrote:

Agrippina wrote:Good point. If the Jewish version of creation is absolutely correct, then how come the rest of the world wasn't informed about it until Christian missionaries arrived on their doorsteps to steal their resources while handing out Bibles?

Well a lot of posters know that but do you know about the serious research that’s been done recently to back it up? It turns out that Anglo American the gold producers, initially wanted to give each miner his own house?

What exactly does Anglo American have to do with handing out Bibles to conquered people?

Anticipating substantial profits from mining, and appreciating the hardship of working pneumatic drill a mile underground, the shareholders called for a modest sauna in every miners home. It was actually the Christian missionaries who dissuaded them, saying that concrete bunks for single men would recapture the envigrating rigor of celibate life for these new Christians.

Sounds about right for Christians: celibacy and deprivation.

Cecil John Rhodes, still a revered figure in our country, was a pioneer in promoting Christian values of humility. The last time a garland was thrown over his statue at UCT it was found that his right hand, which previously had been thought to be giving the finger towards Africa, actually held the outline of a miniature bible, such as was printed in Birmingam on Babbage’s Computer decades before the Yanks even left their caves.

So what. Rhodes was a theist, why should I care, he's dead and his statue has been removed. I don't care about what Rhodes did.

Cryptologists are currently working on the inscription at Rhodes Memorial in Cape Town, to uncover its Christian message, in friendly competition with scientists at his Matopo grave. But what is already known is that every third machine gun bullet used by his Pioneer Column when civilizing Rhodesia, carried a tiny Christian inscription exhorting repentance and belief.

So what. I'm not interested in Rhodes. I'm interested in people not selling bullshit ideology to ignorant people. Whoop de do if his bullets contained Bibles, I hope they burned up when fired.

Thomas Eshuis wrote:

Jayjay4547 wrote:

Agrippina wrote:Good point. If the Jewish version of creation is absolutely correct, then how come the rest of the world wasn't informed about it until Christian missionaries arrived on their doorsteps to steal their resources while handing out Bibles?

Well a lot of posters know that but do you know about the serious research that’s been done recently to back it up? It turns out that Anglo American the gold producers, initially wanted to give each miner his own house?

Citations?
Or is this yet more general, vague excrement?

Jayjay4547 wrote:Irrelevant guff

These red herrings won't hide the fact that you continue to lie and fail to deal with refutations of your arsewater.

Exactly. I want to know what atheist ideology is and how it messed up the human origin story. Telling bullshit conspiracy theories about conquering Christians has no relevance to the discussion.

Jayjay4547 wrote:

Anontheist wrote: Because science is apparently driven by opposition to the two mildly contradictory creation stories that certain Jewish tribes formed around 2700 years ago, and not, it seems, by 150 years of painstaking and often controversial assessment of the evidence. Science is apparently defined by its opposition to myths, not as I've been under the misapprehension, a reasoned assessment of the available evidence to provide an understanding.

You are changing your line here. Before you said, accurately, that my position is that ideology has influenced research. Now you make out that I’m claiming that science has been driven by opposition to Genesis. That’s not accurate. Historians have gathered a lot of facts about the documented history of man, likewise anthopologsts have assembled a lot of facts about our distant past. But unlike historians, anthropologists haven’t scoped the breadth of stories that can be built out of that data.

Wait, what? Who's changing their line here? It's certainly not me. I'm just re-wording your opening post.

You started the thread with the statement:

This claim is that the human origin story has been presented as one of self-creation, in reactive opposition to the Genesis story in which human beings were made by something greater than themselves- and which is a basic truth about human origins and the human status.

You argue that the current scientific explanation for the human origin story is an opposing case reaction to the idea that some higher power created humans.

You are exactly arguing, or at least you were arguing in your opening post, that "science has been driven by opposition to Genesis". Your exact words in the opening post are "in reactive opposition to the Genesis story".

What other conclusion could I reasonably draw from this paragraph? From those words?

Jayjay4547 wrote:Cecil John Rhodes, still a revered figure in our country,

Revered by some, loathed by others, including friends of mine. Both when he was alive, and now. As the recent defacing of his statue at UCT would seem to indicate.

This is a man who's stated position when he was Minster of Native Affairs after 1887, was to "adopt a system of despotism" (in his own words) towards the "barbarism of South Africa".

Jayjay4547 wrote: was a pioneer in promoting Christian values of humility.

He was also a racist bigot. Even for the period his attitudes were backwards. He's attributed with saying "I prefer land to niggers".

Humility? Rhodes called for the:

occupation by British settlers of the entire Continent of Africa, the Holy Land, the Valley of the Euphrates, the Islands of Cyprus and Candia, the whole of South America, the Islands of the Pacific not heretofore possessed by Great Britain, the whole of the Malay Archipelago, the seaboard of China and Japan, the ultimate recovery of the United States of America as an integral part of the British Empire,

Jayjay4547 wrote: But what is already known is that every third machine gun bullet used by his Pioneer Column when civilizing Rhodesia, carried a tiny Christian inscription exhorting repentance and belief.

Well bugger me. I never knew that civilising meant walking into territory that other people already lived on and permanently occupied, inciting them to violence and then slaughtering them in their tens of thousands and annexing the land in the name of God, King and Country. All in the hope of finding gold and grazing country.

