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

#4341  Postby Spearthrower » Nov 16, 2019 10:01 am

I haven’t argued that bipedalism was a preadaptation, just that a habit of not using the same head for biting and for thinking, preadapted Australopithecus for speech


Meaning that Zoon has correctly identified that you are wholly eschewing any normal sense of the word 'preadaptation' to instead simply make up a new ad hoc meaning for it that you think makes your argument sound sciencey. Whereas, you're really just saying: post hoc ergo propter hoc.
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: 25339
Age: 43
Male

Country: Thailand
Print view this post

Ads by Google


Re: How atheist ideology messed up the human origin story

#4342  Postby Spearthrower » Nov 16, 2019 10:05 am

...we can see just how thin a branch a leopard is prepared to go onto, to catch a baboon.


We can.

We also don't need to 'see'.

If you were an engineer, you'd know that.
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: 25339
Age: 43
Male

Country: Thailand
Print view this post

Re: How atheist ideology messed up the human origin story

#4343  Postby Spearthrower » Nov 16, 2019 10:07 am

So it still seems to me that of the three prey sorts that might have roosted in trees: chimp, baboon and australopithecines, our ancestors if weapon-less, would have been at a grave disadvantage against leopard.


JJ's beginning to alight on the concept of the relationship between predators and prey. With a bit of fortitude, he might even grasp how it applies to all predators and prey once this thread hits its 10 year anniversary.

At that point, I will happily trawl back through this thread pointing out the dozens of times I already told him this.

Prey animals are indeed at a 'grave disadvantage' to animals with predate upon them. It'd be a bit of a strange world if it worked the other way round.
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: 25339
Age: 43
Male

Country: Thailand
Print view this post

Re: How atheist ideology messed up the human origin story

#4344  Postby Spearthrower » Nov 16, 2019 10:13 am

Spearthrower wrote:Using its teeth and its powerful arms to damage its predator, a single chimp might be a difficult prey sort for a leopard.


And yet we know, and have cited sources in this very thread, the hard fact that leopards have, until very recent times, always been the primary predator of chimpanzees.

Not difficult enough. Why aren't chimpanzees crafting spears and going hoplite on those leopard arses? If afarensis could... why not chimps?
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: 25339
Age: 43
Male

Country: Thailand
Print view this post

Re: How atheist ideology messed up the human origin story

#4345  Postby Spearthrower » Nov 16, 2019 10:14 am

Either they didn’t ever climb trees to escape from leopard or to roost, or they built sleeping platforms and carried hand weapons up into them.


Or they did climb trees and didn't have hand weapons... you know, like chimpanzees.
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: 25339
Age: 43
Male

Country: Thailand
Print view this post

Re: How atheist ideology messed up the human origin story

#4346  Postby Spearthrower » Nov 16, 2019 10:15 am

Our ancestors didn’t have ape-like bodies...


The internet doesn't provide any way to show my facial expression here, but I want to reassure you all that it is very, very funny.

Apes that don't have ape-like bodies. :dance:
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: 25339
Age: 43
Male

Country: Thailand
Print view this post

Re: How atheist ideology messed up the human origin story

#4347  Postby Spearthrower » Nov 16, 2019 10:18 am

... in so far as the canine teeth of their males shows that they didn’t bite their predators.


Their canine teeth show nothing of the sort, as you've been educated. Firstly, afarensis canines were much more similar in size to modern chimpanzees than they are to modern humans. Secondly, apes don't employ your gladiatorial combat trope in reality.

Of course, as we've established, even modern humans will bite when attacked, or even while attacking. Even animals which lack teeth will bite when attacked. Being attacked and in danger of dying tends to overcome any socialization which has imprinted that it's not nice to bite. But it's not the desirable strategy - no one's thinking, if I get attacked, I'll just bite their noses off... running away, even in intraspecific violence among humans, remains the preferred option for the non-aggressor.

