How atheist ideology messed up the human origin story

Svartalf · **#4001** by **Svartalf** » Sep 30, 2019 9:58 am

Fallible wrote:Ugh, how tiresome.

Yeah, even beyond JJ's silliness, the fisking is unbearable

Jayjay4547 · **#4002** by **Jayjay4547** » Sep 30, 2019 1:56 pm

Spearthrower wrote:
If A. afarensis (or any Australopithecine) male possessed small, flat canines, then somewhere along the dozens of fossils and photographs of fossils, you'd be able to find and present a picture showing that. Why can't you? Well, first of all because you're wrong, and secondly because it's not even certain that you'd know what an afarensis canine looks like given how you've failed so many times in that regard in this very thread.

Jayjay4547 wrote:

Spearthrower wrote:You'd think that by now you'd have learned to stop posting pictures of replica you find on internet shopping sites!

If the replica maker had just had his head screwed on right he would showed the fangs? Would you care to draw them in? No scribbling, please.

Surely surely Spearthrower, if any member of the Australopithecus genus actually had fangs, there would be some credible replica or actual skull showing that?

The term "fangs" is useful to me because across ideological and cultural barriers, humans understand fangs; they carry the universally understood message of threatened bodily harm. Terms like "Long pointy canines" can be finessed and relativised and talked out of meaning, but not so easily "fangs". Fact is, across the whole australopithecus genus, none of them could put the scare into an other by baring their teeth. Just like us, and quite unlike modern chimps or gorilla.

Not that they needed to bare their teeth, because all the australopithecus species were obviously fully adapted into the use of kinetic hand weapons. Just like us. That is often buried in the much wider set of modern human abilities enabled by the amazing creativity sparked by that strange indeed unique australopithecine habit.

It wasn't just their lack of fans: imagine what a primate would look like that was fully adapted into the use of hand weapons to mediate its relations with other species, and you get the quintessential human "non beast": bipedal and with no pelt, no horns, no fangs, no talons, no sprinting, no grasping toes. Ag shame such an innocent vulnerable little fellow and in such a dangerous world.

newolder · **#4003** by **newolder** » Sep 30, 2019 2:15 pm

Jayjay4547 wrote:...

It wasn't just their lack of fans: imagine what a primate would look like that was fully adapted into the use of hand weapons to mediate its relations with other species, and you get the quintessential human "non beast": bipedal and with no pelt, no horns, no fangs, no talons, no sprinting, no grasping toes. Ag shame such an innocent vulnerable little fellow and in such a dangerous world.

Ooh, intensified conjecture on crack!

Would such a "non beast" look like this "hand becomes a weapon" guy, do ya think? :rofl:

Spearthrower · **#4004** by **Spearthrower** » Sep 30, 2019 2:15 pm

Jayjay4547 wrote:
If the replica maker had just had his head screwed on right he would showed the fangs? Would you care to draw them in? No scribbling, please.

1) If he had put fangs there, then it wouldn't have been a human, or even a primate, so that's more than a bit redundant. No one not in possession of a child's comprehension thinks that primates possess attributes found in insects and reptiles.

2) You cited the picture many times claiming it shows afarensis canines. I've now asked you 3 times to point exactly where you think these canines are. The reason I am asking is... unsurprisingly... because I am perfectly familiar with this fossil, and consequently know what it does and doesn't contain. Also completely unsurprisingly, I have already posted citations from Kimbel and Plavcan in this thread talking in detail about this site, these fossils, and the canines found in situ. You have, of course, ignored each and every citation.

Jayjay4547 wrote:Surely surely Spearthrower, if any member of the Australopithecus genus actually had fangs, there would be some credible replica or actual skull showing that?

1) It's silly as the Australopithecines are not insects, snakes, or spiders; so naturally they're not going to possess fangs.

2) It's your argument that the Australopithecines had small canines, and after being presented with reams of evidence to the contrary, you attempted to appeal to a lack of evidence to support your position. However, as we can all read, I asked you to show me pictures of afarensis without long, sharp canines, and you have completely failed to do so. Ergo, at the very best possible reading, you are incapable of meeting the demands you have tried to foist off on me. The difference, of course, is that I've cited a dozen experts in peer-reviewed journals expressly contradicting your evidence-free assertions. The onus is firmly with you to support your claims as I have more than met my burden of proof.

Jayjay4547 wrote:The term "fangs" is useful to me...

And?