Oh, and they carved the Christian death cult symbol on their bullets. Isn't that just sweetness itself.

I'm sure Jesus would have approved. Afterall, I'm sure one of the Gospels mentions being able to slaughter native populations, force taxes on them, seize their lands and then force treaties on them under the threat of further violence.

Anontheist wrote:

Jayjay4547 wrote: was a pioneer in promoting Christian values of humility.

He was also a racist bigot. Even for the period his attitudes were backwards. He's attributed with saying "I prefer land to niggers".

Humility? Rhodes called for the:

occupation by British settlers of the entire Continent of Africa, the Holy Land, the Valley of the Euphrates, the Islands of Cyprus and Candia, the whole of South America, the Islands of the Pacific not heretofore possessed by Great Britain, the whole of the Malay Archipelago, the seaboard of China and Japan, the ultimate recovery of the United States of America as an integral part of the British Empire,

Well, while many Christians do practice actual humility, a notable subset see 'humility' as them acknowledging a god which they have defined as sharing their own prejudices, and then considering themselves the second most important beings in the universe and acting accordingly.

Here we go again with the bullshit and lies, everyone! All aboard the made up shit train! Woo-woo!

Jayjay4547 wrote:

Anontheist wrote: What I've got so far from this thread:

Atheist ideology - description not provided - has influenced the scientific research - of individuals/institutions unnamed - and description of - by parties unresolved, bar the BBC - the genetic origins of homo sapiens as a species.

Atheist ideology is a set of beliefs

Bollocks. NOT treating made up shit as fact isn't a fucking "belief", it's the very antithesis thereof.

Jayjay4547 wrote:about the world

The business of contemplating postulates about the world isn't the exclusive purview of atheists. Plus, the people responsible for the postulates that atheists pay attention to are scientists. Some more elementary concepts you appear either to be ignorant of, or hope no one else will be whilst peddling your duplicitous apologetic fabrications.

Jayjay4547 wrote:that make it seem natural to believe there is no God

Yawn, yawn, yawn, here we go again with the "belief" bullshit. What part of "atheists dispense with belief altogether" do you not understand?

Those of us who take such matters seriously, regard fabricated mythological entities purely as products of the human imagination, on the basis of evidence supporting this. Such as the fact that if some of those entities actually existed, in the manner that supernaturalists assert, science as we know it would be impossible.

Jayjay4547 wrote:and almost impossible to imagine how there could be one.

Ah, another lie.

Here's a clue for you JayJay. I and others here don't think it's "impossible" for a god-type entity to exist, we merely think supernaturalists have failed to support their fatious assertions on the subject. But we're used to misrepresentations of our actual thinking on this subject by pedlars of dupliciutous apologetic fabrications. However, since the narrow, parochial and limited fabrications of human mythological imagination are frequently asserted to possess contradictory, paradoxical or absurd attributes, simple logic tells us that entities of this sort cannot exist. Just as a swan cannot be simultaneously black and white, so the Abrahamic magic man cannot be both omnipotent and omniscient in the manner naively asserted by the requisite supernaturalists, because this leads to contradiction, paradox and absurdity on a grand scale. But you almost certainly won't let embarrassing facts or DATA with respect to this sway you from your mendacious fabrications and misrepresentations, so it's pointless exhorting you to exhibit some discoursive honesty here.

Jayjay4547 wrote:It’s influenced the scientific research of Adrian Treves and Paul Palmqvist,

Bullshit. What has "influenced" their work has been REAL WORLD DATA. Your assertion above is another of the tiresome lies you keep peddling here.

Jayjay4547 wrote:leading them to conclude a masterly reconstruction of the ecology of hominins with maybe the most deeply misleading statement that could be made about hominins:

We propose that the adaptive solution to the higher predation pressure of the end Miocene and Pliocene was a social adaptation that preceded any elaboration of material culture.

And you've been schooled repeatedly, by myself and others, how the authors in question cite EVIDENCE in support of their postulates. So don't bother bullshitting us all that they just made shit up in the same manner you do, because we've read the paper, and know that you're telling Sauropod sized porkies about it.

Jayjay4547 wrote:It first influenced Darwin to claim in effect that men did the evolving towards human while women egged them on.

Another bullshit misrepresentation of someone else's ideas. Oh wait, we have real evidence in quantity for sexual selection in thousands of species, humans included. Once again, you can see this in action in every nightclub on the planet - teenage boys trying to impress teenage girls with the aim of getting into their knickers, and modifying their behaviour to achieve this. Indeed, human history contains numerous examples of momentous events driven by the same desire to get laid, such as the abdication of Edward VIII. Your fail on this matter is truly hilarious to behold here. Indeed, that's the whole fucking point behind many evolutionary postulates, namely that mere survival is fucking useless if you don't get to shag and leave descendants behind, because you're a dead end in the biosphere without said shagging and baby making. To use the parlance of mathematicians, survival is necessary but not sufficient to be a biological success.

Jayjay4547 wrote:On this forum though, the influence of atheism on the human origin narrative is alive in its most naked form.