But still we have cases year after year of modern humans biting entire bits of facial anatomy off other humans. But wait, you say... look over there. /sound of JJ fleeing disconfirmatory evidence
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: 25339
Age: 43
Male

Country: Thailand
Print view this post

Ads by Google


Re: How atheist ideology messed up the human origin story

#4348  Postby Spearthrower » Nov 16, 2019 10:25 am

There are stranger things about my sleep, than that I need so little But seriously, in Busse’s (1980) account, the debilitating effect of lack of sleep might have been part of their predator’s calculation in repeatedly attacking a particular roost on successive nights.


Mwahahaha, thinks the leopard that JJ is simultaneously arguing routinely climbs trees to snack on baboons, I have a cunning plan! Climbing the tree, killing a baboon, and eating is just what they EXPECT me to do... and of course, that is far too easy as any armchair naturalist knows. Instead, I shall slightly disrupt their sleeping patterns so that they may become overly tired, and their exhausted state will burden them with the futility of trying to defeat me in gladiatorial combat. Merely eating them is not enough... I must crush their very will to live!
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: 25339
Age: 43
Male

Country: Thailand
Print view this post

Re: How atheist ideology messed up the human origin story

#4349  Postby Spearthrower » Nov 16, 2019 10:28 am

Cheney’s account of baboons mobbing a leopard that had attacked a man, points up the vulnerability of a predator in that situation.


Perfect JJism.

What we should take away from the fact that baboons club together and terrorize the leopard is that baboons are vulnerable to leopards... except when they're clubbing together to terrorize leopards.

It's almost as if clubbing together was... a vastly more compelling strategy in predator avoidance than gladiatorial combat.

But what do I know?

I don't even have an armchair! :dunno:
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: 25339
Age: 43
Male

Country: Thailand
Print view this post

Re: How atheist ideology messed up the human origin story

#4350  Postby Spearthrower » Nov 16, 2019 10:40 am

using the same head for biting and for thinking,


I tried in the past, but I think I might have used words that were too difficult which made JJ suspicious I was trying to 'pull the wool over (his) eyes'... so perhaps someone else can try explaining to JJ that no organism on the planet uses its head for biting or thinking.
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: 25339
Age: 43
Male

Country: Thailand
Print view this post

Re: How atheist ideology messed up the human origin story

#4351  Postby Spearthrower » Nov 16, 2019 9:15 pm

Our ancestors... they walked on the ground, as the Laetoli footprints show.


As opposed to? Levitating? Doing roly-polys?

Think for a moment JJ. Of all the animals that don't live in the water - and you could even include a fair number of them - how many species can you think of which don't walk on the ground?

You completely mystify yourself - no one else at all - but you... you are always so caught up in how clever you are, you fail to see how inane your proclamations are.

As has now become standard, you've completely misread the importance of this palaeontological evidence.

The find wasn't breathlessly reported as "Human ancestor from 3.6 million years ago walked on the ground"

It was that they walked bipedally.


And I don’t say that on the ground, they were popcorn to lions, hyenas and leopards.


The popcorn thing is really silly by the way.


Their only defense against leopard would have been to keep them at bay using hand weapons...


No, that's not a fact JJ - that's the argument you keep repeating in the absence of any evidence whatsoever to support your claim.

However, as has been described in great detail, there is more than ample reason to reject that idea. It's wrong. Repetition of it is not going to make it magically become correct. To do that, you're going to need to do something other than assertion. You do realize that all you've offered in 'support' of this claim is the claim itself, written in declarative tones each time?

Yeah, doesn't work like that.

Any reasonable person reading this has already discounted your insistent assertion as wholly lacking support. So all you're doing is making yourself seem obsessive by repeating yourself as if everyone hasn't already read this declaration 40 times already.


... and if that succeeded against leopard,...


Which it didn't, because it's nonsense.


... they might have also been able to, against larger predators.


So, the 'logic' goes that if the thing which is already impossible were to be considered possible axiomatically, then it would stand to reason that it would work even better?

