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

#3441  Postby Spearthrower » Jun 14, 2019 6:56 am

Jayjay4547 wrote:
I assume that Spearthrower expects an answer...


I assume he doesn't.


Jayjay4547 wrote: “no predator will challenge a male silverback gorilla”


No predator?

What predator?

We've already established that the only predator ever likely to cross paths with a gorilla is a leopard.

Leopards don't challenge their prey, JJ. They are stealth hunters, not in the slightest bit interested in facing off with their prey, but rather wanting to attack unnoticed and gain all the benefits of surprise.


Jayjay4547 wrote:...and that he considers this a counterpoint to the quote from me at the start of his post.


Who are you talking to, JJ? The audience? Trying for the rhetorical flair again? :lol:


Jayjay4547 wrote:Can I start by strengthening his point.


**
You can as long as you acknowledge that this amounts to a standard rhetorical strategy frequently employed by people trying to win debates, ergo that you're attempting to convince a judge (or audience) of the merit of your argument. Who is that audience in your mind, I wonder?


Jayjay4547 wrote: Don’t forget also the male gorilla’s canines; as typical among primates with the startling exception of Australopithecus species and all later humans,...


You're going to strengthen my point by contradicting all the evidence I've presented and repeating your willfully erroneous claims?


Jayjay4547 wrote:... gorilla males have long canines which they use in threat displays.


Threat displays against other male gorillas.


Jayjay4547 wrote:And their skulls are well buttressed against the stresses and damage likely when biting a predator that is itself a professional biter and has slashing claws.


Abject nonsensical delusion. Predators don't bite skulls JJ - it's so absurd.

Predators, like the leopard, bits throats JJ and strangle their prey by cutting off the squishy tissue. The leopard pierces that squishy tissue with its canines, it doesn't try to bite through bone with them as that would just result in those precious canines splintering or breaking. Now, the impact of the weight of the leopard hitting the neck of some animals may well result in a broken neck, but the bones there are rather a lot smaller and more fragile. However, the irony here is wonderful because you don't seem to know what role different teeth actually have, yet it's your entire argument.

When a predator has killed its prey and is looking to bite into a bone to crack it open and get to the marrow (not commonly done in leopards, but more the case in lions) it uses its molars; short, stubby, more biting pressure, and consequently more able to splinter or shatter bones. It doesn't use its canines.


Jayjay4547 wrote:Then can I put in a couple of caveats. Firstly, lion might sometime enter a gorilla habitat and kill them.


Ok, let's imagine that this happens very rarely, then we come back to the point about evolutionary pressures. Your claim that the gorilla's maw is highly adapted to defensive biting doesn't stand up well to the notion that its highly adapted to counter something that very rarely happens.

In reality, the only predator a gorilla ever has to worry about (except for humans with guns) is the leopard. So if there were any evolutionary pressure driving adaptation towards fending off predation, those adaptations would be to counter leopards, not a rogue lion that multiple generations of gorillas may never even encounter.


Jayjay4547 wrote: I was trying to find a report I had read about that, but the internet is hugely cluttered up. There are plenty of videos of silverbacks giving lions a pretty hard time. In one, a gorilla has a lion by the tail in a river and the poor lion is trying to get away. And the gorilla is wearing trousers. Oh well. Better wear asbestos gloves when looking up data in that area of animal fights.


A gorilla has a lion by the tail... with its mouth? :)

I've never seen the video, but I can bet ya with confidence that it has the lion by the tail with its hand. How might I know this in advance JJ?


Jayjay4547 wrote:Second caveat, the greatest challenge to a male silverback is another primate species, that is modern humans.


Not a greatest challenge, a greatest 'threat'. Humans don't challenge gorillas, JJ - they shoot them from a distance with powerful weapons outside the remit of natural selection. We could play this out for millions of gorilla generations, and they'd never adapt defensively to ballistic weaponry.


Jayjay4547 wrote:Today the silverback has no answer to the AK47...


And never will.


Jayjay4547 wrote:... but historically, humans have hunted gorilla.


Yes, although infrequently until the modern period.


Jayjay4547 wrote: I remember as a child seeing a black and white documentary of tribesmen hunting them with spears, ending with a picture of a totally ruined ghastly silverback. There was lots of screaming going on, with the family high in trees trying to dodge the vigorously thrown spears. I was just horrified but today a western audience would be more inclined to wish a medal for that silverback and jail for his tormentors. A pic of a severed gorilla head sold as bush meat is just bad publicity for tribal Africa.


Folksy anecdote. Nice.


Jayjay4547 wrote:But stepping back a bit, it is likely that hominins have predated on gorilla for a very long time,...


Likely because...?

Because it suits your argument? Because your gut tells you?

Quantify 'likely'. Also quantify how frequently this might actually have occurred over human history.


Jayjay4547 wrote:... the more so because gorilla might stand their ground and so face the defensive kinetic weapon fighting skills of our ancestors.


They might indeed. They'd be standing their ground deep inside extremely difficult terrain that would take days to cross. The result would be a bit of bush-meat; no doubt some sustenance offered, and maybe even something symbolic for certain tribes, but if continued survival of a hominid tribe is the idea, then the much meatier ungulates swarming across the plains seem a far superior bet all things considered.


Jayjay4547 wrote: Humans and human ancestors might well have been a main restrictor of the range of other primates.


Indeed they might, but given that gorillas live deep in rainforests, and that humans in such environments tend to be comparatively sustenance poor comparative to those living in more nutrient-rich or nutrient-accessible environments, then one might also point out that such human groups could never be considered the norm.

However, on the whole, humans never hunted gorilla for a mainstay of nutrition because gorillas simply do not breed quickly enough, mature quickly enough, nor have high enough population density to present a long-term source of food for any human group. For that, they need those ungulates which breed every year and rapidly convert grass into meaty protein. Any actual success of a human group in restricting the range of nearby gorillas would simply result in that potential food source being taken off the menu.


Jayjay4547 wrote:The fact that we perceive a gorilla threat as “hideous visage” (to quote Dart) is exactly what the gorilla male is adapted to make us see. We are meant to be impressed.