Bullshit. What is "alive in its most naked form" here, is a refusal to treat your manifest made up shit as fact. All that's happening here is that the rest of us are demonstrating that we have a working ability to tell fact from fantasy, followed by tiresome and pathetic whingeing and bleating from you when your fantasies and fabrications are exposed as such.

Jayjay4547 wrote:For example, in Oldskeptic showing a pic of a human bite on an arm that has left a cruel bruise, to discount the point that humans share with hominins an incapacity to bite defensively.

Total crap. Oh wait, we have evidence that humans sometimes bite offensively. It's one of the reasons why, for example, the governing body controlling the sport of rugby union worldwide, instigated provisions making such activity a culpable offence. Indeed, developed jurisdictions treat such activity as criminal assault. Likewise, Mike Tyson was disqualified during his 1997 boxing match with Evander Holyfield, because he bit the latter's ear.

Once again, we have DATA to bring to the table, not made up shit.

Jayjay4547 wrote:The influence of ideology hasn’t been on” the science of the genetic origins of homo sapiens as a species. “ Whatever that means, exactly.

If you can't work out what that phrase means, then you're in no position to lecture the rest of us. Come back when you've mastered English Comprehension 101.

Jayjay4547 wrote:It’s been on the origin story presented in the name of evolution, as one of self-creation.

Bullshit and lies. Oh wait, the Treves and Palmqvist paper alone devoted much space to the interactions between early hominids and known predatory species, and how these might have shaped our eventual destiny. Indeed, their rejection of the use of weapons, on the basis of no evidence being found of reognisable weapons being found in the vicinity of the requisite fossils, is the very antithesis of the "self-creation" wankery you're peddling here, because Treves & Palmqvist are explicitly stating that our ancestors did NOT somehow magically bootstrap themselves into existence, but instead were subject to external factors. So can we see an end to this "narrative of self-creation" bullshit once and for all in the light of this?

Jayjay4547 wrote:

Anontheist wrote: Because science is apparently driven by opposition to the two mildly contradictory creation stories that certain Jewish tribes formed around 2700 years ago, and not, it seems, by 150 years of painstaking and often controversial assessment of the evidence. Science is apparently defined by its opposition to myths, not as I've been under the misapprehension, a reasoned assessment of the available evidence to provide an understanding.

You are changing your line here. Before you said, accurately, that my position is that ideology has influenced research.

And likewise, the rest of us have detonated a fucking nuclear depth charge under this assertion, by recourse to the REAL WORLD DATA.

Jayjay4547 wrote:Now you make out that I’m claiming that science has been driven by opposition to Genesis. That’s not accurate.

This has been a standard creationist mantra for decades. If it doesn't apply to you, we want to see evidence for this. Got any? We can start by asking if you think the assertions contained in Genesis constitute fact, the way most orthodox creationists do,

Jayjay4547 wrote:Historians have gathered a lot of facts about the documented history of man, likewise anthopologsts have assembled a lot of facts about our distant past. But unlike historians, anthropologists haven’t scoped the breadth of stories that can be built out of that data.

Well first of all, quite a few historians will find the imputation in the above, that they're making shit up, pretty offensive. Indeed I've had dealings with at least one professional in the field in the past, and she'd rip your balls off for suggesting that she didn't take account of DATA.

Which brings us once again to the distinction you're apparently completely ignorant of, namely the distinction between paying attention to the DATA and making shit up about it.

Jayjay4547 wrote:

Anontheist wrote: Also Australopithecus, something something, defensive biting, something something, self-creation narrative, something something, canines, something something.

The short blunt canines of Australopithecus shows that they had abandoned defensive biting that makes other primates dangerous to predators.

Really? Oldskeptic showed in those pictures that we can inflict some pretty unpleasant damage ourselves by this means if we so choose. Indeed that was his entire point, if memory serves, namely that there exists DATA contradicting your assertions.

Jayjay4547 wrote:Together with a number of other things, that shows that, millions of years before our ancestors started knapping stones, they defended themselves using hand weapons.

No they didn't. We have no evidence for this. This is another fantasy on your part.

Jayjay4547 wrote:That’s why they looked so spectacularly different from baboons, who do bite defensively.

Oh wait, baboons, as you have been schooled repeatedly, exhibit significant differences between male and female in this regard. As do many other primate species exhibiting canine hypertrophy. Which tells those of us who paid attention in science class, that it's far more likely to be a product of sexual selection.You know, picky females choosing to mate with males exhibiting desirable characteristics? A phenomenon that has been observed time and time again in everything from Betta splendens to humans?

Jayjay4547 wrote:Yet during those millions of years, the australopiths didn’t evolve towards larger brains; that happened to genus Homo.

Except of course that Homo descended from Australopithecus ...

Jayjay4547 wrote:Those facts

At least one of which isn't ...

Jayjay4547 wrote:conflict with an origin story where humankind evolved by developing “smarts” which were so self-evidently adaptive that they naturally became tool-makers, developed fire then language, culture and finally science.