It's not useful to me because I am not ignorant of primate morphology, and consequently I refuse to allow you to engage in one of your typically nonsensical distractions.

Jayjay4547 wrote:... because across ideological and cultural barriers, humans understand fangs; they carry the universally understood message of threatened bodily harm.

A typically inane prevarication, and dismissed. Use appropriate terms, or else continue failing to gain any purchase for your argument.

Jayjay4547 wrote: Terms like "Long pointy canines" can be finessed and relativised and talked out of meaning, but not so easily "fangs".

Wut? No primate possesses fangs, JJ, so your word is intrinsically meaningless. Spiders, yeah. Primates, no. Next evasive bullshit please.

Jayjay4547 wrote: Fact is, across the whole australopithecus genus, none of them could put the scare into an other by baring their teeth. Just like us, and quite unlike modern chimps or gorilla.

Fact is that your rectum is not a source of validated information.

Jayjay4547 wrote:Not that they needed to bare their teeth, because all the australopithecus species were obviously fully adapted into the use of kinetic hand weapons.

Repeating inane bullshit doesn't make it become true.

Jayjay4547 wrote:Just like us. That is often buried in the much wider set of modern human abilities enabled by the amazing creativity sparked by that strange indeed unique australopithecine habit.

Says the guy who is on record not even being able to tell the difference between different australopithecine species, unable to tell the difference between males and females, and unable to tell the difference between adults and juveniles... and who has only just clocked, after dozens of pages of repetition, that he was misusing the term 'australopithecus'.

Your entire case is one long assertion relying solely on your confidence tricks. You've got no credibility, ergo your confidence tricks have failed. Try evidence.

Jayjay4547 wrote:It wasn't just their lack of fans: imagine what a primate would look like that was fully adapted into the use of hand weapons to mediate its relations with other species, and you get the quintessential human "non beast": bipedal and with no pelt, no horns, no fangs, no talons, no sprinting, no grasping toes. Ag shame such an innocent vulnerable little fellow and in such a dangerous world.

Yes, you're rambling rubbish and I am going to ignore it because we all know it's just evasion from the fact that I've only just spanked the same bullshit back into the Bronze Age where the dogma that inspires your muddled fiction creation actually originates.

Spearthrower · **#4005** by **Spearthrower** » Sep 30, 2019 2:18 pm

Do you know what dentine is, JJ?

Wait... no wait... I don't mean go and Google it then pretend you know all about it. I mean off the top of your head.

It's a bit of a catch 22. If you don't know what dentine is, then you're once again showing yourself as utterly clueless. If you do know what dentine is, then you're bullshitting. You keep setting these traps for yourself because you seem certain that undue confidence and arrogance can stand in as proxies for knowledge and truth.

Spearthrower · **#4006** by **Spearthrower** » Sep 30, 2019 2:20 pm

Jayjay4547 wrote:imagine what a primate would look like that was fully adapted into the use of hand weapons to mediate its relations with other species, and you get the quintessential human "non beast": bipedal and with no pelt, no horns, no fangs, no talons, no sprinting, no grasping toes. Ag shame such an innocent vulnerable little fellow and in such a dangerous world.

As opposed to those 'fanged' primates

Keep up the good work showing us just what level of ignorance it takes of so many topics to lend credence to your cute little fiction.

Spearthrower · **#4007** by **Spearthrower** » Sep 30, 2019 2:26 pm

http://www.rationalskepticism.org/creat ... l#p2715201

Spearthrower wrote:
Jayjay4547 wrote: But there are plenty of reconstructions of Australopithecus with small canines.

No, there aren't, and you've never shown any reconstructions of any australopithecine with small canines.

...

Jayjay4547 wrote:So why are there no reconstructions of male Australopithecus that could give context to your claims?

1) Why are there no reconstructions of male <insert a species, not part of the name for a species, and not quite a genus name here>? Well, firstly, who says there aren't? It's not like I'm the one saying... dude, I've put up reconstructions for you to peruse. For me, the reconstructions are not important whereas you've latched onto this notion that some specific yet unspecified bar is the only form of evidence you will accept. I find that laughable. I've provided ample evidence in many different formats supporting my position, I don't have to jump some hoop you've concocted to avoid acknowledging all that evidence.

2) Given that you tried this already, and I pointed out how pathetic it is for your position to appeal to a lack of evidence that you've seen as evidence for your position, when it's only you who wants this particular type of evidence, and you can't even show any evidence whatsoever for your case... and then when you try to, you once again post a fucking female afarensis, cluelessly, which is exactly what started this entire side-discussion, and which you're still arguing about 40 pages later, yet you still don't know what you're looking at.

