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

#3741  Postby Spearthrower » Jul 08, 2019 10:25 am

Jayjay4547 wrote:
I don’t know how I can help you Spearthrower, except by extending the undertaking you put in red above. If you OR ANY OTHER POSTER can post a pic of an Australopithecus with long sharp pointy canines I will give up posting here.


Bye then JJ.

https://australianmuseum.net.au/learn/s ... afarensis/

Australopithecus afarensis

Jaws and teeth

canine teeth were pointed and were longer than the other teeth. Canine size was intermediate between that of apes and humans. Like apes, males had much larger canines than females.
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: 24363
Age: 43
Male

Country: Thailand
Print view this post

Ads by Google


Re: How atheist ideology messed up the human origin story

#3742  Postby Spearthrower » Jul 08, 2019 10:45 am

Excerpt from a book entitled 'Men: Evolutionary and Life History' by this chap:

https://anthropology.yale.edu/people/richard-bribiescas

Richard Bribiescas is Professor of Anthropology, Ecology & Evolutionary Biology


Afarensis canine teeth were also very sexually dimorphic, with males having much larger canines than females. Moreover, afarensis males' canines were smaller than those of chimpanzees, but much larger than those of humans.


And of course, although it was conveniently ignored before (how very unusual it is that JJ keeps ignoring all the evidence I provide which contradicts his confident assertions):

http://www.rationalskepticism.org/creat ... l#p2703180

Spearthrower wrote:
Dental dimensions for mandibular canine crowns and roots
Image

Dental dimensions for maxillary canine crowns
Image


And this which was also ignored:

http://www.rationalskepticism.org/creat ... l#p2703172

Spearthrower wrote:
So let's take a look at an extract expressly about canine dimorphism in afarensis from William Kimbel, Director and Virginia M. Ullman Professor of Natural History and the Environment at the Institute of Human Origins.

...
Although little useful morphology remains on the A.L. 444-2 dentition, the new Hadar collection includes maxillary dental elements that amplify previous descriptions of A. afarensis dental morphology, especially that of the more diagnostic anterior teeth (White et al., 1981). Four adult maxillary canines have been added to the Hadar hominin sample as a result of the fieldwork. Two of these are fairly heavily worn (the teeth associated with the A.L. 444-2 and AL. 417-1d maxillae) but two isolated specimens (A.L. 487-1c and A.L. 763-1) are relatively unworn permitting comparative evaluation. Crown dimensions suggest that A.L. 487-1c is from a male individual (which is also indicated by the size of the associated lower canines, postcanine teeth and jaw fragments); morphologically it compares favourably with the canines from A.L. 333-2 (worn) and LH6 (relatively unworn). The A.L. 763-1 canine is smaller and is most likely from a female individual.




I am pretty sure that everyone's well aware of who's generating the smokescreen here.

But anyway, that's a by the by now, isn't it JJ as you go bye-bye.
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: 24363
Age: 43
Male

Country: Thailand
Print view this post

Re: How atheist ideology messed up the human origin story

#3743  Postby Svartalf » Jul 08, 2019 10:54 am

Hermit wrote:For crying out loud, this is the 3717th post in a discussion titled "How atheist ideology messed up the human origin story", and Jayjay4547 has yet to define what "atheist ideology" is.

Small wonder, if you ask me, for there is no such animal. Atheism is no more nor less than a lack of belief in a supernatural entity or, less commonly, a disbelief in one. Anything else an atheist believes or disbelieves in is not exclusive to atheists, a lack of belief in a guiding, creative force in evolution, for instance, is shared by most theists of the Holy Roman Catholic flavour that I am personally familiar with.

Atheist ideology is the denial of the Revealed Truth found in the Babble, how can you not have gathered that?
PC stands for Patronizing Cocksucker Randy Ping

Embrace the Dark Side, it needs a hug
User avatar
Svartalf
 
Posts: 1116
Age: 49
Male

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

Re: How atheist ideology messed up the human origin story

#3744  Postby Spearthrower » Jul 08, 2019 11:05 am

Jayjay4547 wrote:
I claimed that in Australopithecus genus the males didn’t have long sharp canines,...


Yes, you did. You were wrong as I've shown already.


Jayjay4547 wrote:... not that the males had canines no bigger than the females.


Untrue, in fact, this is exactly where you started.


Jayjay4547 wrote: Primates with fangs...


As I've just informed you, primates don't possess fangs JJ. You must be thinking about vampires or some other fantasy instead.


Jayjay4547 wrote: So, show me a pic of an Australopithecus strutting his fangs.


Are you really this stupid?

A picture of an 'australopithecus' doing anything would require a time machine.

Of course, it also contains your usual numptyism of expecting a picture of an entire genus, but I think it no longer needs explanation that you don't have a fucking clue what you're yammering about.


Jayjay4547 wrote: Hang, as Dart reported, Au. africanus couldn’t even open its jaw wide like a great ape can.


You might just benefit from getting your information from a more recent source than the 1930's.


Jayjay4547 wrote:You aren’t getting mileage out of my using “fangs” instead of “long sharp canines”.


Error. You aren't getting any mileage out of your diversionary babushka, not least because in your attempt to move the goalposts, you have moved them into fantasy land.


Jayjay4547 wrote: Fang is a well understood common word, meaning the same thing. Here are some googled definitions of “fang”


Well understood by non-specialists to mean something irrelevant to specialist biology?

Yes, this is a common sleight of hand lying Creationist assholes employ to gull idiots into believing they know what they're talking about.

Doesn't work with someone who does know what they're talking about.


Jayjay4547 wrote:“a large sharp tooth, especially a canine tooth of a dog or wolf”


A dog or a wolf... what you mean a carnivore that uses its teeth to kill its prey?

Wow, it's almost like I just explained exactly this to you, and it's almost as if this has fuck all to do with the preponderance of primates.


Jayjay4547 wrote:
“A fang is a long, sharp tooth that is used to do harm. Vampires have them, venomous snakes have them... you could have them, too, if your Halloween costume includes a set of pointy teeth. The word fang came into English from the Old Norse word fang, meaning “capture, grasp.”


:lol:

Vampires have them. JJ getting his information from fantasy land again.

Unfortunately, your 'source' doesn't seem to agree with you that primates have them.


Jayjay4547 wrote:“Fangs are the two long, sharp, upper teeth that some animals have”[/i]


Some animals: yes. Not all animals. Primates, for example, don't have fangs.


Jayjay4547 wrote:As to your “aid in the capture of live prey” , don’t forget my argument, from the kind of damage caused by primate biting,...