Probably best if you try and stick to evidence if you're going for a logical point than appealing to pathos. Sharks have a hideous visage to humans too, but there's no suggestion that their visage is meant to be impressive to humans, is there JJ?

Rather, the fact is that humans might be impressed by any large animal that possesses a gaping mouth with teeth, saying very little indeed about why the animal might be so furnished.


Jayjay4547 wrote:I can’t get around to disagreeing with Spearthrower because his mistake is just to not look at the wider context the gorilla male is part of.


Your sentence is a bit contorted there, JJ. It's also self-aggrandizing. You want to have special sauce whereby your cunning insight is raised above the level of substance of the discussion, but obviously you can't simply declare that to be the case, you have to actually engender it. In reality, you've frequently declared yourself more capable of seeing these special qualities in other animals, yet ironically even while declaring yourself uniquely capable of seeing what kind of animal the australopithecines were, you were unable to even tell a male from a female. Rather deflates your self-aggrandizing claims, doesn't it JJ?

On the other hand, as a student of primates and particularly hominids, their morphology, their socioecology, I am actually in a very good position to look at the wider context a gorilla is part of... I've done so by studying the topic at an accredited university with genuine experts in the field, by taking part in field research, by reading and engaging with peer-reviewed literature, through first-hand and occupational experience, compared to you who's approaching all this from his armchair and from an ideologically hostile to science perspective.

So as desirable and useful as it may be for you to attempt to contrive this picture, it doesn't really work out so well for you comparatively, does it? It may give your ego a little boost to paint yourself as uniquely suited to make such declarations, but they simply remain self-aggrandizing assertions which are very unlikely to sway the audience you're apparently attempting to appeal to.


Jayjay4547 wrote: Firstly, the actor in predation, the one with initiative, is the predator and the function of the gorilla male is to change the calculation that predator makes while lurking.


Not so useful when the predator in this case hunts by stealth. Further, you are looking at actors here rather than at adaptations, which is what your argument is meant to be about.


Jayjay4547 wrote: That calculation is, whether he can get some bush meat and an opportunity to eat it, without having to encounter the silverback.


And without having to encounter a group of large gorilla each weighing approximately the same as the leopard, regardless of whether the silverback is present or not.


Jayjay4547 wrote: What will happen if the predator does encounter the silverback? That is endlessly tested in real encounters; it would not work for gorilla if it turned out their canines were just banana falsies.


The leopard retreats because it's a stealth hunter and its cover is blown. The male gorilla, even if toothless, still weighs 3 or 4 times as much as it, is considerably larger and far more muscled, and as such it would only likely ever result in the leopard being wounded, and that's not what a stealth predator is about.


Jayjay4547 wrote:Second, our attention is focused on the silverback, but that’s just what we are meant to see;...


For clarity, YOUR attention is focused on the silverback, whereas I have REPEATEDLY pointed to the social organization of gorillas as being the primary means of staving off predation by leopards. As I have made note of many times, leopards take weak, sick, juvenile and isolated gorilla - they do not attack a troop of healthy gorillas regardless of whether the silverback is present or not.


Jayjay4547 wrote:... what is really going on has to do with the relatively puny females who manufacture babies.


Relatively puny compared to the silverback, but not relatively puny together compared to the leopard. Thanks for playing.


Jayjay4547 wrote: The bossy alpha male is just there to put the scare into the predators.


The silverback is there to impregnate the females and continue his genes into the next generation; he ensures this by scaring off rival males.


Jayjay4547 wrote: At some cost to the rest; they have to eat more “fall back” food, they get bullied, lorded over. It’s a Faustian pact.


While pleasant to see that you attempted to read at least one of the evidence based resources I presented countering one of your other arguments, it's a shame that you haven't actually rendered an accurate synopsis of it... but then that's only to be expected, isn't it? I am not sure there is a single piece of information you wouldn't be willing to manipulate towards a preconceived argument.

https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs ... ajpa.21118

Leaves were the major fallback food, accounting for up to 70% of feeding time in males and 50% in females during periods of fruit scarcity.




Edit: ** did anyone else spot where JJ 'strengthened my point'?
Last edited by Spearthrower on Jun 14, 2019 7:03 am, edited 1 time in total.
I'm not an atheist; I just don't believe in gods :- that which I don't belong to isn't a group!
Religion: Mass Stockholm Syndrome

Learn Stuff. Stuff good. https://www.coursera.org/
User avatar
Spearthrower
 
Posts: 24962
Age: 43
Male

Country: Thailand
Print view this post

Ads by Google


Re: How atheist ideology messed up the human origin story

#3442  Postby Spearthrower » Jun 14, 2019 6:58 am

But anyway, it's interesting to note how JJ intends to get round his recently self-imposed restriction on responding to me. Didn't take long, did it? :)
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: 24962
Age: 43
Male

Country: Thailand
Print view this post

Re: How atheist ideology messed up the human origin story

#3443  Postby Spearthrower » Jun 14, 2019 6:59 am

I have a feeling that a lot of the 'information' in JJ's gut that drives these arguments comes from the 1932 film: Tarzan the Apeman.



Perhaps I've located JJ's primary source in countering the evil atheist ideology?
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: 24962
Age: 43
Male

Country: Thailand
Print view this post

Re: How atheist ideology messed up the human origin story

#3444  Postby Spearthrower » Jun 14, 2019 7:15 am

There are plenty of videos of silverbacks giving lions a pretty hard time. In one, a gorilla has a lion by the tail in a river and the poor lion is trying to get away. And the gorilla is wearing trousers.


This had me a little perplexed. I wasn't sure if JJ was trying for a serious point here or not.

But there certainly seems to be a claim in the first sentence that there is ample evidence of male gorillas fighting lions... but is there? Really?

I've watched hundreds of hours of primate behavior, and I don't recall ever seeing anything like this whatsoever. Of course, today with much more widespread recording devices, and more funding to go out observing animals, it is quite possible there is new footage I've never seen before.

But it does seem very unlikely given that lions don't actually live in rainforests, and gorillas aren't like to be wandering around the outskirts of a rainforest.