Even were anyone to kindly accept that nonsensical axiom, your argument still wouldn't follow - it lacks any logical basis at all.

If I can jump 2.5 metres over a bar - which I can't - then I might also be able to jump 5 metres over a bar. See? Silly isn't it? Very, very silly.


(The lion seems to be a specialised grasslands social predator, not around at the time of Australopithecus?)


You've written a question.

I am stunned.

Usually you just make something up and insist it is fact. What happened to your Google Fu, JJ? You know, your democratized knowledge which means you don't need no edukashun.

There certainly were large felines going back to tens of millions of years, but they were for the most part, smaller. The large ones evolved in places where large prey was present in sufficient numbers.

The panthera lineage is the oldest that split from the common ancestor of modern cats at least 11 MYA but possibly as much as 16MYA, and the one thing that characterizes the panthera lineage is that it's quite big. However, this dating is based on molecular evidence rather than fossil - the earliest panthera fossil (P. blytheae) is from around 5 or 6 MYA and doesn't appear to be related to the modern panthera.

But anyway, all this trivial detail and factual discussion is getting in the way of the glorious fiction you're working on... the largely vegetarian hoplite dwarves with slightly sharp sticks taking the battle to the 150+kg obligate predators on the savannah!

What a heady tale! It can only be a few more pages before you also assert they could speak, so we can even imagine them sitting round a campfire with a bushcrafted guitar singing triumphs of their deeds!

You're basically a modern day J. R. R. Tolkien - the rich-depth of fantasy you're crafting is phenomenal. You should write a book. A work of fiction, of course. I suggest adding dragons. They have canine teeth and you're an expert on that.
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: 25339
Age: 43
Male

Country: Thailand
Print view this post

Re: How atheist ideology messed up the human origin story

#4352  Postby Jayjay4547 » Nov 18, 2019 6:03 am

Spearthrower wrote:
Our ancestors... they walked on the ground, as the Laetoli footprints show.


As opposed to? Levitating? Doing roly-polys?

Think for a moment JJ. Of all the animals that don't live in the water - and you could even include a fair number of them - how many species can you think of which don't walk on the ground?

You completely mystify yourself - no one else at all - but you... you are always so caught up in how clever you are, you fail to see how inane your proclamations are.

As has now become standard, you've completely misread the importance of this palaeontological evidence.

The find wasn't breathlessly reported as "Human ancestor from 3.6 million years ago walked on the ground"

It was that they walked bipedally.


Sure, Au. walked bipedally on the ground. But that wasn’t the point I was making to zoon, just that they didn’t clamber around in trees all the time.


Spearthrower wrote:
And I don’t say that on the ground, they were popcorn to lions, hyenas and leopards.


The popcorn thing is really silly by the way


Zoon misunderstood my position as that Au. were popcorn to lions, hyenas and leopards on the ground. That wasn’t my position; I went on to say that seeing they must have been able to counter leopard on the ground using hand weapons, they might well have been able to counter hyenas on the ground, whereas lion didn’t exist yet.

The word “popcorn” is meant to be silly, because it points up the absurdity of not seeing the distinctive vulnerability of Au. to predation, if one doesn’t also infer their hand weapon use.


Spearthrower wrote:
Their only defense against leopard would have been to keep them at bay using hand weapons...


No, that's not a fact JJ - that's the argument you keep repeating in the absence of any evidence whatsoever to support your claim.

However, as has been described in great detail, there is more than ample reason to reject that idea. It's wrong. Repetition of it is not going to make it magically become correct. To do that, you're going to need to do something other than assertion. You do realize that all you've offered in 'support' of this claim is the claim itself, written in declarative tones each time?

Yeah, doesn't work like that.

Any reasonable person reading this has already discounted your insistent assertion as wholly lacking support. So all you're doing is making yourself seem obsessive by repeating yourself as if everyone hasn't already read this declaration 40 times already.