Oh I haven't forgotten your argument, JJ, which is why I am laughing as you try yet another scam. Your argument is 'defensive biting' not 'capture of prey' so stop trying to blag JJ as it's just cementing your status as a bullshit artist.


Jayjay4547 wrote: that unlike in obligatory meat eaters, primate biting often is defensive;...


Ergo you have completely contradicted yourself in a single sentence as usual; fangs are used to capture live prey, not 'defensively bite'. As usual, you try the gaslighting approach and fail because your sleight of hand is transparent.


Jayjay4547 wrote: it is meant to punish,...


You really are stupendously thick, aren't you?


Jayjay4547 wrote:
"Can you imagine going into the jungle, grabbing a monkey out of a tree and taking him home? He'd rip your face off — as he should, as he should," said Lynn Cuny, founder and chief executive of a sanctuary, Wildlife Rescue & Rehabilitation Inc. in Kendalia, Texas....


Yes, I can. In fact, I've done exactly that many times. Albeit not 'home', but to an animal rescue and rehabilitation centre. In all the time I've been doing it, and between the dozens of people I know working permanently rescuing monkeys, I have never, never, encountered anyone who had their face ripped off by handling monkeys. Perhaps the good lady is somewhat removed from the reality of handling animals being a CEO? Any which way, her idea is pure fantasy. There are basically no monkey species which could rip your face off with their hands or with their teeth.


Jayjay4547 wrote:Dr. Stephen Zawistowski, executive vice president & science adviser for the ASPCA in New York..... Many pet monkey owners will have the animal's teeth removed so they don't bite off their fingers, he said.”


Essentially no monkey species can bite off human fingers; they simply lack the biting force. Further, even engaging in this fiction, you wouldn't use 'fangs' to bite through bone, JJ - I already explained this to you before. Fangs are thin and sharp: biting through bone would break them. Lions don't use their canines to chomp through bone. It's like you are immune to learning anything and just want to decree your manifest ignorance supersedes reality.


Jayjay4547 wrote:Bless Lynn Cuny, she used almost my own words.


I have no doubt that she either personally has in fact gone out and grabbed a monkey to take to the centre, or at least has employed other people to do it. She might well be offering a warning to fucking idiots not to go grabbing at monkeys and thereby employing hyperbole to embed the warning, bless her, but the content of her claims is simply untrue. It's something I personally do several times a year, and I have dozens of friends who do this day in day out. Sure, they'll get bitten every now and then, but they're monkeys, not crocodiles, i.e. antiseptic and a plaster, not reconstructive surgery.
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: 24363
Age: 43
Male

Country: Thailand
Print view this post

Re: How atheist ideology messed up the human origin story

#3745  Postby Spearthrower » Jul 08, 2019 11:23 am

2016 was the last time I got bitten by a monkey. It bit me on the foot just below the talus.

The monkey in question looked something like this:

Image

As in, that's exactly what its face looked like as it bit me.

It broke the skin. There was a puncture of about 3mm diameter, and a small scratch from abrasion as it pulled away. The wound was completely unnoticeable within a week.

I would hazard a guess I've been bitten (properly, not playfully) at least a dozen times by monkeys over the years, and none of those bites have even required a single stitch.

Reality, a place Creationists fear to tread.
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: 24363
Age: 43
Male

Country: Thailand
Print view this post

Re: How atheist ideology messed up the human origin story

#3746  Postby Spearthrower » Jul 08, 2019 5:13 pm

YEARBOOK OF PHYSICAL ANTHROPOLOGY

Boaz wrote:TABLE 2. A nonexhaustive list of plesiomorphic or primitive characters of A. afarensis'

Occipitomarginal sinus
Shallow mandibular fossa
Postglenoid process anterior to tympanic
Extensively pneumatized temporal squama
Flat shallow palate
Pronounced subnasal prognathism
Weak flexion of cranial base
Lateral concavity of nuchal plane
Posterior temporalis larger than anterior
Temporal lines diverge below lambda
Weak articular eminence
Foramen magnum anterior to tympanic tips
M3-temporomandibular joint distance long
Compound temporonuchal crest
Asterionic notch present
Tubular tympanic
Sagittally oriented petrous temporals
Asymmetric P3 outline
Large relative canine size
Canines project in wear
Mesial and distal contact facets on C-
Low masseteric origin
Canine jugum separate from margin of nasal aperture
Canine jugum prominent
Steeply inclined nuchal plane
Medially inflected mastoid processes
Posterior origin of zygomatic arch
Anterior mandibular corpus receding bulbous partly lateral to nasal aperture margins
Maxillary posterior tooth row convergence
Transverse buttress from canine juga to zygomatic arch
Long pedal phalanges
Curved proximal pedal phalanges



Dentition

Grine (1985) discerned four characters of the deciduous dentition that he considered unique to the Hadar and Laetoli samples, which he assigned to one species, A. afarensis. The deciduous canine in this group has a distal apical edge that is elongated and more steeply inclined than in other australopithecines. Three distinguishing characters give a “nonmolariform” aspect to the A. afarensis deciduous molar dentition: the dml (also termed dp3) has a thin distal marginal ridge, the dml and dm2 (also termed dp4) have strongly beveled lingual surfaces on their protocones (mesiolingual cusps), and the dm2 has a protoconid (mesiobuccal cusp) set strongly mesiad of the level of the metaconid (mesiolingual cusp). Johanson (198513) discussed five traits of the adult dentition that have proven “most diagnostic” for A. afarensis. The canines were generally large, both in absolute dimensions compared to other hominid samples and relative to the teeth in the same jaw.



https://royalsocietypublishing.org/doi/ ... .2010.0064

Yohannes Haile-Selassie wrote:Image

Dental remains from Woranso-Mille. (a) Occlusal (top row) and mesial (bottom row) views of ARI-VP-3/80g (LM2), ARI-VP-1/90 (LM3), ARI-VP-3/80d (LM2) and ARI-VP-1/462 (LM1). These molars show the lingual slope on upper and buccal slope on lower molars like Au. anamensis. (b) MSD-VP-5/50, ARI-VP-3/80a and ARI-VP-2/95, P3s from the Woranso-Mille showing variation in P3 occlusal crown morphology. (c) Comparison of lower deciduous canine root length relative to crown height. KNM-KP 34 725 (Au. anamensis), ARI-VP-1/190 (Woranso-Mille) and A.L. 333-35 (Au. afarensis). Like Au. anamensis, the Woranso-Mille specimen has longer root relative to the crown height compared with Au. afarensis. Image of the Au. anamensis specimen was obtained from Carol Ward and A.L. 333-35 was made from cast.