So where do these notional videos or reports arise?

I suggest people actually go and do a google search themselves and see what's actually there when it comes to this topic.

In summary: poorly composited what if scenarios of the kind of show that presents fictional scenarios of two different animals engaging in gladiatorial combat!

Things like this:

Image

Image

Image
I'm not an atheist; I just don't believe in gods :- that which I don't belong to isn't a group!
Religion: Mass Stockholm Syndrome

Learn Stuff. Stuff good. https://www.coursera.org/
User avatar
Spearthrower
 
Posts: 24962
Age: 43
Male

Country: Thailand
Print view this post

Re: How atheist ideology messed up the human origin story

#3445  Postby Spearthrower » Jun 14, 2019 7:18 am

Ahhh I see now. I was wrong, so very very wrong, JJ. Point to you. You can definitely see the fear on the lion's face caused by the gleaming fangs of the indomitable male gorilla.

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: 24962
Age: 43
Male

Country: Thailand
Print view this post

Re: How atheist ideology messed up the human origin story

#3446  Postby Fenrir » Jun 14, 2019 7:29 am

JJ wrote:
And I do know the most basic feature of atheists on this site, that will do everything possible to make it look as if humans created themselves, without being creatively squeezed by their environment. And to present an authoritarian position where dissent is deemed basically illegitimate.


Right there is where it all falls apart for you JJ. This is the crux of your contentions, the entire raison d'etre of your protracted and oft repeated flights of fancy.

Why does it all fall apart here at the very start? Because that paragraph is entirely bullshit. And by bullshit I mean it has no support whatsoever outside your own head.

All the airy confections you append, even without your obvious and almost total ignorance of the subject matter, are utterly pointless unless you can provide some support for your central thesis.

As it is you can keep burning that straw forever and you will never find a needle, because there never was a needle in that haystack. Not least because there never was an actual haystack, just someone thinking that if they pretend their boogymen (atheism, science) are wrong hard enough with enough big borrowed words then it will be so.
Religion: it only fails when you test it.-Thunderf00t.
User avatar
Fenrir
 
Posts: 3386
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

#3447  Postby Spearthrower » Jun 14, 2019 7:49 am

Jayjay4547 wrote:The objects get to breed. Look in any rubbish dump.


Not breeding.


Jayjay4547 wrote:
As the fat boy said, I does it to make your flesh creep.


Shame then that it just makes you look incompetent.


Jayjay4547 wrote: But I could say “gestalt”.


You could, it's certainly a word you've attempted to use in the past, but of course it wouldn't really amount to anything more valuable when you'd still mean 'kinds' in the Biblical sense.

A poop by any other name still smells as shit.


Jayjay4547 wrote: It took 20 years for science to acknowledge the position of Australopithecus in our ancestry...


Wut?


Jayjay4547 wrote: and another 70 to air brush out the gestalt that Dart had seen,...


Wut?


Jayjay4547 wrote: sitting in his office in a new university he hadn’t wanted to go to, in a strange country, holding the little Taung skull in his hand. Truly that was an epiphany.


Wut?


Jayjay4547 wrote:
I just know the most basic things about primate teeth...


Correction: you only know the most basic things about primate teeth, in exactly the same way that everyone else knows about them. The difference, of course, is that most people don't think that their minuscule knowledge of a topic indicates they have special insight into far-reaching, sweeping generalizations about multiple barely related subjects.


Jayjay4547 wrote: ; that generally their males have long sharp canines, their females don’t and their molars aren’t carnassal like dogs have.


But not that the social structure in which these primate males exist is male agonistic reproduction; males competing for access to reproductive resources.


Jayjay4547 wrote:And I know the most basic things about predator avoidance;...


This is shown unarguably false throughout this thread. You THINK you know about predator avoidance, whereas what's actually shown is that your thoughts don't correspond to reality.


Jayjay4547 wrote:... that in primate troops it often involves males threatening to bite the outsider.


See?

Literally doesn't happen.


Jayjay4547 wrote: And though they will do almost anything to avoid actually biting, God help whom they actually do bite.


Also factually false as males will often bite each other which those unbenighted by ignorant ideology will note requires putting one's body in biting proximity of the contender.


Jayjay4547 wrote:And I do know the most basic feature of atheists on this site, that will do everything possible to make it look as if humans created themselves, without being creatively squeezed by their environment. And to present an authoritarian position where dissent is deemed basically illegitimate.


Self-aggrandizing delusional bigotry - the real motivation behind all your posts, and the explanation as to why even when shown categorically wrong by real world evidence, you simply wave it all away with this mantra to resolve your cognitive dissonance.
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: 24962
Age: 43
Male

Country: Thailand
Print view this post

Ads by Google


Re: How atheist ideology messed up the human origin story

#3448  Postby Spearthrower » Jun 14, 2019 7:57 am

And I do know the most basic feature of atheists on this site, that will do everything possible to make it look as if humans created themselves,...


This is a lie JJ.

You keep lying.

For this not to be a lie, then others here would need to agree that this is their position.

Yet in reality, whenever you try to formulate this position on other peoples' behalf, they roundly reject it as being their position.

So when you keep doing this, keep misrepresenting people, keep making up false positions for your interlocutors which they have roundly denied is their position, then naturally they begin referring to repetitions of this falsehood as 'lies'.

At which point you then pretend it's YOU who's the victim, whereas it is YOU who is LYING about others.

So stop lying, JJ. It's really that simple. Stop it. If you can't find the moral gumption to do so then at least note that the Forum User Agreement (1.2 m)obliges you not to do this, therefore even in the absence of moral compunction sheer self-interest should serve. Were I or anyone to be bothered by your useless offerings (threatened, I think you called it) then it would take a mere moment to alert the moderators of your foolish self-harmful behavior and see you cautioned not to repeat it.