And somehow, you still act like your position is credible. /shrug I can't help you: you're doing this to yourself, and I ain't coming to your rescue.

Spearthrower · **#4008** by **Spearthrower** » Sep 30, 2019 2:35 pm

Jayjay4547 wrote:Fact is, across the whole australopithecus genus, none of them could put the scare into an other by baring their teeth. Just like us,...

Dem facts...

Jayjay4547 · **#4009** by **Jayjay4547** » Sep 30, 2019 11:47 pm

Spearthrower wrote:
Jayjay4547 wrote:Fact is, across the whole australopithecus genus, none of them could put the scare into an other by baring their teeth. Just like us,...

Dem facts...

Those don’t put the scare into me. This one does a bit:

Here are some humans in a genuinely excited state. . Notice, nary a grimace.

These humans are so excited they could “come to blows” The danger of them biting each other is less. Admittedly, these are Oxbridge men.

And we inherit all that from our australopithecus ancestors.

With their no fangs, no sprint, no four hands, no horns, no talons, the one truly distinctive feature across the genus, was that they were excellent at keeping their predators at bay.

We are even better at keeping predators at bay, but only because the objects Australopithecus were in symbiotic relation with, now give us even better protection. Maybe a Faustian bargain though.

Spearthrower · **#4010** by **Spearthrower** » Oct 01, 2019 2:27 am

Jayjay4547 wrote:
Spearthrower wrote:
Jayjay4547 wrote:Fact is, across the whole australopithecus genus, none of them could put the scare into an other by baring their teeth. Just like us,...

Dem facts...

Those don’t put the scare into me. This one does a bit:

You so tough, AND you so vulnerable... all wrapped into one ball of hunky fwuffy-wuffy reality-denial.

And now the entire argument resides on what JJ feels again.

Like your feelies are the arbiter of all things. JJ feels X, therefore X. What a fantastic form of argumentation that is. I do believe you've mistaken this forum for a blog, or a chat with your mother.

Jayjay4547 wrote:Here are some humans in a genuinely excited state. . Notice, nary a grimace.

*looks at notes*

Wait, sorry... I must have missed the moment when we switched from talking about 'putting the scare in' to 'excited'. Two entirely non-arbitrary, objective standards of measurement, so I am sure I can find a conversion table online.

Jayjay4547 wrote:These humans are so excited they could “come to blows” The danger of them biting each other is less. Admittedly, these are Oxbridge men.

Oh we're back to this point again are we?

https://metro.co.uk/2019/03/04/man-bite ... k-8801054/

A clubber has been jailed for nine and a half years after biting off a man’s face in a vicious nightclub attack. CCTV footage shows the horrifying moment Keenan Samuelson, 27, repeatedly bites into Nikitas Arnaoutoglou’s cheek at an Oxford club.

...

An investigating police detective claimed: ‘It’s the worst injury I’ve ever seen in my career.’

Reality bites, eh?

Don't worry JJ - just pretend it doesn't exist, or make some comment about how he didn't grimace, that there wasn't a stopper/striker, or some other non-sequitur that makes the point simply vanish from view again, just as you did 40+ pages ago.

Jayjay4547 wrote:And we inherit all that from our australopithecus ancestors.

No we don't. Next.

Jayjay4547 wrote:With their no fangs, no sprint, no four hands, no horns, no talons, the one truly distinctive feature across the genus, was that they were excellent at keeping their predators at bay.

This is so Monty Python. The one single feature of Australopithecines was their perfectly adapted kinetic weapon use, and their adoption of stopper, striker... no wait, their TWO vital features setting them apart from other animals was their perfectly adapted kinetic weapon use, and their adoption of stopper, striker technology, and their formidable language faculties.... I mean three, THREE essential components of Australopithecines were their perfectly adapted kinetic weapon use, their adoption of stopper, striker technology, and their formidable language faculties, along with their unique excellence at keeping predators at.... FOUR... I meant FOUR!

Another wonderful spot of crackpottery JJ - you're just an endless source of embarrassing incompetence rubbing up friskily alongside overly confident bravado.

Practically all animals are excellent at keeping their predators at bay... right up until they fail, whether that be through sickness, age, bad choices or just bad luck.

Jayjay4547 wrote:We are even better at keeping predators at bay,...