John Hawks wrote:Early hominins do not have the same extent of canine size dimorphism as other hominoids, but the males do tend to have larger canines than females. In early hominins like A. afarensis, this dimorphism is marked in both projection and diameter of the canines, and the lower third premolars also vary in shape and orientation between males and females. In later hominins, who accentuate the large chewing teeth, the canines still have some size dimorphism in their diameters, but this loses its utility in the robust australopithecines.
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: 24363
Age: 43
Male

Country: Thailand
Print view this post

Re: How atheist ideology messed up the human origin story

#3747  Postby Jayjay4547 » Jul 09, 2019 5:32 am

Fenrir wrote: Um JJ, the claim (yours as it happens) is that there is some relationship between large canines (i.e their absence) and offensive weapon use (or manual dexterity per se).

A claim which remains without evidence.

No, continually pointing out that the one lineage which has developed the fine motor skills that provide excellent manual dexterity also happens to have relatively small canines doesn't help you. That's a pointless distraction. Birds don't have external ears, that does not suggest the absence of external ears predisposes an animal to flight.


Well that’s exactly the inference your countryman Raymond Dart drew from the canines of the Taung child, on the sold grounds that a bipedal primate that size would have been hopelessly vulnerable in the context of the African savanna unless it used kinetic hand weapons. And he has never been contradicted that I know of, except that the scientists telling the origin story seem to have come to agree that weapon use wasn’t very important. I’m trying to argue that the weapon use was more important than “fine motor control”, the high consequentiality of using the best object in the west way stablished a symbiosis-like relationship with objects. At the same time relieving the species from skull constraints that go with males having to defend the troop using their teeth.

Fenrir wrote: You are essentially claiming a hominid picked up a rock and it's canines fell out but this change was externally imposed and somehow had nothing to do with the hominid itself?


Thanks for putting it so well, apart from that misdirection about canines “falling out”. Of course, the ancestor of the Taung child had to have a highly particular form and context, as shown by the very similar savanna chimps who yet haven't locked into the same peculiar adaptation.
User avatar
Jayjay4547
THREAD STARTER
 
Name: Jonathan
Posts: 1060
Male

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

Ads by Google


Re: How atheist ideology messed up the human origin story

#3748  Postby Cito di Pense » Jul 09, 2019 5:38 am

Jayjay4547 wrote:I’m trying to argue...


That's what you think. You have not the slightest notion how to construct a scientific argument. You don't even like science. According to you, it's hampered by atheist ideology. You should have a look at astrophysics and cosmology if you don't understand what I'm saying. Your problem is that you know astrophysics deals in facts, and you know you'll get those facts wrong if you try, but somehow, you don't believe that biology deals in facts, or you wouldn't emit garbage like "symbiotic-like" in reference to the use of tools, using your private definition of symbiosis. Your claim is that the use of kinetic weapons was required for the survival of australopithecines, that the clade of hominids would have vanished without it. You have asserted this, but that's not an argument.

You've been shown wrong about australopithecine canines, and following on your promise to leave the forum under those circumstances, you should be home, but you're not. A roomful of boys and dangerous toys still leaves you thirsty and hot.

Oh, and the fangs. What's happened to the fangs, all of a sudden? I chews to engage with you, and this is the fangs I get.
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: 28464
Age: 22
Male

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

Re: How atheist ideology messed up the human origin story

#3749  Postby Fenrir » Jul 09, 2019 6:19 am

Jayjay4547 wrote:
Fenrir wrote: Um JJ, the claim (yours as it happens) is that there is some relationship between large canines (i.e their absence) and offensive weapon use (or manual dexterity per se).

A claim which remains without evidence.

No, continually pointing out that the one lineage which has developed the fine motor skills that provide excellent manual dexterity also happens to have relatively small canines doesn't help you. That's a pointless distraction. Birds don't have external ears, that does not suggest the absence of external ears predisposes an animal to flight.


Well that’s exactly the inference your countryman Raymond Dart drew from the canines of the Taung child, on the sold grounds that a bipedal primate that size would have been hopelessly vulnerable in the context of the African savanna unless it used kinetic hand weapons. And he has never been contradicted that I know of, except that the scientists telling the origin story seem to have come to agree that weapon use wasn’t very important. I’m trying to argue that the weapon use was more important than “fine motor control”, the high consequentiality of using the best object in the west way stablished a symbiosis-like relationship with objects. At the same time relieving the species from skull constraints that go with males having to defend the troop using their teeth.

Fenrir wrote: You are essentially claiming a hominid picked up a rock and it's canines fell out but this change was externally imposed and somehow had nothing to do with the hominid itself?


Thanks for putting it so well, apart from that misdirection about canines “falling out”. Of course, the ancestor of the Taung child had to have a highly particular form and context, as shown by the very similar savanna chimps who yet haven't locked into the same peculiar adaptation.


A claim which remains without evidence.

Gunna get round to addressing that sometime? Ever?
Religion: it only fails when you test it.-Thunderf00t.
User avatar
Fenrir
 
Posts: 3359
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

#3750  Postby Spearthrower » Jul 09, 2019 6:46 am

Jayjay4547 wrote:And he has never been contradicted that I know of,...


The highlighted part is, of course, the key to explaining this.

Especially as I already cited half a dozen instances of Dart's claims being contradicted throughout the 60's and 70's.

If you refuse to acknowledge facts, then it may be sort of true that you don't know it, but it doesn't then stand to reason that those facts don't exist for other people.

Not that I am really sure why you're still here JJ. Aren't you supposed to have left already through some kind of combination of public embarrassment and sense of integrity?
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: 24363
Age: 43
Male

Country: Thailand
Print view this post

Re: How atheist ideology messed up the human origin story

#3751  Postby Spearthrower » Jul 09, 2019 6:48 am

Jayjay4547 wrote:
Thanks for putting it so well, apart from that misdirection about canines “falling out”. Of course, the ancestor of the Taung child had to have a highly particular form and context, as shown by the very similar savanna chimps who yet haven't locked into the same peculiar adaptation.


You simply do not understand what evolution entails, do you JJ? It's impressive how many different ways you can find to evidence the same basic point.