Of course, no one is actually bothered by your falsehood as it's fucking laughably stupid and nonsensical and only serves to act as exemplification of why you are so routinely wrong on so many issues - that self-aggrandizing, delusional bigotry. You're furnishing others with the stick with which to beat 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: 24962
Age: 43
Male

Country: Thailand
Print view this post

Re: How atheist ideology messed up the human origin story

#3449  Postby Spearthrower » Jun 14, 2019 8:12 am

Jayjay4547 wrote:
As the fat boy said, I does it to make your flesh creep. But I could say “gestalt”. It took 20 years for science to acknowledge the position of Australopithecus in our ancestry and another 70 to air brush out the gestalt that Dart had seen, sitting in his office in a new university he hadn’t wanted to go to, in a strange country, holding the little Taung skull in his hand. Truly that was an epiphany.



Does anyone think that JJ's going back to the old Creationist fallacious playbook here of They Laughed At Einstein?
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: 24962
Age: 43
Male

Country: Thailand
Print view this post

Re: How atheist ideology messed up the human origin story

#3450  Postby aban57 » Jun 14, 2019 8:45 am

Spearthrower wrote:
And I do know the most basic feature of atheists on this site, that will do everything possible to make it look as if humans created themselves,...


This is a lie JJ.

You keep lying.

For this not to be a lie, then others here would need to agree that this is their position.

Yet in reality, whenever you try to formulate this position on other peoples' behalf, they roundly reject it as being their position.

So when you keep doing this, keep misrepresenting people, keep making up false positions for your interlocutors which they have roundly denied is their position, then naturally they begin referring to repetitions of this falsehood as 'lies'.

At which point you then pretend it's YOU who's the victim, whereas it is YOU who is LYING about others.

So stop lying, JJ. It's really that simple. Stop it. If you can't find the moral gumption to do so then at least note that the Forum User Agreement (1.2 m)obliges you not to do this, therefore even in the absence of moral compunction sheer self-interest should serve. Were I or anyone to be bothered by your useless offerings (threatened, I think you called it) then it would take a mere moment to alert the moderators of your foolish self-harmful behavior and see you cautioned not to repeat it.

Of course, no one is actually bothered by your falsehood as it's fucking laughably stupid and nonsensical and only serves to act as exemplification of why you are so routinely wrong on so many issues - that self-aggrandizing, delusional bigotry. You're furnishing others with the stick with which to beat you.


It always makes me laugh when I see christians totally ignore their 9th commandment, as long as it helps them push their agenda. And yet they'll come and tell us that the bible is their moral code source. Fucking hypocrits.
User avatar
aban57
 
Posts: 6808
Age: 40
Female

Country: France
Belgium (be)
Print view this post

Re: How atheist ideology messed up the human origin story

#3451  Postby Cito di Pense » Jun 14, 2019 8:59 am

Jayjay4547 wrote:And I do know the most basic feature of atheists on this site, that will do everything possible to make it look as if humans created themselves, without being creatively squeezed by their environment. And to present an authoritarian position where dissent is deemed basically illegitimate.


Did I try to do that, JJ? Please quote me. Otherwise, you're lying, as far as I am concerned. Because you lie as much as you do, and then take yourself as seriously as you do, I consider your lies a kind of joke that creationism is playing on itself.

Do consider reasons that your version of dissent, and yours alone, is what is being discussed here, and is what is dismissed for deficiencies and excesses that have been adequately documented in the so-called discussion you think you're having.

Jayjay4547 wrote:Truly that was an epiphany.


I don't want to know all about your personal experiences and convictions. Your personal convictions do not constitute dissent. In the preceding, they constitute a tantrum you're having that your self-aggrandizing delusional bigotry has been mocked.

Jayjay4547 wrote:And I know the most basic things about predator avoidance; that in primate troops it often involves males threatening to bite the outsider.


Ah, there's an insight. For you, JJ. Do you view the atheists as a tribe, the males of which are threatening to bite you? No, that's not what's happening. The troop observes your lying, and points it out, perhaps with a bit of sneering at your futile persistence.
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: 28496
Age: 22
Male

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

Re: How atheist ideology messed up the human origin story

#3452  Postby felltoearth » Jun 14, 2019 1:46 pm

Spearthrower wrote:I have a feeling that a lot of the 'information' in JJ's gut that drives these arguments comes from the 1932 film: Tarzan the Apeman.



Perhaps I've located JJ's primary source in countering the evil atheist ideology?

I had the exact same thought. Creationists have moved on from the Flintstones being a documentary. I guess they figured out it was a cartoon.
"Walla Walla Bonga!" — Witticism
User avatar
felltoearth
 
Posts: 11776
Age: 52

Canada (ca)
Print view this post

Re: How atheist ideology messed up the human origin story

#3453  Postby Fenrir » Jun 14, 2019 2:52 pm

#notallcreationists
Religion: it only fails when you test it.-Thunderf00t.
User avatar
Fenrir
 
Posts: 3386
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

#3454  Postby Jayjay4547 » Jun 15, 2019 9:51 am

Spearthrower wrote:

Jayjay4547 wrote: The island of Flores was even further away and was reached by animals with similar brains and body plan.


Similar insofar as they're both hominids, sure. But that would leave a rather large swathe of distinction untracked. Among the glaring factors is that the flores apes were from the genus Homo, that they lived millions of years apart from australopithecines, left vastly more sophisticated material culture, and had different scaling in essentially all their anatomical features.
Regardless, I smell a new babushka incoming

Your babushkas have never had relevance to my arguments which are as plain as I can make them, in the face of the complex biases built into the human origin narrative by atheist ideology. My defects are rather in the direction of over-simplifying.

The Wiki entry on Homo floresiensis doesn’t support your claim a about different scaling in essentially all the anatomical features:

In 2015, the results of Bayesian analysis were published, which used more than 300 morphological characteristics of fossil hominins; the analysis was unable to distinguish between the different early hominin trees, but the greatest similarity of H. floresiensis was with Australopithecus sediba, Homo habilis and Dmanisi Man, raising the possibility that the ancestors of Homo floresiensis left Africa before the appearance of Homo erectus, possibly even becoming the first hominins to do so and evolved further in Asia.[21] (Wiki Homo floriensis)

The vastly more sophisticated material culture left by the flores hobbits than Australopithecus, in the face of their having comparable brain sizes with chimps (floresiensis 380cc according to Wiki entry “Brain size” vs 420-450cc according to Google Sediba brainsize) supports what I said earlier that the short blunt canines of Australopithecus showed that they had a symbiotic relationship with objects.