Except of course that no scientist I know of peddles this fantasy, when taking account of the DATA. Not least because tool use and tool manufacture is documented in organisms other than primates. An example being this paper:

Insightful Problem Solving And Creative Tool Modification By Captive Nontool-Using Rooks by Christopher D. Bird & Nathan J. Emery, Proceeedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the USA, 106(25): 10370-10375 (23rd June 2009) [Full paper downloadable from here]

Bird & Emery, 2009 wrote:The ability to use tools has been suggested to indicate advanced physical cognition in animals. Here we show that rooks, a member of the corvid family that do not appear to use tools in the wild are capable of insightful problem solving related to sophisticated tool use, including spontaneously modifying and using a variety of tools, shaping hooks out of wire, and using a series of tools in a sequence to gain a reward. It is remarkable that a species that does not use tools in the wild appears to possess an understanding of tools rivaling habitual tool users such as New Caledonian crows and chimpanzees. Our findings suggest that the ability to represent tools may be a domain-general cognitive capacity rather than an adaptive specialization and questions the relationship between physical intelligence and wild tool use.

There's also a fair amount of literature devoted to Camarhynchus pallidus with respect to tool use and manufacture. For that matter, I'm aware of instances in the literature of tool use by insects, one such instance being this one.

Once again, those of us who paid attention to DATA instead of made up shit assertions, are aware of what scientists actually postulate, as opposed to your fantasy misrepresentations thereof.

Jayjay4547 wrote:The facts do support a story that hyena, sticks and baboons together squeezed the hominins into being highly adept weapon-users

Oh wait, the evidence tells us that this happened on an entirely different time scale to your fantasy one. Though it's a delicious irony seeing a creationist trying to say that something happened earlier than the evidence supports. Usually, creationists come here trying to tell us that everything was compressed into an even more ridiculous fantasy time scale, arising from a pathetically naive reading of mythology.

Jayjay4547 wrote:and that competence in that speciality created a new set of circumstances that squeezed them into developing language, the great game changer.

Wrong. Oh wait, we have hard evidence that human facility with language arose as a result of mutations in ASPM and FOXP2. I've presented the relevant details from the relevant papers in the past, so don't try bullshitting everyone on this or I'll carpet bomb your bullshit with the nuclear ordnance of DATA.

Jayjay4547 wrote:The first story is one of self-creation

Bollocks. Stop posting manifest lies, JayJay. Oh wait, the mere fact that scientists have repeatedly taken account of EXTERNAL FACTORS applicable to the population history of a species, humans included, and have even gone to the trouble of ERECTING AN ENTIRE SCIENTIFIC DISCIPLINE DEVOTED TO THE STUDY THEREOF, in the form of ecology, destroys your "narrative of self-creation" made up shit wholesale.

Jayjay4547 wrote:the second is of foreign agency (counting hyena, sticks and baboons as foreign).

Oh wait, what was that I just told you above? Oh that's right, scientists have repeatedly taken account of EXTERNAL FACTORS applicable to the population history of a species, humans included, and have even gone to the trouble of ERECTING AN ENTIRE SCIENTIFIC DISCIPLINE DEVOTED TO THE STUDY THEREOF, in the form of ecology.

Game fucking over for your fantasy assertions, JayJay.

Jayjay4547 wrote:The first is the story expressed by ratskep posters

Bullshit. No one here has ever given credence to your fantasy misrepresentation of actual scientific postulates. This is a manifest lie you're posting here. Because YOU are the one who erected this whole fantasy "narrative of self-creation" made up shit, then tried to attribute it to the rest of us and any scientists who didn't genuflect before your fantasy fabrications, whilst WE were the ones who reminded you about the existence of ecology as a separate scientific discipline devoted to the study of the very external factors you medaciously asserted that those scientists were purportedly ignoring. YOU are the one who erected this gigantic fantasy, then tried to claim that this fantasy was purportedly a product of our thinking, ignoring all the contrary DATA we presented that said your assertions were a tissue of lies from start to finish, but then we're used to creationists attributing their fantasy misrpresentations to us, so you're not even being original here.

Jayjay4547 wrote:the second is the one denied by them.

Bullshit. Everyone here accepts the validity of external influences upon a population's destiny, and has done ever since they learned about the word "ecology". Stop posting lies, JayJay.

Jayjay4547 wrote:And ratskep posters aren’t alone, they have “science” behind them.

Oh look, more duplicitous apologetic fabrication. Including the mendacious scare quotes around the word "science", with the deliberate and duplicitous implication that the authors of any paper not genuflecting before your fantasies is purportedly making shit up in the same way you are. Your repeated manifest lies and bullshit aren't working, JayJay, because everyone knows that you're posting lies and bullshit.

Jayjay4547 wrote:

Anontheist wrote: It's JayJay vs the world. And, he's not going to stop, because public flagellation is a time-honoured Christian tradition. Some people don't feel like they're achieving anything good unless they're suffering for it.

Nah. Atheist posters are hitting themselves on the head right here on this forum.

Oh look, it's another wet dream inspired by treating the made up shit inside the television in one's head as fact. We're not the ones making shit up here, JayJay.

Jayjay4547 wrote: It’s distressing to watch sometimes.

Your manifest lies and bullshit ARE distressing to watch.

Jayjay4547 wrote:

Anontheist wrote:I wonder why all those scientists - theists or atheists - from cultural backgrounds that don't even consider the Jewish creation myth - Chinese, Japanese, Indian, etc - haven't pulled up the rest of the scientific world for simply being anti-Genesis?