Of course, plumbing this would also inevitably lead to the destruction of your creator-led biome nonsense too; a claim that can explain mutually contradictory facts is not an explanation at all.
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: 24363
Age: 43
Male

Country: Thailand
Print view this post

Re: How atheist ideology messed up the human origin story

#3752  Postby theropod » Jul 09, 2019 5:02 pm



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

#3753  Postby Coastal » Jul 09, 2019 10:17 pm

This thread is this exchange in a different format.

User avatar
Coastal
 
Posts: 655
Age: 43
Male

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

Re: How atheist ideology messed up the human origin story

#3754  Postby Jayjay4547 » Jul 11, 2019 6:09 am

Cito di Pense wrote:
Jayjay4547 wrote:I’m trying to argue...


That's what you think. You have not the slightest notion how to construct a scientific argument.


Well are you Cito, showing how to construct a scientific argument? You don’t even cite the point I was arguing.

Cito di Pense wrote: You don't even like science. According to you, it's hampered by atheist ideology.


Actually I love science. For example I have huge admiration for field scientists like the primatologists who have reported on their work at Morema, Gumba and the Tai national park and I greedily pick up what they report. And you can’t have missed my emotional involvement with Dart. But that doesn’t mean I have to be credulous about the narrative of human origins built up in the name of science, that is caricatured on this forum.

Science could only benefit from the narrative of human origins in the name of science, being freed from the effect of atheist ideology. Most broadly, the prestige of science is damaged by people like you and Spearthrower talking nonsense in the name of science. More narrowly, the narrative of human origins would be helped by focusing on what was distinctive about our ancestors including the role of predator avoidance by defensive use of kinetic hand weapons as opposed to biting.

Ratskep posters here are providing about the worst possible advertisement for science.

Cito di Pense wrote: You should have a look at astrophysics and cosmology if you don't understand what I'm saying. Your problem is that you know astrophysics deals in facts, and you know you'll get those facts wrong if you try, but somehow, you don't believe that biology deals in facts, or you wouldn't emit garbage like "symbiotic-like" in reference to the use of tools, using your private definition of symbiosis.


Working backwards through that, Google describes symbiosis as interaction between two different organisms living in close physical association, typically to the advantage of both [also] a mutually beneficial relationship between different people or groups So it’s used also outside of biology and it’s a common term. And by the way it isn’t a “fact” as you put it, symbiosis is a possible mode of relationship. And I have qualified the relationship between mankind and objects, as “symbiosis LIKE”. That is just a useful way of looking at our species in relation to objects. For example, it helps to address our current uneasiness about that symbiosis, expressed in “I am Mother” and “Westworld”

Then, about astrophysics and “facts”; astrophysics is partly way above the layman’s head. But when it comes to human origins, take for example Spearthrower’s account, that he was bitten by a monkey (with pic of a monkey with fangs), to support the notion that monkeys cant bite seriously, well that’s not over my head. I have my own instinctive caution about monkeys and when I look for support on the internet, I find it in quantity; for example from the American Humane society.

Cito di Pense wrote: Your claim is that the use of kinetic weapons was required for the survival of australopithecines, that the clade of hominids would have vanished without it. You have asserted this, but that's not an argument.


At least, get my claim right. I say that the lack of long sharp canines (ie fangs) in Australopithecus males, shows that they were fully adapted into the use of kinetic hand weapons, as alternative to biting. I’m not saying “they would have vanished without it”, I’m saying they would never have existed in the first place, if they hadn’t used hand weapons. It’s a bit like someone saying that a particular orchid shows that there must exist a moth wih a very long probosces to pollinate it. In the case of Australopithecus, that INFERENCE was drawn by Dart almost 90 years ago, and has never been contradicted.

Cito di Pense wrote: You've been shown wrong about australopithecine canines, and following on your promise to leave the forum under those circumstances, you should be home, but you're not. A roomful of boys and dangerous toys still leaves you thirsty and hot.


A thing that scares me is that you can be so credulous as to believe that the pics Spearthrower put up, constitute evidence that Australopithecus males had long sharp canines, which is what I said, would upset my apple cart. Show me a picture of an Australopithecus genus skull, with long sharp canines. Hang it Cito, I provided you with a screen shot from Google, of what primates with “fangs” look like. And please note, primates (especially alpha males) display those fangs precisely for their visual effect. If a human observer isn’t impressed by that “yawn” then they aren’t fangs.

Cito di Pense wrote: Oh, and the fangs. What's happened to the fangs, all of a sudden?


Fangs are still here Cito, in other primates and in cultural constructions e.g. vampires. Here is a sequence showing the loss of fangs from Ardipithecus, through Australopithecus to its exploitation in modern mankind. I added a pic of a male chimp skull, to show the contrast in an animal that didn't acquire speech.
Ardi_Au_Homo_Chimp.jpg
Ardi_Au_Homo_Chimp.jpg (18.19 KiB) Viewed 250 times
User avatar
Jayjay4547
THREAD STARTER
 
Name: Jonathan
Posts: 1060
Male

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

Re: How atheist ideology messed up the human origin story

#3755  Postby Cito di Pense » Jul 11, 2019 6:17 am

Jayjay4547 wrote:
Cito di Pense wrote:
Jayjay4547 wrote:I’m trying to argue...


That's what you think. You have not the slightest notion how to construct a scientific argument.


Well are you Cito, showing how to construct a scientific argument? You don’t even cite the point I was arguing.


Is that because you know how to construct a scientific argument, JJ? I don't give you the time of day because I don't think you'd know what to do with it. Pearls. Swine. You know the drill.

Jayjay4547 wrote:Then, about astrophysics and “facts”; astrophysics is partly way above the layman’s head.


That's a fact, isn't it, JJ? Astrophysics is mostly above the head of someone like you, but then, so is paleontology. Do you think the universe was constructed for the layman to understand? Yes? Then that's an assumption of yours you haven't demonstrated to be a fact.

Jayjay4547 wrote:
A thing that scares me is that you can be so credulous as to believe that the pics Spearthrower put up, constitute evidence that Australopithecus males had long sharp canines, which is what I said, would upset my apple cart.


It's most irrelevant that you're scared, JJ. That's just some language you inserted to try to insult someone with whom you disagree. Your bigotry is showing, so fuck off with that.

Jayjay4547 wrote:And by the way it isn’t a “fact” as you put it, symbiosis is a possible mode of relationship. And I have qualified the relationship between mankind and objects, as “symbiosis LIKE”. That is just a useful way of looking at our species in relation to objects. For example, it helps to address our current uneasiness about that symbiosis, expressed in “I am Mother” and “Westworld”


Fuck possibility, JJ, because that is not about facts. Really, JJ, just fuck off with possibility. And fuck off with all your children's possibility, too. And that of your uncles, and that of your pals in BKA.