It is useful to view some images here: The pics of two species of Australopithecus (a) and (b) show that quite different looking animals have been classified into the same genus. Comparison of the sediba (b) and floresiensis(c) skulls and the skeletal comparison (d) and (e) gives a visual idea of the similarities found in the Bayesian analysis cited in the Wiki entry, and how little appearance there is of Spearthrower’s “different scaling in essentially all their anatomical features”.
Australopithecus_Floresiensis_Compared.jpg
Australopithecus_Floresiensis_Compared.jpg (40.53 KiB) Viewed 168 times


Spearthrower wrote:
Jayjay4547 wrote: And Australopithecus males lacked the long pointy canines...


See? There's just no other word you can use when someone insists that contrary to evidence presented, their assertions supersede objective facts./Once may be considered a mistake, twice perhaps ignorance, thrice? bull-headed arrogance? Dozens of times... it's just a lie.


Speaking of lying, a while ago when Spearthrower persisted in saying I was lying, I stopped responding to his posts. Then he put in a few posts without repeating that accusation so I responded again, in spite of having said I wouldn’t. Now immediately, he has started again and a rash of the same jibe has broken out among other posters. That puts me in a bind, particularly as Spearthrower has presented himself as an authority and said technical things like “different scaling in essentially all their anatomical features”. My bind is this: if I ignore his posts then I am prating on in the face of contrary authority. If I ignore being called a liar then I am admitting to having zero standing to say anything at all. In this bind, my best course is to address the scope of valid authority in this context.

Until just a few years ago, when a scientist said something, it was about information that was unavailable to others. Authorities then simply had to be believed and generally scientists took seriously their responsibility to not mislead, and to present their evidence plainly and simply. This probity was as essential to the healthy relation between science and society, as the importance of not lying is, in wider society. I admit the situation wasn’t as simple as that, but it is true enough to highlight the dramatic unbundling of specialist authority since the arrival of the internet which has given access to academic articles (at least, abstracts), millions of vivid images, incredibly powerful search engines and Wikipedia. Scientific authorities now have to accommodate themselves to the fact that the lay public feels it need only accept authoritative views when these are supported by clear signs of good faith.

Contrary evidence? All Spearthrower (or any other poster) needed to present was a pic of an Australopithecus male skull with long pointy canines. He didn’t present that. Instead he actually agreed that a Smithsonian note that Australopithecus like all later humans, had small canines.

Some more support: Wiki: entry on australopithecus: Australopithecines have thirty two teeth, like modern humans, but with an intermediate formation; between the great apes and humans. Their molars were parallel, like those of great apes, and they had a slight pre-canine diastema. But, their canines were smaller, like modern humans, and with the teeth less interlocked than in previous hominins. In fact, in some australopithecines the canines are shaped more like incisors.[22]

Just to discuss the images that Spearthrower presented to refute my claim about male australopithecus fangs with the only explanation “:Reality calling Jayjay”. I collated them here, with my labelling.

Australopithecus_Floresiensis_Compared.jpg
Australopithecus_Floresiensis_Compared.jpg (40.53 KiB) Viewed 168 times

(sorry, please ignore this repeated image, it seems the second upload just adds to the first, refer to pic at bottom of this post)
Considering (c), which is of a fanged primate; here is an open hearted offer: if that is a fossil of an Australopithecus species, I will leave this forum forever. At most I will say, “Goodbye, sorry to have wasted your time”. Of the others, if (a) and (b) say anything about Australopithecus canine dimorphism, it’s not much and would need careful explanation. Image (d), which had original labelling, would tell little without the teeth being modelled in their context. Yet Spearthower has shown it a few times, as if it were a clincher. Image (e) may be of an upper canine of some hominid, held upside down. I have to guess, because it was unexplained. Not much use in comparing canine dimorphism in our ancestors. Image (f) I took to be intended as of a male australopith, and happily substituted it for the composite model skull I had used without concerning myself whether it was male or the female that Spearthrower had insisted on.

None of that pictorial evidence was worth a hill of beans, when pictorial evidence was the needed clinching evidence. Spearthrower claimed I was lying, while himself being simply untrustworthy as a scientific authority. Generally, ratskep posters on this thread have come to rely heavily on the sheer authority of science to assert the illegitimacy of dissent. All the defects of an internet chatroom have been in destructive play against the traditional standards of legitimate scientific authority.
Attachments
Spearthrower_Teeth_Comparisons.png
Spearthrower_Teeth_Comparisons.png (795.84 KiB) Viewed 168 times
User avatar
Jayjay4547
THREAD STARTER
 
Name: Jonathan
Posts: 1093
Male

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

Re: How atheist ideology messed up the human origin story

#3455  Postby Thomas Eshuis » Jun 15, 2019 10:08 am

Jayjay, you should really let your friends Dunning and Kreuger go.
"Respect for personal beliefs = "I am going to tell you all what I think of YOU, but don't dare retort and tell what you think of ME because...it's my personal belief". Hmm. A bully's charter and no mistake."
User avatar
Thomas Eshuis
 
Name: Thomas Eshuis
Posts: 30129
Age: 30
Male

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

Ads by Google


Re: How atheist ideology messed up the human origin story

#3456  Postby Spearthrower » Jun 15, 2019 11:29 am

Jayjay4547 wrote:
Your babushkas have never had relevance to my arguments...


They're not 'my' babushkas, JJ - they're yours. It's just my way of describing your endlessly nested stalking horse arguments.


Jayjay4547 wrote: which are as plain as I can make them,...


I've never challenged the degree of complexity of your arguments, only that they're wrong.


Jayjay4547 wrote:in the face of the complex biases built into the human origin narrative by atheist ideology.


In the face of your self-aggrandizing, delusional bigotry.


Jayjay4547 wrote:My defects are rather in the direction of over-simplifying.