They don’t have a horse in that race

Neither do the ones you're posting lies about.

Jayjay4547 wrote:plus western ex-Christian science rules in this area at present.

This is because it pays attention to DATA, not made up shit. Going to learn this elementary lesson sometime?

Jayjay4547 wrote:Or is science international?

And what happens at an international level? Oh that's right, scientists pay attention to the DATA, not made up shit.

Jayjay4547 wrote:You are an Aussie? Haven’t you been struck by the weird spat over the inconvenient truths of the flores hobbits(homo floresiensis) discovered by Australian scientists? The Wikipedia entry describes 5 scenarios where they could be fossils of deformed or diseased animals.

Oh have you actually READ those accounts in detail? Including the numerous reasons cited for rebuttal of the requisite hypotheses?

For example, with respect to the microcephaly hypothesis (which would require not only specific anatomical features to be present, but specific well-known genetic features, such as mutations in ASPM), we have this (relevant parts highlighted in blue):

Falk et al. (2007) offered further evidence that the claims of a microcephalic H. sapiens were not credible.[7] Virtual endocasts of an additional nine microcephalic brains and ten normal human brains were examined, and it was found that the floresiensis skulls are similar in shape to normal human brains, yet have unique features which are consistent with what one would expect in a new species. The frontal and temporal lobes of the floresiensis brain were found to be highly developed, in strong contrast to the microcephalic brain, and advanced in ways different from modern human brains. This finding also answered past criticisms that the floresiensis brain was simply too small to be capable of the intelligence required for the members of H. floresiensis to create the tools found in their proximity. Falk et al. (2007) conclude that the onus is now upon the critics that continue to claim microcephaly to produce a brain of a microcephalic that bears resemblance to the floresiensis brain.[7]

Falk's argument was supported by Lyras et al. (2008) in that 3D-morphometric features of the skulls of microcephalic H. sapiens indeed fall within the range of normal H. sapiens and that the LB1 skull falls well outside this range. This was interpreted as proving that LB1 cannot, on the basis of either brain or skull morphology, be classified as a microcephalic H. sapiens.[25]

In 2009, a study by Jungers et al. presented a statistical analysis of skull shapes of healthy modern humans, microcephalic humans, and several ancient human species, as well as H. floresiensis. They showed that the three grouped separately, with H. floresiensis among the ancient humans, providing evidence that H. floresiensis is a separate species instead of a diseased modern human.[14]

With respect to the Laron Syndrome hypothesis:

Critics claim that to determine whether the H. floresiensis individuals had Laron syndrome would require testing their DNA for the presence of the defective genes, if samples of that DNA ever become available.[66] Critics of the hypothesis have however pointed out that despite the low stature, people suffering from Laron syndrome look nothing like the Homo floresiensis remains, particularly in the anatomy of the cranial vault.[67]

With respect to the cretinism hypothesis:

Brown (2012) compared skeletal and dental morphology in H. floresiensis with the clinical and osteological indicators of cretinism, and the traits that have been argued to be associated with ME cretinism in LB1 and LB6. He concludes that LB1 and LB6 H. floresiensis are not modern human (H. sapiens) cretins.[71]

As for the insular dwarfism hypothesis, this isn't a hypothesis about pathology, but adaptation.

As for the Down's Syndrome hypothesis, we have this:

Colin Groves, of the Australian National University responded that the theory was "implausible" for several reasons, including the fact that abnormal features in the jaw of LB1 are shared by another specimen, LB6. Robert B. Eckhardt of Pennsylvania State University, one of the authors of the new study, rejected the criticism, stating that the study identified significant differences between the jaw of LB1 and LB6.[16] Later M. C. Westaway et al. pointed out a number of characteristics shared by both LB1 and LB6 as well as other known early humans and absent in Homo sapiens such as internal buttressing of the mandibular symphysis and lack of chin.[75]

Next, under the heading of "Bone Structure", we have this:

The bone structure of H. floresiensis shoulders, arms[11] and wrists[9] has been described as very different from that of modern humans, and much more similar to the bone structure of chimpanzees or an early hominin. This adds support to the idea that H. floresiensis is a separate species of early human rather than a modern human with a physical disorder.[11]

Susan G. Larson et al. analyzed the upper limb of LB1. They found that in LB1 the angle of humeral torsion is much less than in modern humans.[/colr] This had been previously studied by Richards et al., who declared that it is a sign of modern pygmy populations, and T. Jacob et al., who pointed out that muscle attachments on the bone suggest LB1 had weak muscles which resulted in little development of humeral torsion. Larson et al. rejected Richards’ conclusion, arguing that [color=blue]the humeral torsion of pygmy populations is usually similar to that of peoples of average stature. They argued that Richards et al. cited a 1972 paper which had studied a sample of six female Eastern Central African pygmies and this sample was too small to represent the whole population. Larson et al. also failed to find signs of microcephaly on the studied bones.[11]

Larson et al. also studied the relatively short clavicle and the unusual formation of the pectoral girdle. They compared their finding with the skeleton of Nariokotome Boy (variously classified as H. ergaster or H. erectus), and suggested that the pectoral girdle of H. floresiensis was a transitional stage in human shoulder evolution.[11]