Jayjay4547 wrote:
Fangs are still here Cito, in other primates and in cultural constructions e.g. vampires.


And the kinetic weapons? Where are those? What about the vampires? Do they need kinetic weapons, or do they need arguments like you're making? Fuck off, entirely, with all the cultural constructions.

Jayjay4547 wrote:Here is a sequence showing the loss of fangs from Ardipithecus, through Australopithecus to its exploitation in modern mankind.


So you say, JJ. Fuck off with what you think you've shown by one clumsy sentence and some photos you selected out of hundreds, in none of which you can show you know which components are fossils. Your dishonesty in Jebus' name knows no bounds.

Jayjay4547 wrote:If a human observer isn’t impressed by that “yawn” then they aren’t fangs.


I don't give a fuck what you or anyone else is 'impressed' by. Fuck off with impressionability. Your babushka of 'fangs' is an asshole-grade ruse from the word "Go". Your protest is idiotic, but I can't determine why that is. You're offering it either stupidly or maliciously. I'm inclined to conclude it's a little of both.

Jayjay4547 wrote:
At least, get my claim right. I say that the lack of long sharp canines (ie fangs) in Australopithecus males, shows that they were fully adapted into the use of kinetic hand weapons, as alternative to biting.


I don't care about getting your claim right until you show it's worth anything besides evidence of your arrogance and bigotry. I don't care about what you say, JJ. Fuck off with trying to assert what reality entails. And fuck off with purporting to be confronting the evidence until you can get beyond blagging about what a series of photographs looks like to you.

The message is still for you to fuck off with your complaints about atheist ideology, which is really the only complaint you make.

Jayjay4547 wrote:
Working backwards through that, Google describes symbiosis as interaction between two different organisms living in close physical association, typically to the advantage of both [also] a mutually beneficial relationship between different people or groups So it’s used also outside of biology and it’s a common term.


If you think that indicates that you know how terminology is accurately deployed to describe relations between organisms and inanimate objects, you're just fucking nuts, JJ.
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: 28464
Age: 22
Male

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

Ads by Google


Re: How atheist ideology messed up the human origin story

#3756  Postby Spearthrower » Jul 11, 2019 10:09 am

Jayjay4547 wrote:
Actually I love science.


This thread stands in contradiction to that claim.

In reality, you love apologetics and want science to be a branch of it.


Jayjay4547 wrote:For example I have huge admiration for field scientists like the primatologists who have reported on their work at Morema, Gumba and the Tai national park and I greedily pick up what they report.


Field scientists like those I cited above specifying the defining characteristics of the afarensis fossils they found?

Funny way of showing your admiration: completely ignoring them while asserting they're wrong.


Jayjay4547 wrote: And you can’t have missed my emotional involvement with Dart.


You don't have an emotional involvement with Dart, JJ. He died before you even knew he existed. You may have an infatuation with him based on cherrypicking at his claims from the 1930's, but obsessions aren't relationships.


Jayjay4547 wrote:But that doesn’t mean I have to be credulous about the narrative of human origins built up in the name of science, that is caricatured on this forum.


The only caricature of human origins on this forum is from you.


Jayjay4547 wrote:Science could only benefit from the narrative of human origins in the name of science, being freed from the effect of atheist ideology.


You're feverish again. You should get this checked out.


Jayjay4547 wrote:Most broadly, the prestige of science is damaged by people like you and Spearthrower talking nonsense in the name of science.


What a load of self-serving guff. You're the guy proclaiming what science ought to be, how it needs to be stripped of an ideology only you can see and which is factually not relevant to science. You're the guy who keeps caricaturing science in such a way as to show you don't have the faintest idea what science entails. You're the guy who's so hostile to science because it doesn't genuflect to your creation myth, that you invest vast amounts of time and resources into arguing with a group of people you hate about how science should conform to Creationist mythology.

You don't get to pretend you're on the side of science when you're manifestly hostile to it. You don't get to make declarations about what would be good for science when, were we to follow your methodology, science would cease to function.


Jayjay4547 wrote:More narrowly, the narrative of human origins would be helped by focusing on what was distinctive about our ancestors including the role of predator avoidance by defensive use of kinetic hand weapons as opposed to biting.


More importantly, you can't bear that science doesn't provide room for self-declared experts like you to assert their way to legitimacy, which is why you need science to be something other than it is.


Jayjay4547 wrote:Ratskep posters here are providing about the worst possible advertisement for science.


You're a ratskep poster, and you do indeed make the worst possible advertisements for science, but in most nations there are trading standards forbidding fraudulent claims for this exact reason.


Jayjay4547 wrote:
Working backwards through that, Google...


Google... :doh:


Jayjay4547 wrote:describes symbiosis as interaction between two different organisms living in close physical association, typically to the advantage of both [also] a mutually beneficial relationship between different people or groups So it’s used also outside of biology and it’s a common term. And by the way it isn’t a “fact” as you put it, symbiosis is a possible mode of relationship. And I have qualified the relationship between mankind and objects, as “symbiosis LIKE”. That is just a useful way of looking at our species in relation to objects. For example, it helps to address our current uneasiness about that symbiosis, expressed in “I am Mother” and “Westworld”


So the definition you cite contradicts you completely, perfectly corroborates what I've taught you, but you're still right because you're right because you're right because you're right because you're right because you're right because you're right because you're right because you're right because you're right because you're right because you're right because you're right because you're right because you're right because you're right because you're right because you're right because you're right because you're right because you're right because you're right.

There's no 'like', capitals or no, as your usage of the word is erroneous, and there is nothing analogous between two species co-evolving and the creation of tools to overcome limited problems.

As usual, you refuse to engage in any substance so that you can use your conjured ignorance as a smokescreen to continue employing the nonsensical claim which has been shown so thoroughly flawed as to be meaningless.


Jayjay4547 wrote:Then, about astrophysics and “facts”; astrophysics is partly way above the layman’s head.


It's above your head because you're not prepared to put the time and effort into learning the stuff you don't know. That's why palaeoanthropology is also above your head too.


Jayjay4547 wrote: But when it comes to human origins, take for example Spearthrower’s account, that he was bitten by a monkey (with pic of a monkey with fangs), to support the notion that monkeys cant bite seriously, well that’s not over my head.


And yet the sentence you offer in response shows absolutely no comprehension whatsoever. Monkeys can bite seriously, JJ. They can't bite faces off JJ.