You haven’t described “in great detail” how Au. can have avoided predation by leopard without using hand weapons. You relied on the word “mobbed” as if the hominins, being highly social, could have as a group, grabbed a leopard with their bare hands. And what then? My visualisation sort of greys out. When baboons mob a leopard that has involved itself with a victim, as Cheney noted, some of those baboons have massive canines, whereas Au. males didn’t:

Afarensis_Chacma_Male_Skulls.jpg
Afarensis_Chacma_Male_Skulls.jpg (48.7 KiB) Viewed 80 times


True, I have repeated my arguments many times but then so have you, maybe more obsessively than I. For example, you replied to my latest post with 14 of your own, and no one else has so far. And those posts include many personal insults. I feel that by repeating arguments in slightly different ways, I am adapting closer to the essentials of how atheist ideology has messed up human origin stories. And I have some faith in the common sense of skeptics that some will pick up that some of what I’m saying might be true. But I don’t expect a miracle.

Spearthrower wrote:
... and if that succeeded against leopard,...


Which it didn't, because it's nonsense.


... they might have also been able to, against larger predators.


So, the 'logic' goes that if the thing which is already impossible were to be considered possible axiomatically, then it would stand to reason that it would work even better?

Even were anyone to kindly accept that nonsensical axiom, your argument still wouldn't follow - it lacks any logical basis at all.

If I can jump 2.5 metres over a bar - which I can't - then I might also be able to jump 5 metres over a bar. See? Silly isn't it? Very, very silly.


It’s more like, if you could jump half a metre, maybe you could jump three quarters.

It’s not nonsense that Au. must have had a game plan against leopard that worked at least as well as the game plan of alternative prey, particularly of their distant cousin baboons. Nor is it nonsense that a leopard would have made easier kill of a hominin that had tried to get away by climbing a tree, than of a baboon. The hominin being heavier and with feet less adapted to climbing.

On the ground, a few modern humans with simple weapons can keep a leopard at bay, thanks to the body plan inherited from Au. It’s certainly a less horrific proposition that the ancient hominins did the same on the ground, than that they tried to get away by tree climbing.

Why are you so blind to obvious historical context? Firstly, to build the human origin narrative, you look to similarities between hominins and other primates. For example, you either claim that male hominins did have canines resembling those of other primates, or that their canines weren’t significant. That is 180 degrees from the right approach. To tell the human origin narrative , you need to focus on what was distinctive about them as primates, because their distinctiveness made up the distinctive path their descendants followed; principally, speech and technology.

The very notion of human distinctiveness is non-pc for the ideology biasing human origin stories, which demands obedience to the dictum that we are “just an animal” that did indeed “descend from an ape” (although not quite that, hey, so sophisticated) .

Secondly, you don’t start by placing human ancestors in a creating context. You claim its silly that Au. could have avoided predation by leopard on the ground, without seriously confronting the issue: they did survive in that context, what they could have done about any predators, anywhere?

Spearthrower wrote:
(The lion seems to be a specialised grasslands social predator, not around at the time of Australopithecus?)


You've written a question./I am stunned./Usually you just make something up and insist it is fact. What happened to your Google Fu, JJ? You know, your democratized knowledge which means you don't need no edukashun.


I wasn’t posing a question I thought you could answer; it was whimsical, like, Are we a grasslands species? Were we created by the c4 metabolic route? By the innovation of the retractable claw?

Sure as hang we didn’t create ourselves.
User avatar
Jayjay4547
THREAD STARTER
 
Name: Jonathan
Posts: 1126
Male

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

Re: How atheist ideology messed up the human origin story

#4353  Postby Fenrir » Nov 18, 2019 8:57 am

Wibble wibble obfuscate wibble strawman distract whine wibble gibber.

Do you actyally expect anyone to seriously respond to gibberish like that JJ?

Not even new gibberish. That straw done gone mouldy.
Religion: it only fails when you test it.-Thunderf00t.
User avatar
Fenrir
 
Posts: 3395
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

#4354  Postby Spearthrower » Nov 18, 2019 9:56 am

Sure, Au. walked bipedally on the ground. But that wasn’t the point I was making to zoon, just that they didn’t clamber around in trees all the time.