No, your arguments' defects are wholly in the context of them being wrong, factually wrong, as shown by reference to real world observations and evidence.


Jayjay4547 wrote:The Wiki entry on Homo floresiensis doesn’t support your claim a about different scaling in essentially all the anatomical features:


Oh well?


Jayjay4547 wrote:In 2015, the results of Bayesian analysis were published, which used more than 300 morphological characteristics of fossil hominins; the analysis was unable to distinguish between the different early hominin trees, but the greatest similarity of H. floresiensis was with Australopithecus sediba, Homo habilis and Dmanisi Man, raising the possibility that the ancestors of Homo floresiensis left Africa before the appearance of Homo erectus, possibly even becoming the first hominins to do so and evolved further in Asia.[21] (Wiki Homo floriensis)


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

Just citing a body of text tells us nothing.

Next up, I have to point out now how you've been using 'australopithecus' (usually in reference to afarensis) throughout contrary to my repeated observation that this is a numptyism that lacks any specificity at all, so if you now want to talk specifically about Australopithecus sediba, then I am going to have to call you out on it.


Jayjay4547 wrote:The vastly more sophisticated material culture left by the flores hobbits than Australopithecus, in the face of their having comparable brain sizes with chimps (floresiensis 380cc according to Wiki entry “Brain size” vs 420-450cc according to Google Sediba brainsize) supports what I said earlier that the short blunt canines of Australopithecus showed that they had a symbiotic relationship with objects.


No, it doesn't.

The first problem you're going to need to contend with is that absolute brain size is really quite unimportant compared to brain-body size ratios.

Next up, there's no such thing as a 'symbiotic relationship' with objects; the word itself should really give you adequate insight into this - i.e. the 'biotic' part. Symbiosis concerns a long-term relationship between 2 living organisms which have co-adapted.


Jayjay4547 wrote:It is useful to view some images here:


Useful for what?


Jayjay4547 wrote:I The pics of two species of Australopithecus (a) and (b) show that quite different looking animals have been classified into the same genus. Comparison of the sediba (b) and floresiensis(c) skulls and the skeletal comparison (d) and (e) gives a visual idea of the similarities found in the Bayesian analysis cited in the Wiki entry, and how little appearance there is of Spearthrower’s “different scaling in essentially all their anatomical features”.
Australopithecus_Floresiensis_Compared.jpg


:doh:

Oh dear JJ.

Once again, your abject fucking ignorance of the topic matter is front and centre.

And once again, I am going to spend 2 or 3 pages laughing at your incompetence before nailing you to the doors of the chapel. :lol:


Jayjay4547 wrote:
Spearthrower wrote:
See? There's just no other word you can use when someone insists that contrary to evidence presented, their assertions supersede objective facts./Once may be considered a mistake, twice perhaps ignorance, thrice? bull-headed arrogance? Dozens of times... it's just a lie.


Speaking of lying, a while ago when Spearthrower persisted in saying I was lying, I stopped responding to his posts.


And here we see it again.

JJ gets called out for lying and immediately tries to turn it round to accuse the victim of his lies of having done something bad.

At the same time, JJ also uses it as an excuse to not have to respond.

Of course, JJ never thinks 'perhaps I should stop lying'. It's everyone else that has to adapt their behavior on his account. Or so he thinks.


Jayjay4547 wrote:Then he put in a few posts without repeating that accusation so I responded again,...


That doesn't mean I didn't continue considering those points I'd so labelled to be lies. It's almost like you're agreeing with the observation I made earlier that you seem to think that if a post is now back several pages in the thread, for all intents and purposes it's ceased to exist. :)


Jayjay4547 wrote: in spite of having said I wouldn’t.


In spite of how you tried to evade all those posts in the meantime, you felt there was an angle here you could go back to spewing nonsense, that's really what motivated you.


Jayjay4547 wrote: Now immediately, he has started again and a rash of the same jibe has broken out among other posters.


Great. Perhaps you'll get the message.


Jayjay4547 wrote:That puts me in a bind, particularly as Spearthrower has presented himself as an authority and said technical things like “different scaling in essentially all their anatomical features”.


I haven't presented myself as an authority - that's one of your attempts at bigotry - I only compared myself to you after you'd run through a revision of your self-aggrandizing delusional bigotry where you declared you had special insight and I didn't get the picture.


Jayjay4547 wrote: My bind is this: if I ignore his posts then I am prating on in the face of contrary authority. If I ignore being called a liar then I am admitting to having zero standing to say anything at all. In this bind, my best course is to address the scope of valid authority in this context.


Or you could stop lying.... it's hardly rocket science, is it?


Jayjay4547 wrote:Until just a few years ago, when a scientist said something, it was about information that was unavailable to others. Authorities then simply had to be believed and generally scientists took seriously their responsibility to not mislead, and to present their evidence plainly and simply. This probity was as essential to the healthy relation between science and society, as the importance of not lying is, in wider society. I admit the situation wasn’t as simple as that, but it is true enough to highlight the dramatic unbundling of specialist authority since the arrival of the internet which has given access to academic articles (at least, abstracts), millions of vivid images, incredibly powerful search engines and Wikipedia. Scientific authorities now have to accommodate themselves to the fact that the lay public feels it need only accept authoritative views when these are supported by clear signs of good faith.


You're really reaching far here JJ, but it's another special little historical revision tailored to squeeze the most out of your attempts to express your disdain for those you're bigoted against.

Those incredibly powerful search engines and Wikipedia still require some expertise to navigate because you keep making extremely naive errors. I am going to show you one such naive error in a few pages after you've thrashed around a bit and exposed how little you really know.


Jayjay4547 wrote:Contrary evidence? All Spearthrower (or any other poster) needed to present was a pic of an Australopithecus male skull with long pointy canines. He didn’t present that. Instead he actually agreed that a Smithsonian note that Australopithecus like all later humans, had small canines.


And another lie! Fantastic!

As anyone can see, I haven't just posted a single picture of an australopithecine with sharp, pointy canines, I have posted several, and I did so within hours of JJ's initial claims that they did not possess them.