Jayjay4547 wrote: I have my own instinctive caution about monkeys...


:)

Here we go again: your feelies are all the evidence we're supposed to need to take your claims seriously, because towering egos are like that.


Jayjay4547 wrote: and when I look for support on the internet, I find it in quantity;


Yes, I've already talked about your predilection for cherry-picking. Part of that support you went looking for and proudly cited also included vampires JJ. That's how good your methodology is.


Jayjay4547 wrote:
At least, get my claim right. I say that the lack of long sharp canines (ie fangs) in Australopithecus males, shows that they were fully adapted into the use of kinetic hand weapons, as alternative to biting.


And as I've already educated you: this is wrong assumptions and wrong conclusions: factually wrong.


Jayjay4547 wrote:I’m not saying “they would have vanished without it”, I’m saying they would never have existed in the first place, if they hadn’t used hand weapons.


And all the evidence which contradicts this half-baked idea is simply ignored.


Jayjay4547 wrote:It’s a bit like someone saying that a particular orchid shows that there must exist a moth wih a very long probosces to pollinate it.


Well no, it's not like that at all because orchids need to be pollinated, so an orchid necessitates a pollinator. However, a lack of canine teeth does not necessitate hand-held weapons, nor does the possession of hand-held weapons obviate canines. That remains an assertion on your part that you haven't even tried to establish as being grounded in reality.


Jayjay4547 wrote:In the case of Australopithecus, that INFERENCE was drawn by Dart almost 90 years ago, and has never been contradicted.


Why do you need to lie, JJ?

The inference wasn't drawn by Dart, and it was contradicted routinely from the 60's onwards.

I've already shown you evidence for both of those, yet here you are once again lying to people. I am past the stage of calling your posts lies now. It's you - you are a compulsive liar.


Jayjay4547 wrote:A thing that scares me is that you can be so credulous as to believe that the pics Spearthrower put up, constitute evidence that Australopithecus males had long sharp canines,...


The thing that scares you is the numerous sources to the scientific literature I have shared with show you are confidently blurting out the wrong end of your digestive process.

Your cognitive bias might make you ignore the sources I shared, but you can't seriously expect other people to join you in ignoring the peer-reviewed scientific literature which directly contradicts your willfully obtuse assertions.

http://www.rationalskepticism.org/creat ... l#p2704555

http://www.rationalskepticism.org/creat ... l#p2704556

I've presented perhaps two dozen sources now over the last 50 pages showing that your assertion is wrong, and the only thing you've ever brought to the table is a single word from a single paragraph from a single synopsis for dummies.

That shows what's really happening here, JJ - your attempt to spin yourself as the noble hero assailed on all sides by inquity notwithstanding.



Jayjay4547 wrote: which is what I said, would upset my apple cart.


Your apple cart has been thoroughly ransacked, your apples turned into sauce served up with some pork roasted on an open fire fueled by the wood of the long redundant and demolished cart.


Jayjay4547 wrote:Show me a picture of an Australopithecus genus skull, with long sharp canines.


SHOW ME A SKULL! He demands, OF A GENUS, he blurts unthinkingly, OF AN ANIMAL DEAD FOR MILLIONS OF YEARS, he expects in contradiction of reality.

Now a fossil cranium of an Austalopithecus afarensis complete with sharp canines, well that's already been shown. Not just a picture either, but several, and not just pictures but peer-reviewed scientific articles listing the defining characteristics of A. afarensis. :roll:

Perhaps if you can't find any integrity, JJ, the mods might be asked to help you locate it?


Jayjay4547 wrote: Hang it Cito, I provided you with a screen shot from Google, of what primates with “fangs” look like.


No you didn't JJ on account of that not actually being possible.


Jayjay4547 wrote:And please note, primates (especially alpha males) display those fangs precisely for their visual effect. If a human observer isn’t impressed by that “yawn” then they aren’t fangs.


They don't have fangs JJ. They might have long sharp canines, but they don't have fangs. And they might well have long sharp canines for visual effect (which is what I told you, and is contradictory to your previous arguments) but that visual effect is on the other male members of their species, JJ. And whether a human observer is impressed or not that doesn't make them fangs.

Again, the point about nonsensical idiosyncrasies is that you can have them, you just can't expect others to treat them as facts.

Jayjay4547 wrote:
Fangs are still here Cito, in other primates and in cultural constructions e.g. vampires.


Factually, primates don't have fangs as you've already been educated.


Jayjay4547 wrote:Here is a sequence showing the loss of fangs from Ardipithecus,...


OOOH! LOOKEEE FOLKS! A new babushka! :)

JJ obviously has noted that the citations about about A. afarensis contradict his numerous claims, so now he's waddled back a few million years to make some new claims!


Jayjay4547 wrote: through Australopithecus to its exploitation in modern mankind. I added a pic of a male chimp skull, to show the contrast in an animal that didn't acquire speech.


Wut? Toke, toke pass chap.

As usual, what you've shared is indicative only of your feeble grasp of the topic matter. A rambling assortment of drawings of a reconstruction, replica models bearing little resemblance to any fossil, an untreated fossil lacking nearly all its dentition, and 2 essentialized replica models.


It's almost as if you have absolutely no fucking clue what you're talking about.
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: 24363
Age: 43
Male

Country: Thailand
Print view this post

Re: How atheist ideology messed up the human origin story

#3757  Postby Spearthrower » Jul 11, 2019 10:15 am

But when it comes to human origins, take for example Spearthrower’s account, that he was bitten by a monkey (with pic of a monkey with fangs), to support the notion


Here JJ shows that he has read post #3745 where I talked about being bitten by a monkey and shared the picture.

http://www.rationalskepticism.org/creat ... l#p2704560

However, to have arrived at post #3745, it only stands to reason that JJ must have seen posts #3741 and #3742 which include numerous citations from credible scientific literature exemplifying, beyond any reasonable doubt, that his claims about afarensis canines are false.

http://www.rationalskepticism.org/creat ... l#p2704555

http://www.rationalskepticism.org/creat ... l#p2704556

And right after #3745?

http://www.rationalskepticism.org/creat ... l#p2704633

Yes, #3746 presents another 4 legitimate scientific sources directly contradicting JJ's evidenceless but much repeated assertion.

So does he acknowledge his error?

Does he fuck. He repeats it instead, as if we're supposed to continue believing him even when he has been shown wrong. It's not just 'wrong' any more though, is it? It's lying.