First of all, no one said they did.

Secondly, all non-aquatic animals walk, or facsimile thereof, on the ground - so even with your clarification, we're still left with a dangling statement that confers no information 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: 25339
Age: 43
Male

Country: Thailand
Print view this post

Re: How atheist ideology messed up the human origin story

#4355  Postby Spearthrower » Nov 18, 2019 10:01 am

Zoon misunderstood my position as that Au. were popcorn to lions, hyenas and leopards on the ground. That wasn’t my position; I went on to say that seeing they must have been able to counter leopard on the ground using hand weapons, they might well have been able to counter hyenas on the ground, whereas lion didn’t exist yet.


There's no 'must'. That's not how we conduct science, JJ. I've explained this to you. Scientific claims cannot be based solely on deductive reasoning; rather, science uses inductive reasoning that must be corroborated by evidence.

You never contend this, but it remains true. You could easily go and corroborate this fact yourself.

That you believe you have deduced something is problematic when no one is joining you in that deduction... deductions obligate people to believe because they eliminate all other possibilities, yet I have provided you with many alternative possibilities that you refuse to acknowledge, ergo even your deduction is necessarily flawed.

Afarensis did not use hand weapons. It's a false claim.

Mays and mights are not valid. A may and a might is something that isn't supported by evidence. If you have evidence, show it. The lack of supporting evidence doesn't automatically make your claim false, but it does make it untenable, and certainly causes some confusion as to why you keep insisting on something that you cannot know to be true. Finally, there is evidence which contradicts your claims, which basically means that the validity of your argument is basically zero.
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: 25339
Age: 43
Male

Country: Thailand
Print view this post

Ads by Google


Re: How atheist ideology messed up the human origin story

#4356  Postby Spearthrower » Nov 18, 2019 10:02 am

The word “popcorn” is meant to be silly, because it points up the absurdity of not seeing the distinctive vulnerability of Au. to predation, if one doesn’t also infer their hand weapon use.


Yes, it's a contrived strawman, I know. That's why it's silly. It's silly because you keep erecting these contrived strawman positions even though they are routinely exposed. You then continue using them showing that you do not engage with any degree of good faith. That makes them even sillier because they expose your motivation as being untruthful.
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: 25339
Age: 43
Male

Country: Thailand
Print view this post

Re: How atheist ideology messed up the human origin story

#4357  Postby Spearthrower » Nov 18, 2019 10:19 am

You haven’t described “in great detail” how Au. can have avoided predation by leopard without using hand weapons.


I've described it in far greater detail than you have described your assertion that afarensis did.


You relied on the word “mobbed”...


I'm going to warn you once, JJ.

You will render my arguments accurately, or I will report you for lying.

You had best not be claiming that the only information I have forwarded on this topic is mobbing.

Clarify.


as if the hominins, being highly social, could have as a group, grabbed a leopard with their bare hands.


Where did I say or suggest this?

Think hard JJ because your last lie is only 2 pages back, and it's looking very much like you're working hard to justify that compulsive liar label.


And what then?


And what when?

What happens in the fictional scenario you just pretended was something to do with what I had said?

How could I know?

Mobbing doesn't involve 'grabbing a leopard with your bare hands'; it's going to be very difficult for you to lie about this when I can show half a dozen instances of me spelling out exactly how mobbing is employed.


My visualisation sort of greys out.


It does. It greys out the minute you try to imagine your declarations not being gospel.


When baboons mob a leopard that has involved itself with a victim, as Cheney noted, some of those baboons have massive canines, whereas Au. males didn’t:


You're once again referring back to a source that you intentionally quote-mined and lied about.

The part you intentionally left out paints a very different picture to the one you are once again lying about.