Of course I agree with the half sentence from the Smithsonian, but of course, 'small' is comparative, not absolute. So the problem is that you are desperately seeking confirmation for your preconceived biases and latching onto a single adjective from half a sentence on a guide for dummies.

You've ignored all the actual evidence of authralopithecine teeth posted here pretending that single adjective from half a sentence of a guide for dummies justifies every claim you've ever made.

You're a clown, JJ.


Jayjay4547 wrote:Some more support: Wiki: entry on australopithecus: Australopithecines have thirty two teeth, like modern humans, but with an intermediate formation; between the great apes and humans. Their molars were parallel, like those of great apes, and they had a slight pre-canine diastema. But, their canines were smaller, like modern humans, and with the teeth less interlocked than in previous hominins. In fact, in some australopithecines the canines are shaped more like incisors.[22]


So the only word in there which helps you is 'smaller'.

It's not my fault you're so desperate for cherries that you will see whatever you want regardless of how tenuous it is.


Jayjay4547 wrote:Just to discuss the images that Spearthrower presented to refute my claim about male australopithecus fangs with the only explanation “:Reality calling Jayjay”. I collated them here, with my labelling.


You collated them in the past and made some hilarious errors which your hubris wouldn't allow you to question.


Jayjay4547 wrote:
Australopithecus_Floresiensis_Compared.jpg


:lol:

You need to explain what it is you actually see there, JJ. Because it's a bit of a problem for your contention.


Jayjay4547 wrote:
Considering (c), which is of a fanged primate; here is an open hearted offer: if that is a fossil of an Australopithecus species, I will leave this forum forever.


Why would you do that? :grin:


Jayjay4547 wrote:At most I will say, “Goodbye, sorry to have wasted your time”. Of the others, if (a) and (b) say anything about Australopithecus canine dimorphism, it’s not much and would need careful explanation. Image (d), which had original labelling, would tell little without the teeth being modelled in their context. Yet Spearthower has shown it a few times, as if it were a clincher. Image (e) may be of an upper canine of some hominid, held upside down. I have to guess, because it was unexplained. Not much use in comparing canine dimorphism in our ancestors. Image (f) I took to be intended as of a male australopith, and happily substituted it for the composite model skull I had used without concerning myself whether it was male or the female that Spearthrower had insisted on.


This is brilliantly amusing.

It's so convoluted. Who's going to tell you whether X is an australopithecine or not, and why OH WHY would you believe them when you never believe a single thing presented to you by the boogeymen atheists you're here to expound your bigotry against?


Jayjay4547 wrote:None of that pictorial evidence was worth a hill of beans,...


:lol:

JJ shows a composite replica skull as 'evidence' in support of his claims, but actual fossil evidence is worthless because it doesn't conform to his presuppositions.

That cognitive bias is working damn hard here.


Jayjay4547 wrote: when pictorial evidence was the needed clinching evidence. Spearthrower claimed I was lying,...


Um, no I claimed you were lying when you lied. It's not like I didn't specify exactly what were lies.


Jayjay4547 wrote:... while himself being simply untrustworthy as a scientific authority.


I have never once asked anyone to trust anything I say on the basis of claiming I am a scientific authority, so this is all a manufactured rhetorical strategy on your part, isn't it?


Jayjay4547 wrote:Generally, ratskep posters on this thread have come to rely heavily on the sheer authority of science to assert the illegitimacy of dissent.


Where? When?

In reality, the preponderance of people here have rejected your claims simply because they do not stand up to scrutiny, to evidence, or to observation.


Jayjay4547 wrote:All the defects of an internet chatroom have been in destructive play against the traditional standards of legitimate scientific authority.


You've tried so hard here, JJ... but who exactly are you to be declaiming on the legitimacy of science? You're hostile to science - this entire thread is about your hostility to science.
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: 24962
Age: 43
Male

Country: Thailand
Print view this post

Re: How atheist ideology messed up the human origin story

#3457  Postby Spearthrower » Jun 15, 2019 11:40 am

Jayjay4547 wrote:Spearthrower has presented himself as an authority


Reality Check.

Spearthrower wrote:
Jayjay4547 wrote:I can’t get around to disagreeing with Spearthrower because his mistake is just to not look at the wider context the gorilla male is part of.


Your sentence is a bit contorted there, JJ. It's also self-aggrandizing. You want to have special sauce whereby your cunning insight is raised above the level of substance of the discussion, but obviously you can't simply declare that to be the case, you have to actually engender it. In reality, you've frequently declared yourself more capable of seeing these special qualities in other animals, yet ironically even while declaring yourself uniquely capable of seeing what kind of animal the australopithecines were, you were unable to even tell a male from a female. Rather deflates your self-aggrandizing claims, doesn't it JJ?

On the other hand, as a student of primates and particularly hominids, their morphology, their socioecology, I am actually in a very good position to look at the wider context a gorilla is part of... I've done so by studying the topic at an accredited university with genuine experts in the field, by taking part in field research, by reading and engaging with peer-reviewed literature, through first-hand and occupational experience, compared to you who's approaching all this from his armchair and from an ideologically hostile to science perspective.

So as desirable and useful as it may be for you to attempt to contrive this picture, it doesn't really work out so well for you comparatively, does it? It may give your ego a little boost to paint yourself as uniquely suited to make such declarations, but they simply remain self-aggrandizing assertions which are very unlikely to sway the audience you're apparently attempting to appeal to.




So rather than declaring myself a scientific authority... the reality is that JJ keeps trying to declare himself an authority, as in he has special insight that makes it all so obvious to him, and that other people are just unable to see what he sees.

This was also the case when he laughably declared himself about to see what kind of animal 'australopithecus' (the genus) was while simultaneously showing himself terminally incapable of telling a male and female apart.