No... really? Better than the truly excellent Australopithecines? Well, we must really be quite the special something, eh? Don't you just feel proud inside knowing you're among the best of the best in... well, everything!

Jayjay4547 wrote: but only because the objects Australopithecus were in symbiotic relation with, now give us even better protection.

Exactly: that ubiquitously known pre-Oldowan stone rocket launcher culture. Where would we be without Australopithecine flint fighter jets? Thank goodness they discovered the secret of infusing immaterial objects with life in cybernetic fashion that we could thereby engage in symbiotic relationships with objects against all logic and meaning of words.

I mean, you can't say it enough, can you? Those few remaining doubters are sure to be won over if you just repeat your terminally unevidenced claims again. They still don't roll over and genuflect to the force of your gibbering assertions? Then repeat! Repeat, repeat, repeat... eventually that repetition will just hit the right spot, and regardless of how many times the contention was shown false by reference to the real world, one sunny day, that reality-denying declaration of ignorance will be uncritically swallowed.

Jayjay4547 wrote:Maybe a Faustian bargain though.

Australopithecine Medieval Germanic literature: you clearly know your stuff.

Jayjay4547 · **#4011** by **Jayjay4547** » Oct 01, 2019 6:30 am

Svartalf wrote:
Fallible wrote:Ugh, how tiresome.

Yeah, even beyond JJ's silliness, the fisking is unbearable

I admit my silliness and also the stupidity and ignorance that have marked my journey along this thread since 1974. But recently I have become interested in the notion that particular words might express truth so strongly as to lock into the minds of even an unwilling listener and in the early hours this morning I found a sentence that I am satisfied with. I will put it in large size:

Australopithecines excelled at keeping their predators at bay.

The truth in that is a faint echo of Psalm 23:

4 Yea, though I walk through the valley of the shadow of death,
I will fear no evil:
for thou art with me;
thy rod and thy staff they comfort me.

5 Thou preparest a table before me in the presence of mine enemies:
thou anointest my head with oil;
my cup runneth over.

Fenrir · **#4012** by **Fenrir** » Oct 01, 2019 6:37 am

Cito di Pense · **#4013** by **Cito di Pense** » Oct 01, 2019 6:45 am

Jayjay4547 wrote:You are just trying to get at me personally. That shouldn't be a persuasive way to debunk creationism.

JJ, you may not recognise that the following is all about your personal feelings, but that might help you understand why I'm not shy about making this personal:

Jayjay4547 wrote:
The truth in that is a faint echo of Psalm 23:

4 Yea, though I walk through the valley of the shadow of death,
I will fear no evil:
for thou art with me;
thy rod and thy staff they comfort me.

5 Thou preparest a table before me in the presence of mine enemies:
thou anointest my head with oil;
my cup runneth over.

Bible reading as a persuasive strategy for debunking atheism. Who'd have thought?

In that verse, who are "thou", "rod", and "staff"? Are these kinetic hand weapons? Figuratively, of course.

Jayjay4547 wrote:
I admit my silliness and also the stupidity and ignorance that have marked my journey along this thread since 1974.

I understand from the above that you've been at this since 1974. This thread is a long one.

Jayjay4547 wrote:I have become interested in the notion that particular words might express truth so strongly as to lock into the minds of even an unwilling listener...

Did something happen to you in 1974 that you're still having trouble getting over? Were you "unwilling" back then?

Jayjay4547 wrote:
The truth in that is a faint echo of Psalm 23

Nope. Still having trouble. Yet again in mistaking metaphorical language for observation. Get help for that, JJ!

If you are secure in your belief, and don't seek help, stop acting as if you're trying to bolster your faith by proselytizing others. In fact, "the creative biome" is just some metaphorical language you hoped to use in proselytizing the scientific atheist, and you've simply gauged your spiel to some delusion you have about your audience. Metaphor is sometimes persuasive in rational argument, but you can't depend on its universal effectiveness.

newolder · **#4014** by **newolder** » Oct 01, 2019 7:39 am

Jayjay4547 wrote:
Svartalf wrote:
Fallible wrote:Ugh, how tiresome.

Yeah, even beyond JJ's silliness, the fisking is unbearable

I admit my silliness and also the stupidity and ignorance that have marked my journey along this thread since 1974.

Please feel free to stop right there and seek help. :thumbup:

Cito di Pense · **#4015** by **Cito di Pense** » Oct 01, 2019 8:15 am

newolder wrote:
Jayjay4547 wrote:
Svartalf wrote:
Fallible wrote:Ugh, how tiresome.