Although male baboons with their size and enormous canines, are much better equipped than females to fight leopard, the mass mobbing involved baboons of every age and sex. Juveniles, adult mothers, even mothers with young infants join to form a huge, hostile mob that tries to corner the leopard. The attack continues even after some baboons have received slashes on their arms, legs and face that open up huge wounds. One old low-ranking female, Martha, had a particular antipathy towards leopards. She was always in the vanguard of mobbing attacks. Over the years, she recovered from several leopard-inflicted injuries before finally being killed at the age of 20.


The material fact of your quote mine was to remove the grammatical context of the line Cheney used, and the following sentences showing that females and juveniles - both lacking 'massive canines' are involved in mobbing leopards. Thanks to the disproportionate number of females to males in baboon troops, this means that despite your attempts to blag otherwise, the preponderance of the group that mobbed the leopard were female. In turn, this shows that mobbing has nothing to do with canines.

This also underscores that your entire argument about canines is wrong. They're not used to frighten off predators, but I'd already established that a hundred or more pages ago. The size of canines in primates is relevant to agonistic mate selection and the degree to which coalition aggression plays a part in intraspecific competition. The difference, of course, is that I've cited papers in support of my claims, whereas yours were always merely assertion.

On top of that, your argument about afarensis' canines is wrong. I've already provided more than a dozen papers showing that male afarensis had larger canines than females, and that afarensis' canine size overlapped with modern chimpanzees - a species you appealed to in the past as being representative of this 'canine predator defense'. So this is another argument where you have ignored the hard evidence contradicting your assertions, and failed to offer anything but assertion for your claims.

Finally, as I've already explained, afarensis' hand anatomy makes your claims about their usage of spears pure fiction. You can't address this because you lack any relevant knowledge about skeletal anatomy and are on record for trying to dismiss any discussion of skeletal anatomy by pretending that it is intended to deceive.

So in summary, you want your assertions to be taken as gospel, you have no evidence supporting your claims, you don't want evidence to be considered at all, and you refuse to engage in any degree of substance while somehow thinking that repeating yourself over and over means you're making a solid case.

JJ. You don't know what you're talking about. Everyone knows that. The sooner you end the charade, the simpler your life would be. You could even start learning from me by asking questions instead of asserting bullshit at me. There's an awful lot of topics where I would be wholly out of my depth, but in this field, that obvious floundering has been monopolized by you.
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: 25339
Age: 43
Male

Country: Thailand
Print view this post

Re: How atheist ideology messed up the human origin story

#4358  Postby Spearthrower » Nov 18, 2019 10:30 am

http://www.rationalskepticism.org/creat ... l#p2720250

Spearthrower wrote:
Spearthrower wrote:
Spearthrower wrote:
Jayjay4547 wrote:Surely, those baboon canines do signify something? Cheney and Seyfarth (2007)
“Baboon metaphysics: the evolution of a social mind” say “male baboons with their size and enormous canines, are much better equipped than females to fight leopard”


This is what the paragraph on page 46 actually reads:

Although male baboons with their size and enormous canines, are much better equipped than females to fight leopard, the mass mobbing involved baboons of every age and sex. Juveniles, adult mothers, even mothers with young infants join to form a huge, hostile mob that tries to corner the leopard. The attack continues even after some baboons have received slashes on their arms, legs and face that open up huge wounds. One old low-ranking female, Martha, had a particular antipathy towards leopards. She was always in the vanguard of mobbing attacks. Over the years, she recovered from several leopard-inflicted injuries before finally being killed at the age of 20.




Remember this next time JJ tries the pathos rhetorical response to having his lies pointed out.

JJ's going to want this to go away - this is typically the moment where we'll get a flurry of posts from JJ about some other argument, some facet that supposedly adds to his position while steering the conversation away. Then in several pages, once this has been lost in the intervening back and forth, JJ will come back and make the same assertions again as if this never happened. I wonder if we'll be treated to a cute little JJ style sentence such as 'eminent scientists who have spent their lives studying baboons agree with me that it's male baboons which fight off leopards'.



See?