While some specialists, including paleoanthropologist Russell Ciochon of the University of Iowa, supported the conclusion, others, including Eric Delson of Lehman College, City University of New York, pointed out that the recent sample of H. floresiensis individuals is too small and that Larson's research was based just on one shoulder bone.[37]

Tocheri et al. (2007) (including Morwood, Larson, and Jungers), compared three carpal bones believed to belong to LB1 with carpal bones of modern humans, some earlier hominids and African apes. They concluded that the carpals from the Liang Bua cave resembled ape carpal bones and were significantly different from the bones of H. sapiens, Homo neanderthalensis or even Homo antecessor, and that they were comparable to carpal bones of Australopithecus. The carpal bones of H. floresiensis were found to lack features that evolved with ancestors of modern humans at least about 800,000 years ago. These features are already formed during embryogenesis and therefore Tocheri et al. argue that it is improbable that the shape of H. floresiensis wrist bones could be a result of a developmental disease. This evidence also suggests that H. Florensiensis is not a modern human with an undiagnosed pathology or growth defect, but that it represents a species descended from a hominin ancestor that branched off before the origin of the clade that includes modern humans, Neandertals, and their last common ancestor.[9]

Among the relevant papers are:

Mandibular Evidence Supports Homo floresiensis As A Distinct Species by Michael Carrington Westaway, Arthur C. Durband, Colin P. Groves and Mark Collard, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the USA, 112(7): E604-E605; published ahead of print February 6, 2015 [Full paper downloadable from here]

Westaway et al, 2015 wrote:Henneberg et al. (1) and Eckhardt et al. (2) present another pathology-based alternative to the hypothesis that the “hobbit” fossils from Liang Bua, Indonesia, represent a distinct hominin species, Homo floresiensis[i]. They contend that the Liang Bua specimens are the remains of small-bodied humans and that the noteworthy features of the most complete specimen, LB1, are a consequence of Down syndrome (DS). Here, we show that the available mandibular evidence does not support these claims.

From the paper, one of the illustrations is labelled thus:

Fig. 1. ` of the Liang Bua 1 mandible (Upper) and an Aboriginal Australian [i]Homo sapiens mandible, Roonka 45 (Lower). The distinct internal buttressing of the symphysis that can be seen in LB1 is found in early hominins but not Homo sapiens. Both mandibles are to scale.

Then we have:

The Primitive Wrist Of Homo floresiensis And Its Implications For Hominin Evolution by Matthew W. Tocheri, Caley M. Orr, Susan G. Larson, Thomas Sutikna, Jatmiko, E. Wahyu Saptomo, Rokus Awe Due, Tony Djubiantono, Michael J. Morwood & William L. Jungers, Science, 317: 17343-1745 (21st September 2007) [Full paper downloadable from here]

Tocheri et al, 2007 wrote:Whether the Late Pleistocene hominin fossils from Flores, Indonesia, represent a new species, Homo floresiensis, or pathological modern humans has been debated. Analysis of three wrist bones from the holotype specimen (LB1) shows that it retains wrist morphology that is primitive for the African ape-human clade. In contrast, Neandertals and modern humans share derived wrist morphology that forms during embryogenesis, which diminishes the probability that pathology could result in the normal primitive state. This evidence indicates that LB1 is not a modern human with an undiagnosed pathology or growth defect; rather, it represents a species descended from a hominin ancestor that branched off before the origin of the clade that includes modern humans, Neandertals, and their last common ancestor.

Now this second paper is particularly important, because the authors explicitly present evidence that the morphology seen in modern human carpal bones, arises early in the development of the embryo, and that the morphological distinctions seen in the H. floresiensis carpal bones are therefore extremely unlikely to arise from pathology. On the other hand, those same morphological distinctions are seen in hominids dating back 800,000 years before the present. This supports the hypothesis that H. floresiensis diverged early from other homind lineages, and is therefore not a recent H.sapiens.

This is what's known as paying attention to the DATA once more. As opposed to quote mining a Wikipedia article to try and dismiss the DATA when it doesn't support made up shit.

Moving on ...

Jayjay4547 wrote:A few years ago I heard a guy with thick Aussie accent being asked on the radio about that and he answered something like “Well we have the skulls of several individuals so what about that? “ That’s actually a killer argument; to find several similar skulls with the same supposed severe and crippling deformity would be too improbable to consider. And yet, a few years later we can see on Wikipedia that the ridiculous is given serious consideration.

As is the various rebuttals of the competing hypotheses. Which I've covered in some detail above. I note how you avoided any mention of this. I wonder why?

Jayjay4547 wrote:Even an Aussie can be shouted down.

Which speaks volumes about YOUR ideological biases here, namely, whoever shouts the loudest on behalf of their ideology purportedly gets to dictate the truth. Whereas our position is that it is the DATA, not the loudest voices, that perform the relevant task of postulate validation. But is anyone really surprised to see a creationist present discourse in these terms?