I don't need to declare myself a scientific authority JJ, I just have to show where you're wrong. I've done that throughout. The last time I educated you about the morphological characteristics of afarensis' skulls which could be used to sex them, you completely ignored all the information contained therein and simply declared that it was evidence that you'd been right all along! :lol:

As if ANYONE believes that you'd follow through with leaving JJ as that would imply that you'd have to acknowledge your error, and the concept that you'd EVER accept ANY rebuttal of your nonsense regardless of how much evidence is presented is manifestly unbelievable and really the entire journey of this thread. If you actually did accept corrections to your errors, then you wouldn't keep finding yourself in these holes you've dug for yourself and blamed others for.
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: 24962
Age: 43
Male

Country: Thailand
Print view this post

Re: How atheist ideology messed up the human origin story

#3458  Postby Spearthrower » Jun 15, 2019 11:47 am

For future reference, the hilarity (i.e. sneering and jeering justified by the pomposity and arrogance JJ has displayed in the above post) is going to ensue from this:

Image

And I will of course refer back to what JJ has said about it, what arguments he has made on the basis of this, and the consequent attack he has made on my trustworthiness.

JJ wrote:It is useful to view some images here: The pics of two species of Australopithecus (a) and (b) show that quite different looking animals have been classified into the same genus. Comparison of the sediba (b) and floresiensis(c) skulls and the skeletal comparison (d) and (e) gives a visual idea of the similarities found in the Bayesian analysis cited in the Wiki entry, and how little appearance there is of Spearthrower’s “different scaling in essentially all their anatomical features”.


You really would have thought he'd have learned his lesson the first time, but nope... that hubris simply will not allow him to be helped by those he reviles.

This is even more amusing than the first iteration. It's so wildly inane, the only way he could've done worse would have been drawing it with crayons or showing an aquarium ornament. :lol:
I'm not an atheist; I just don't believe in gods :- that which I don't belong to isn't a group!
Religion: Mass Stockholm Syndrome

Learn Stuff. Stuff good. https://www.coursera.org/
User avatar
Spearthrower
 
Posts: 24962
Age: 43
Male

Country: Thailand
Print view this post

Re: How atheist ideology messed up the human origin story

#3459  Postby Spearthrower » Jun 15, 2019 12:33 pm

JJ wrote: Of the others, if (a) and (b) say anything about Australopithecus canine dimorphism, it’s not much and would need careful explanation. Image (d), which had original labelling, would tell little without the teeth being modelled in their context. Yet Spearthower has shown it a few times, as if it were a clincher. Image (e) may be of an upper canine of some hominid, held upside down. I have to guess, because it was unexplained.


B says plenty about "australopithecus" (numptyism) canine dimorphisms - explanation might well be needed to those wholly unfamiliar with this specialist topic, but that was one of several points I was making by explicitly cutting out URLs from the pictures - so you couldn't google-blag! :)

D is going to be incredibly hard for you to explain away. I think that's why you've repeatedly ignored it until now. Perhaps now you've managed to contrive a suitable blag to address it which is why you're suddenly acknowledging its existence. There is, of course, absolutely no need for 'modelling' in their 'original context' - whatever that's supposed to mean, as they don't suddenly disappear or become different just because they're set in a jaw.

And your sentence about e is confused... and upper canine held upside down? Umm?

And 'some' hominid? SOME hominid? :)

You have to guess because it wasn't explained. If you know enough to be holding forth on the topic, how is it you need explanation?

It's so amusing JJ. This is exactly the same pattern as last time: you just can't bring yourself to ask for information you don't possess, presumably because you think it would be...

JJ wrote: admitting to having zero standing to say anything 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: 24962
Age: 43
Male

Country: Thailand
Print view this post

Re: How atheist ideology messed up the human origin story

#3460  Postby Spearthrower » Jun 15, 2019 1:33 pm

Lets remember where the babushka began! :)

http://www.rationalskepticism.org/creat ... l#p2699010

Jayjay4547 wrote:
Spearthrower wrote: As I've explained to you before, dental morphology is primarily to do with mastication - there's no point in arguing otherwise. As with bird beaks, dental morphology is consistent with the types of food eaten because consumption of food is a clear and vital selection pressure. On top of that, there is ample evidence from dental wear and the ecology of the relevant areas that australopithecines foraged for tubers, nuts, and cereal grains.


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



And of course, because even big babushkas are themselves interior to some other babushka:

http://www.rationalskepticism.org/creat ... l#p2698479

Spearthrower wrote:
Jayjay4547 wrote: The canines of Australopithecus, compared with those of other primates are clear evidence that they were adapted into the defensive use of hand held weapons.


No, that's a faulty assumption you've tried to employ in the past, but it doesn't stand to reason or to comparative evidence.

As I've explained to you before, dental morphology is primarily to do with mastication - there's no point in arguing otherwise. As with bird beaks, dental morphology is consistent with the types of food eaten because consumption of food is a clear and vital selection pressure. On top of that, there is ample evidence from dental wear and the ecology of the relevant areas that australopithecines foraged for tubers, nuts, and cereal grains.

Where there is sexual dimorphism present in teeth anatomy, what it indicates is intra-specific competition, just as you can see with modern gorillas. Do modern gorillas employ hand-held weapons? No. Instead, gorillas live in groups and respond together to perceived threats, and very few things prey on adult gorillas - leopards might take an injured or young gorilla, but they don't try and fight a bunch of gorillas weighing nearly the same as them. No weapons necessary.

When do you see male gorillas baring their teeth and using them in combat scenarios? When they're fighting other male gorillas.

This is just direct observational evidence, JJ. Not some bizarre and contrived agenda.


Irrelevant with respect to the actual topic thread now, but it is of course valid to point out that JJ had intentionally elided the paragraph in blue specifically talking about dimorphism when he then challenged me to explain the differences between dental anatomy of 2 casts of he supposed were male.


Edit: fixed quote tags thanks newolder! :thumbup:
Last edited by Spearthrower on Jun 15, 2019 3:55 pm, edited 1 time in total.
I'm not an atheist; I just don't believe in gods :- that which I don't belong to isn't a group!
Religion: Mass Stockholm Syndrome

Learn Stuff. Stuff good. https://www.coursera.org/
User avatar
Spearthrower
 
Posts: 24962
Age: 43
Male

Country: Thailand
Print view this post

PreviousNext

Return to Creationism

Who is online

Users viewing this topic: Greyman and 2 guests