Yeah, even beyond JJ's silliness, the fisking is unbearable

I admit my silliness and also the stupidity and ignorance that have marked my journey along this thread since 1974.

Please feel free to stop right there and seek help.

Notice that JJ did not write "my stupidity and ignorance". There's a gotcha in there, if I know JJ's tricks at all.

newolder · **#4016** by **newolder** » Oct 01, 2019 9:09 am

The silliness is symptomatic of the deeper malaise and JJ is best advised to seek help.

Cito di Pense · **#4017** by **Cito di Pense** » Oct 01, 2019 9:56 am

newolder wrote:The silliness is symptomatic of the deeper malaise and JJ is best advised to seek help.

Should I start to worry? I get pretty silly sometimes... and it's not as if I lack what looks to some like malaise.

Just remember, correlation is not causation. So it goes with psychobabble. Repeat after me...

JJ doesn't need help. He has, after all, a God. If it isn't the God, who's going to be the wiser?

The solution (not unsurprisingly) comes from none other than Ben Franklin, who said, "Fart proudly!"

In moderation, fisking is OK.

newolder · **#4018** by **newolder** » Oct 01, 2019 10:28 am

Being silly intermittently is fine but since 1974 suggests something is way off-kilter. I've no idea what fisking is. :dunno:

Cito di Pense · **#4019** by **Cito di Pense** » Oct 01, 2019 10:48 am

newolder wrote:Being silly intermittently is fine but since 1974 suggests something is way off-kilter. I've no idea what fisking is.

Fisking has no relation to fisting, except metaphorically. You could look it up. This was posted, proudly, even:

Svartalf wrote:the fisking is unbearable

If it was unbearable, Svartalf would not be telling us all about his malaise. It's not really malaise. He's just being cute.

We could give JJ the benefit of the doubt on 45 years, and allow that it has only been intermittently. Really, though, let's not. JJ is telling us he has had his faith for a long time, and he's proud of it.

Spearthrower · **#4020** by **Spearthrower** » Oct 01, 2019 10:53 am

Jayjay4547 wrote:
I admit my silliness and also the stupidity and ignorance that have marked my journey along this thread since 1974.

JJ's been in this thread since 1974.

Jayjay4547 wrote: But recently I have become interested in the notion that particular words might express truth so strongly as to lock into the minds of even an unwilling listener and in the early hours this morning I found a sentence that I am satisfied with. I will put it in large size:

Yet another example of JJ's superior analytical skills kicking in and providing him with an answer few but the brightest of minds could ever alight on.

Indeed, what philosophy, what depth of spiritual character, I believe it was the great man himself who said:

“When I use a word,’ Humpty Dumpty said in rather a scornful tone, ‘it means just what I choose it to mean — neither more nor less.’

Jayjay4547 wrote: Australopithecines excelled at keeping their predators at bay.

Goodness, you only decided on this latest assertion yesterday, and you're already getting so much mileage out of asserting it.

Jayjay4547 wrote: The truth in that is a faint echo of Psalm 23:

4 Yea, though I walk through the valley of the shadow of death,
I will fear no evil:
for thou art with me;
thy rod and thy staff they comfort me.

5 Thou preparest a table before me in the presence of mine enemies:
thou anointest my head with oil;
my cup runneth over.

Your epic self-narrative grows every minute. You truly are a wonder to behold.

How atheist ideology messed up the human origin story

Re: How atheist ideology messed up the human origin story

Re: How atheist ideology messed up the human origin story

Re: How atheist ideology messed up the human origin story

Re: How atheist ideology messed up the human origin story

Re: How atheist ideology messed up the human origin story

Re: How atheist ideology messed up the human origin story

Re: How atheist ideology messed up the human origin story

Re: How atheist ideology messed up the human origin story

Re: How atheist ideology messed up the human origin story

Re: How atheist ideology messed up the human origin story

Re: How atheist ideology messed up the human origin story

Re: How atheist ideology messed up the human origin story

Re: How atheist ideology messed up the human origin story

Re: How atheist ideology messed up the human origin story

Re: How atheist ideology messed up the human origin story

Re: How atheist ideology messed up the human origin story

Re: How atheist ideology messed up the human origin story

Re: How atheist ideology messed up the human origin story

Re: How atheist ideology messed up the human origin story

Re: How atheist ideology messed up the human origin story

Who is online