Jayjay4547 wrote:Another one was Raymond Dart, who named Australopithecus. The great metropolitan cultures have tremendous clout

Ah, a fake appeal to the argumentum ad populum fallacy, which is fake, as I've just demonstrated above. Because what actually determines the validity of scientific postulates, contrary to your lies on the subject, is the REAL WORLD DATA.

Jayjay4547 wrote:and the bunch of posters here know that, it’s what warms their hearts.

No, what warms our hearts, JayJay, is HONEST PRESENTATION OF DATA. Something lacking from your posts, which constitute the REAL display of ideological bias here.

Jayjay4547 wrote:But it’s not the truth.

No, your fantasy fabrications aren't.

There you go Jayjay. Free education being offered to you on the internet. Make use of it to learn.

Thank you Cali.

I doubt that JayJay will take the slightest notice I am afraid. "You can take a horse to water...".

Indeed.

"You can lead a creationist to data, but you can't make him take notice of it, except to quote mine it".

Jayjay4547 wrote:You did a good thing there tolman, thanks.

tolman wrote:

Jayjay4547 wrote:For the record, the issue as I understand it is whether australopithecus defended themselves against predators using hand weapons, a couple of million years before they started knapping pebbles in the Oldowan culture. My basic argument is that their lack of sharp protruding canines is the smoking gun for that inference. And the reconstruction of a daytime encounter I was offering involved their striking with unworked pebbles used together with sharpened sticks as stoppers.

Your position is not merely that Australopithicus (and, it would seem, their ancestors for some time before) might have occasionally defended themselves in such a way, but that as a species they habitually did so for long enough that it had significant evolutionary effects.
Or, as your doppleganger might present it if an atheist had proposed your hypothesis, "by choosing to use weapons, they became masters of their own evolution".

Jayjay4547 wrote:I’m claiming that the defensive hand-weapon use inference conflicts with an origin narrative of self-creation, which is why it’s been discounted for nearly ninety years.

But your pet hypothesis is about as good a narrative of 'self-creation' as one could imagine.

You say that we literally grabbed our destiny in both hands and didn't let go.

For a hypothetical self-creation-obsessed-atheist biologist, what's not to like?

I get it that this doppelganger is an atheist mirror of myself who happens to reconstruct the australopith ecology the same way, but who builds it into a self-creation obsessed story-line.

No, you don't get it. Your doppelganger is someone precisely like you, with all your anti-atheist prejudices, but simply lacking your particular pet hypothesis.
Were some atheist to present your hypothesis simply as a suggested sequence of events, with no 'spin' whatsoever, your doppelganger could still accuse that atheist of pushing a 'self creation narrative' as easily as you accuse atheists in general and atheist biologists in particular.

The fact is that, whatever the reasons for your pet idea not being more widely shared amongst biologists, your suggested explanation (the allegation that biologists are keen on self-creation narratives and/or that they avoid insufficiently atheist explanations) simply won't wash, since your explanation even in the simplest form is that human ancestors developed defensive tool use in preference over their natural defences, and as a result of them doing that, there was a significant effect on the evolution of their bodies via natural processes.

In reality, it's pretty clear who around here is obsessing about self-creation-narratives.

Jayjay4547 wrote:What sort of objections do real atheists bring to the prospect that defensive weapon use changed our ancestors?

Biologists, atheists or otherwise, don't object to the idea that habitual use of various tools did have various effects on human evolution - indeed any detailed biological narratives of human evolution depend on such interactions.
However, there doesn't seem to be any real evidence that defensive weapon use was the driving force for tool use as a whole, while there are good arguments, frequently explained to you and as frequently ignored, why predator-defensive tool use, to the extent it existed, may have been more a passenger than a pilot.

Jayjay4547 wrote:How about taking a real “Skeptic”, Oldskeptic’s objection that he doesn’t see Thomas Edison in a 500cc-brain hominin. Then there has to have been a spark of realization sometime, an epiphany, when our ancestors grabbed our destiny as you say.

No.
Someone saying that species X seems likely to have lacked a particular level of mental functioning doesn't necessarily make any judgement on how sudden or gradual any subsequent changes may have been, or what the factors behind such changes were.

And I certainly wasn't saying our ancestors grabbed their destiny in any conscious sense.

I was merely pointing out that someone very like you could easily say that an atheist biologist was making such a claim if they dared to present your ideas as a hypothesis, that your hypothesis is as 'self creative' as any other, and that pretending that the reason for your hypothesis seemingly not being seriously talked about as a meaningful part of biological explanations is quite obviously not down to any kind of 'incompatibility with atheism'.

Jayjay4547 wrote:But you don’t need to live with the prospect that habitual use of weapons affected the human body plan (e.g. reduced canine protrusion and sharpness) before you notice that you are talking about coevolution and a situation where the weapons educated the ancestor, not the usual way we and Edison thought about tools.

The consistent picture from biologists clearly is that humans evolved with tools.

Jayjay4547 wrote:It would logically have been necessary for foraging hominins to have carried defensive weapons around with them and not as sleepwalkers but in wide awake understanding of their use- which they doubtless practiced endlessly.

That's simply an evidence-free assertion.

It's clear that tool-use for things like food gathering and processing (digging, cutting, breaking) provides good opportunities for daily, even hourly reinforcement, and safe skill development in the individual. It appears a much more plausible path for early tool use and an opportunity for evolution to select for better tool-users.