Remember that dear reader when next JJ decides to wax lyrical about his deep love and admiration for science, and how I'm doing science a disservice.
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: 24363
Age: 43
Male

Country: Thailand
Print view this post

Re: How atheist ideology messed up the human origin story

#3758  Postby Sendraks » Jul 11, 2019 12:28 pm

Jayjay4547 wrote:Actually I love science.


No, no you don't. To love something you have to understand it and you do not understand science. What you have affection for is any of the findings of science that you are able to fit into your increasingly tortured nonsense.
"One of the great tragedies of mankind is that morality has been hijacked by religion." - Arthur C Clarke

"'Science doesn't know everything' - Well science knows it doesn't know everything, otherwise it'd stop" - Dara O'Brian
User avatar
Sendraks
 
Name: D-Money Jr
Posts: 15139
Age: 103
Male

Country: England
Print view this post

Re: How atheist ideology messed up the human origin story

#3759  Postby Jayjay4547 » Jul 12, 2019 8:02 am

Jayjay4547 wrote: Then please explain the striking differences between these skulls of a male (plant eating) gorilla and Australopithecus.

Image
Image

Spearthrower wrote: Easy. The gorilla skull is from a male, the australopithecus is a female.


Jayjay4547 wrote:
Spearthrower wrote:
Jayjay4547 wrote:Post a pic of a male Australopithecus skull with canines like a male gorilla's.


Why does it need to have 'canines like a male gorilla', JJ?/It's not a gorilla.

Well, you flatly declared that the australopithecus skull (with short blunt canines)I posted was of a female. And you objected to my contrasting a male gorilla skull (with canines) with this “female”.

On what grounds did you claim that this skull was of a female?


Spearthrower wrote: Umm... because it IS a female, JJ. :what:


Jayjay4547 wrote: Because you say so, then.


Spearthrower wrote:No... because it IS so.

Its amazing how your hubris wont even let you ask the natural question here./The simple fact is that you know fuck all as usual. You weren't even aware that the composite replica you were waving around was a female./I suppose that ignorance in this case is superior to mendacity.


Spearthrower wrote:
Jayjay4547 wrote:
Because you say so, then.


No... because it IS so.

Its amazing how your hubris wont even let you ask the natural question here.

The simple fact is that you know fuck all as usual. You weren't even aware that the composite replica you were waving around was a female./I suppose that ignorance in this case is superior to mendacity.


Jayjay4547 wrote: Again, because you say so.


Spearthrower wrote: Again, it's not because I say so, it's because it is so. If I were to say otherwise, I'd be just as wrong as you.


Jayjay4547 wrote:Look, I can believe that an anatomist (or a dentist) might be able to demonstrate the difference between male and female dentition in Australopithecus but you sure haven’t demonstrated it.


Spearthrower wrote: I didn't claim to have demonstrated it: there is no need for me to demonstrate it - it's factually so.


Spearthrower wrote:
Jayjay4547 wrote:
Here is your what you said about A. afarensis cranial morphology in technical terms details:

Spearthrower wrote:...as I told you right away, I knew it was meant to be a female skull because I know what fossils it's based on, and I know the morphological characteristics of those fossils (from many individuals, I might add) which went into the composite.

So a serious discussion, with someone equipped to engage in this topic would involve discussions about dimensions of various morphological features of those fossils. No one serious would be offering up a poorly wrought composite replica, though.

So given how little you know, and given that you've shown how little you know, am I supposed to have a discussion with you about those features? You apparently haven't even seen the fossils in question, and apparently wouldn't even know what you're looking at if I served them up to you on a platter.

But go on then, tell me why I would be wrong (actually, it's not me, but the original publishing scientists) in describing it as a female given the small mastoid process, the biconvex prognathism of the maxilliary subnasal surface, the small mediolateral diameter of the manidbular condyle, the occipital condyle's articular surface, the narrow interorbital block, the very narrow canine breadth, the narrow extramolar sulcus, the steep inclination of posteroinferior facing nuchal plane, the proximity of the temporal lines to the superior nuchal lines, the low frontal squama saggital convexity, and the apparent scaling of occipital squama. I am sure someone who specializes in afarensis would be able to list a dozen more characteristics they could use to sex (and identify the species of, and the temporal distribution of) those fossils, and they'd almost certainly be able to point out examples of other afarensis fossils which still clearly fall within the type that don't exhibit some of those characteristics, which I am very nearly as ignorant of as you.


DinosaurCorpReplySexAfarensisSkull.jpg
DinosaurCorpReplySexAfarensisSkull.jpg (20.65 KiB) Viewed 157 times
User avatar
Jayjay4547
THREAD STARTER
 
Name: Jonathan
Posts: 1060
Male

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

Re: How atheist ideology messed up the human origin story

#3760  Postby Spearthrower » Jul 12, 2019 8:25 am

https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Morton%27s_demon

Morton's demon is a concept that derives from Maxwell's demon and was created by ex-creationist Glenn Morton. It is a reference to the biases present when people consider evidence.


Bear in mind here that JJ has repeatedly tried to claim that it is the elusive Atheist Ideology (tm) which has manufactured and maintained biases in interpretation of the evidence, whereas, the thread presents overwhelming evidence that it's JJ who is biased with respect to viewing and acknowledging the evidence.


Thus was born the realization that there is a dangerous demon on the loose. When I was a YEC, I had a demon that did similar things for me that Maxwell's demon did for thermodynamics. Morton's demon was a demon who sat at the gate of my sensory input apparatus and if and when he saw supportive evidence coming in, he opened the gate. But if he saw contradictory data coming in, he closed the gate. In this way, the demon allowed me to believe that I was right and to avoid any nasty contradictory data.


Supportive evidence: Google says 'fangs' therefore primate have fangs, Smithsonian uses one single adjective 'small' so small it absolutely is, some guy is afraid of monkeys, so everyone has an evolutionary predilection to be afraid of monkeys, etc.

Contradictory evidence: Mass references of scientific literature noting characteristic traits like 'large', fossil evidence in picture format, videographic evidence of 'brave' baboons being eaten while failing to exhibit any examples of purported defensive biting.


Morton's demon makes it possible for a person to have his own set of private facts which others are not privy to, allowing the YEC to construct a theory which is perfectly supported by the facts which the demon lets through the gate. And since these are the only facts known to the victim, he feels in his heart that he has explained everything. Indeed, the demon makes people feel morally superior and more knowledgeable than others.


JJ ignores all the evidence provided showing that he's not interested in what's true; his fictional construct is vastly more important to him and to his sense of superiority.