JJ wants to pretend that this never happened.

In two pages he'll be repeating the erroneous claim.

In 5 pages, he'll be quoting a small section from my original response calling him out for lying, but now it will be all pathos about how terribly JJ is treated by the meanies here.

In 10 pages, he'll be acting as though he's proven his point and no one's managed to contend it. No doubt there'll be some reference to how eminent scientists support his position, or he'll cite a link to the article without referencing the fact that the substance of the essay completely contradicts his claims.

All the way through, he'll still be yammering about how atheist ideology has perverted the purity of divinely revealed science.




First prediction confirmed.
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: 25339
Age: 43
Male

Country: Thailand
Print view this post

Re: How atheist ideology messed up the human origin story

#4359  Postby Spearthrower » Nov 18, 2019 10:39 am

It’s more like, if you could jump half a metre, maybe you could jump three quarters.


No, it's not. This underscores how little you comprehend the factors at play here.

Not only is mass and speed a factor in the efficacy of a predator's attack on prey, which in this fictional notion is now a lion comparative to a leopard - i.e. 4x heavier and 25% faster... but lions are social predators which as many as 15 cooperative individuals, whereas leopards are solitary hunters except when mothers have older juveniles.

So if anything, my analogy was far too conservative in comparison to the contention you're claiming.

Your contention was:

Their only defense against leopard would have been to keep them at bay using hand weapons and if that succeeded against leopard, they might have also been able to, against larger predators. (The lion seems to be a specialised grasslands social predator, not around at the time of Australopithecus?)


As I pointed out, the initial proposition is simply fiction already, but even taking it as a working axiom, the extension is completely devoid of logic.

Spearthrower wrote:So, the 'logic' goes that if the thing which is already impossible were to be considered possible axiomatically, then it would stand to reason that it would work even better?

Even were anyone to kindly accept that nonsensical axiom, your argument still wouldn't follow - it lacks any logical basis at all.

If I can jump 2.5 metres over a bar - which I can't - then I might also be able to jump 5 metres over a bar. See? Silly isn't it? Very, very silly.


Someone else can do the math, but I should perhaps have analogized it more accurately as being something like:

If I can jump 2.5 metres over a bar - which I can't - then I might also be able to jump 10 metres over a bar. See? Silly isn't it? Very, very silly.

And it is, JJ. It is incredibly silly even for you.
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: 25339
Age: 43
Male

Country: Thailand
Print view this post

Re: How atheist ideology messed up the human origin story

#4360  Postby Spearthrower » Nov 18, 2019 10:44 am

On the ground, a few modern humans with simple weapons can keep a leopard at bay, thanks to the body plan inherited from Au. It’s certainly a less horrific proposition that the ancient hominins did the same on the ground, than that they tried to get away by tree climbing.


I've already educated you about this idiosynctatic nonsense of 'body plan'. Learn to use the language correctly, or gibber incoherently and have that gibberish dismissed.

Secondly, as I've asked you before: provide evidence that afarensis is a direct ancestor of modern humans. You can't, because there isn't evidence for it, only that it's the best candidate at present.

Thirdly, regardless of your insistence on ignoring material contradictions to your claims, I've already pointed out why afarensis couldn't have used weapons as you believe. That remains a fiction, and I am obviously not obliged to lend your fiction credence to do your argument a favour.

Fourthly, your appeal to ridicule is a non-starter when chimpanzees - which are much more like afarensis than modern humans - don't use spears but rather will flee predators up trees, meaning that you are trying to argue for evidence-free wish-thinking by sneering at direct observations. Obviously, silly.

As usual, what you find 'horrific' is irrelevant. I would say that the actual 'horror' you're experiencing here is that no one is genuflecting to your poorly conceived, irrational, and evidence-free fantasies couched as gospel fact.
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: 25339
Age: 43
Male

Country: Thailand
Print view this post

PreviousNext

Return to Creationism

Who is online

Users viewing this topic: No registered users and 5 guests