Jayjay4547 wrote:So they were attached to those objects, they were emblematic of a capacity to save the individual and offspring from ravening presences in the environment.

More hopeless fantasising from you.
That you have to create such

Jayjay4547 wrote:One could say of the coevolution of tools and our ancestors that at first, the living partners evolved more quickly and that the tools did the teaching. Or rather, Logos used tools to teach our ancestors about objects as symbols and used hyena to teach about the nervous system needed to guide weapons at high speed with decision, accuracy and force against animals supremely good at using their jaws in those ways.

Whatever you're taking, it's not working.

Jayjay4547 wrote:So I’m trying to argue that when you stop looking for Thomas Edison in the human origin narrative that narrative appears as a story of our ancestors being educated by the world.

But biology doesn't give 'genius' (never mind human genius) as an explanation for tool use.
It suggests tool use by ancient ancestors developing painfully slowly over millions of years, with all manner of evolutionary consequences, and with those consequences obviously feeding back into the ancestor's behaviour.

Jayjay4547 wrote:An atheist can live with that; I did for years as an atheist. But it doesn’t help to push the great chariot of atheism.

There is no 'great chariot of atheism'.

Some religious obsessives like to pretend that science is such a chariot, but that is only so in the sense that science explains reality without the need for anyone's deities or any other form of magic.

The reason some religious types have such a downer on science is that science presents a worldview which undermines juvenile religious arguments for deities having to exist. While many mature believers have no problem with that, many other believers lack arguments to justify their beliefs other than juvenile ones.
Additionally, the more psychologically insecure and emotionally infantile believers are drawn to black-and-white god-and-devil characterisations of the world, and are unable to accept that for a large number of atheists, what any particular believer believes is essentially irrelevant.
The biologists I know are no more likely to develop an evolutionary explanation as a counter to a religious creation myth than they are to develop one as a counter to nonsense ideas of ancient aliens.

tolman wrote:The biologists I know are no more likely to develop an evolutionary explanation as a counter to a religious creation myth than they are to develop one as a counter to nonsense ideas of ancient aliens.

In short, biologists, like all other scientists, pay attention to DATA instead of made up shit.

Which is why fans of made up shit have to misrepresent this entirely proper conduct on the part of biologists, in order to try and peddle the idea that NOT treating made up shit as fact, instead of being an entirely proper discoursive activity, purportedly emanates from an entirely fabricated "ideologically" based malice. It's more bullshit and lies to add to the pile of bullshit and lies being peddled about the natural world, a blatant hatchet job arising from the real ideologically based malice of pedlars of made up shit, directed against the people who study the natural world properly. The whole "atheist ideology" bullshit is a tissue of lies, deliberately erected to misrepresent people with working bullshit detectors, and duplicitously deployed to poison the well against those who use those working bullshit detectors properly. It's steaming hypocrisy and dishonesty on a cosmic scale from start to finish, and frankly, I'm becoming bored shitless with the continual peddling of lies about people like me, just because we don't genuflect before the masturbation fantasies of snake oil salesmen and assorted ideological stormtroopers who think the contents of their rectal passages dictate how reality behaves.

In short, if you can't be bothered addressing the DATA, including what we actually postulate, instead of your own made up shit versions thereof, don't bother wasting our time with your lies and made up shit. Everyone here has fucking had enough of made up shit and lies from supernaturalists, and it's about time they were all told, either show some fucking discoursive honesty here, or don't bother opening your fucking mouths.

Jayjay4547 wrote:

Anontheist wrote: What I've got so far from this thread:

Atheist ideology - description not provided - has influenced the scientific research - of individuals/institutions unnamed - and description of - by parties unresolved, bar the BBC - the genetic origins of homo sapiens as a species.

Atheist ideology is a set of beliefs about the world that make it seem natural to believe there is no God and almost impossible to imagine how there could be one.

It’s influenced the scientific research of Adrian Treves and Paul Palmqvist, here
leading them to conclude a masterly reconstruction of the ecology of hominins with maybe the most deeply misleading statement that could be made about hominins:

We propose that the adaptive solution to the higher predation pressure of the end Miocene and Pliocene was a social adaptation that preceded any elaboration of material culture.

It first influenced Darwin to claim in effect that men did the evolving towards human while women egged them on.

On this forum though, the influence of atheism on the human origin narrative is alive in its most naked form. For example, in Oldskeptic showing a pic of a human bite on an arm that has left a cruel bruise, to discount the point that humans share with hominins an incapacity to bite defensively.

Yep, that's some nasty bruise! Stop lying JayJay, not only can humans bite defensively they do bite defensively and offensively.

Teeth that can't penetrate flesh are fucking useless for an omnivore ... oh wait ...

I wonder if JayJay still has his original teeth.

Well, he seems determined to cling on to rotten ideas like grim death.

Oldskeptic wrote:




Yep, that's some nasty bruise! Stop lying JayJay, not only can humans bite defensively they do bite defensively and offensively.

When it comes to biting everything is relative. Here is what a chimp did to a person.



I'm pressed for time right now, will reply especially to Cali tomorrow DV