Further, there have now been a dozen or more posts in which JJ has lambasted me for supposedly being a truly reprehensible representative of science to the public (even though that's not my job), indeed embodying all that's wrong with science today, while JJ, of course, is a noble sort just trying hard to strip away ideological preconceptions foisted off on the truth by underhanded atheists imposing their non-belief in divinities onto the human evolutionary evidence.

Meanwhile, JJ has all this special knowledge, the 'signal' only he can detect amidst the irrelevant noise (the actual evidence), a special ability to 'see' beyond what's apparent say in a video that shows no support whatsoever for his claims and outright contradicts his repetitions, and that special sight also means he knows what the animal actually is even when he provably can't tell a male from a female, a juvenile from an adult, or one species from another... the same 'sight' that makes him believe that a fossil nearly entirely lacking any cranium is the best complete cranium we have found, and consequently that he knows I am lying.


The demon makes its victim feel very comfortable as there is no contradictory data in view. The demon is better than a set of rose colored glasses. The demon's victim does not understand why everyone else doesn't fall down and accept the victim's views. After all, the world is thought to be as the victim sees it and the demon doesn't let through the gate the knowledge that others don't see the same thing. Because of this, the victim assumes that everyone else is biased, or holding those views so that they can keep their job,...


No contradictory data in view, such as those numerous posts citing evidence from peer-reviewed scientific literature, expert descriptions from the field of palaeoanthropology, and actual fossils (as opposed to artistic renditions of fossils) exemplifying exactly the opposite of which JJ asserts. JJ doesn't just ignore it, he actively doubles down and repeats his own erroneous claims as if they haven't been shown wrong over and over again.

Of course, JJ's narrative is that it's us - the ratskeppers as he likes to call us - who are biased. How many words has he dedicated to this genetic fallacy where it's our ideological predisposition which blinds us from the obvious truth of his views, whereas any suggestion that his motivation is Creationist perversion of science and knowledge is never even open to discussion.


He can make people think that the geologic column doesn't exist even if one posts examples on the internet. He can make people believe that radioactive dating doesn't work even if you show them comparisons of tree rings compared to radiocarbon dating. He can make people ignore layer after layer of footprints and burrows in the geologic column (see http://home.entouch.net/dmd/burrow.jpg ) and believe that burrowing can occur and animals can walk around unimpeded during a global flood. He can make people think that the sun is shrinking, that the stars are all within 6000 light years of the earth, or that God made pictures in that light of events which never happened. He can make people believe that fossils aren't the remains of animals and are 'petrifactions' placed there by the devil. He can make people ignore modern measurements of continental motion, stellar formation, or biological speciation. He can make people believe that 75,000 feet of sediment over an area 200 by 100 miles can be deposited in a few hundred years, and he can make people believe that Noah trained animals to poop into buckets on command. He can make people deny transitional forms which have traits clearly halfway between two groups. This is a dangerous demon.


He can make JJ think that talking about australopithecus (the genus) is sensible in terms of specific specie characteristics, He can make JJ think that afarensis had short, round canines like modern humans, He can make JJ think that monkeys scare off predators with their 3cm long canines, He can make JJ think that primates possess fangs, He can make JJ think that sexual selection is something distinct from natural selection, He can make JJ think that humans are perfectly adapted to employing kinetic hand-held weaponry, He can make JJ think that monkeys bite peoples' faces off, He can make JJ think that male primates engage in gladiatorial face-offs with predators 5 times their size, He can make JJ think that male agonistic competition cannot produce adaptations, He can make JJ think that 'stoppers and stickers' let 4 foot tall hominids fend off lions, He can make JJ think that detailed anatomical descriptions of afarensis cranial morphology is a smokescreen to avoid discussing afarensis cranial morphology, He can make JJ think that objects can engage in symbiotic relationships, He can make JJ think that a few minutes on Google means he's capable of challenging decades of expert fieldwork and analysis, He can make JJ demand pictures of autralopithecine behavior, He can make JJ think that sources talking about vampires serves to legitimize his assertions, He can make JJ think that drawing onto an image taken from the internet represents 'defacing the evidence', He can make JJ think that despite the fact he's shown himself to have no idea what he's talking about over and over again that other people are still supposed to genuflect to his claims, He can make JJ think that he knows what he's talking about and has alighted on some special knowledge he is obligated to share.


But unlike Maxwell's demon, Morton's demon doesn't expend any energy—he gets his victim to expend it for him. He can get his victim to expend massive amounts of intellectual energy figuring out how to convince the world that they are wrong. The victim will spend hours reading supportive books or searching through scientific literature noting only those portions which support the YEC position. And the victim will spend lots of energy trying to convince others to come see things the way they do. Thus, the demon gets its victims to spend energy to help it spread the infection.


Years and years in this case of JJ expending intellectual energy trying to validate his bigotry against teh atheists concocting ever more ridiculous fabrications to avoid ever acknowledging his errors, all the while insisting that he is right - despite the preponderance of evidence to the contrary - and that everyone else is wrong because they just can't 'see' it due to their preconceptions.

When JJ makes a claim that chimpanzees lunge maws gaping at humans and rip off their faces, a video showing a chimp attacking a human by pounding on that person doesn't make JJ question his idea, rather he takes a single frame (0.27 seconds) where the chimp's face cannot be seen, where there's some ambiguity in the proximity of the chimp's head to the human victim and declares this is where the chimpanzee bit the human and therefore he's correct! When JJ makes a claim that afarensis had short canines, he can ignore all the scientific articles and fossil evidence instead latching onto a single word in a single sentence in a single paragraph about afarensis canines in a short guide for dummies and pretend that supersedes all other evidence and expert morphological descriptions. When JJ wants to claim that monkeys can scare off predators with their fearsome canines in terms of evolutionary adaptive behavior, he can put up a video of a baboon (the best case scenario of all monkeys) facing off with a lion where the baboon ends up being killed and eaten and claim that his contention is thereby justified. It's not just cherry-picking, because cherries are meant to be those snippets which don't directly contradict your position and possess sufficient ambiguity that could potentially be construed to be useful, even the cherries here demolish his account and they're the cherries he elected to pick! :lol:

It is indeed a very dangerous demon inhabiting JJ, and as we've all come to know with the advance of science, demons don't actually exist; it's just his overblown ego jolting him around like a muppet on a string.
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: 24363
Age: 43
Male

Country: Thailand
Print view this post

PreviousNext

Return to Creationism

Who is online

Users viewing this topic: No registered users and 3 guests