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

#3481  Postby Jayjay4547 » Jun 19, 2019 11:03 am

Spearthrower wrote:
Jayjay4547 wrote:What is really bothering me here, is my growing suspicion that you are playing me and I have been ludicrously falling for it.


Oh I am playing you JJ. I am toying with your arrogance and pomposity, your self-absorbed ignorance.

Jayjay4547 wrote: I just can’t square your behaviour over those pics, with that of someone who as you say, has spent his adult life studying human evolution and teaching it to undergraduates... In my experience, professional teachers are all over their material and eager to explain it; to take and own the role of mentor.


Great, now add into that equation a potential student who is ignorant, arrogant, and who has spent years using evasive argumentative strategies to continue a line of argumentation that is fundamentally hostile to not just the discipline but the entire methodology uniting all the sciences.


It’s not so dramatic. My position is simply this: Origin stories, like all historical stories, reflect the position of the teller and further his ideological position.

Atheist ideology is the main biasing theme in the human origin narrative told by people like your good self.

I don’t know how different a human origin narrative freed from that bias would look, but as far as I can see now, it would more invoke natural selection as opposed to sexual selection. A narrative in terms of sexual selection focuses on internal elements within the group instead of a struggle for existence in relation to other organic beings or to external conditions; the nexus where creativity is observed to express itself.

There’s no part of my position that is hostile to the entire methodology uniting all the sciences, as you put it.

Spearthrower wrote:One way of teaching such a person, JJ, might be first to deflate the windbag. It may not be a tactic you like, but you made this bed, chap.

And this is also one of my key points. I quite clearly made this point to you: I offered to meet you fair and square in the middle and help you understand, but your arrogance won't let you acknowledge that your understanding is poor or that one of the people you're repeatedly bigoted against might know more than you. You won't even ASK me to explain because that would require you acknowledge your lack of competence in an expert field - instead you write up these long attacks where you get to pretend that you're still in an instructional position while pretending that the reason I am not enlightening you is because of some nonsensical conspiracy you've contrived rather than it being a direct result of your typical stupid behavior.

I will get round to showing you wrong in my own time, JJ, after I've had my fun. Because you're unwilling to engage in honest discourse, that's what's left. My amusement, and potentially the amusement of other people who have read your guff over the years.


In the first place, I doubt that you are as authoritative as you pretend. In this topic you have said that you have spent your adult life teaching evolution to undergraduates but in your profile you say of your occupation: ”Bit of this, bit less of that, and the occasional bit of the other. i.e. lecturer, actor, writer, t.v. producer” . All of those are full time careers for those who become authoritative. So you are laying it on a bit thick on this forum and the extent of your possible misrepresentation is what is worrying me, because nothing could make me look sillier than having what I think is a serious conversation, with a joking pretense.

Secondly, I think its high time people who assume a monopoly by science for telling the human origin story, hit a bit of an incline. If you spoke in the name of science with more tolerance that would certainly help the prestige of the teller but scientific consensus on the human origin story seems to me too narrow; far narrower say than the consensus of historians about the documented past.

Beyond that narrowness of outlook, the internet resources have in the last decade so broadened what is available to all, that lay persons can figure some things out for themselves and if putative authorities try to bully them into kowtowing to their authority, we can put up a bit of an argument.
User avatar
Jayjay4547
THREAD STARTER
 
Name: Jonathan
Posts: 1092
Male

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

Ads by Google


Re: How atheist ideology messed up the human origin story

#3482  Postby felltoearth » Jun 19, 2019 11:22 am

Jayjay4547 wrote:
Beyond that narrowness of outlook, the internet resources have in the last decade so broadened what is available to all, that lay persons can figure some things out for themselves and if putative authorities try to bully them into kowtowing to their authority, we can put up a bit of an argument.

So what’s your excuse for your demonstrative ignorance?
"Walla Walla Bonga!" — Witticism
User avatar
felltoearth
 
Posts: 11773
Age: 52

Canada (ca)
Print view this post

Re: How atheist ideology messed up the human origin story

#3483  Postby Spearthrower » Jun 19, 2019 2:30 pm

Jayjay4547 wrote:I am both of those things.

Yet not sufficiently observant to note that, following me saying I had in fact posted X, you then claimed that I hadn't in fact posted Y.

Yet not sufficiently educated to note that the requirement you're demanding of me is not possible to achieve, and the fact you demand it of me shows exactly that you aren't relevantly educated.


Jayjay4547 wrote:Order, challenge, request, whatever.

Order, JJ - you gave me an order. I then laughed at you believing that I was going to leap to obey.

Jayjay4547 wrote:You said I lied in claiming you had failed to put up what was needed to settle an issue:...

Every time you talk about this, the details change. Now it's to 'settle an issue'. To settle it to whose satisfaction, JJ? It's settled to my satisfaction. Perhaps you could ask others if it is settled to their satisfaction. But you can't ask that I settle it to your satisfaction given that you're denying it.

Jayjay4547 wrote: i.e. a pic of an australopithecus male with long pointy canines.

Already posted a pic of an australopithecine male with long pointy canines.

Jayjay4547 wrote:Then you said you had in fact put up several such.

Indeed, I have.

Jayjay4547 wrote: But you haven’t.

Oh, I have.


Jayjay4547 wrote:The only pics you have put up of primate males with long sharp canines, weren’t even of fossils.

That's untrue, JJ. So I believe that's where we go back to the start again.


Jayjay4547 wrote:
Spearthrower wrote:I know your tendency is towards historical revision, but the acceptance of that is usually aided when the subject of those histories is dead.

That’s too obscure for me. The record above shows that you reacted to my order, challenge,request by putting up pcs I had posted.

No that's not at all what the record shows.

Jayjay4547 wrote:
Spearthrower wrote:You really are being spectacularly arrogant today, aren't you JJ? Are you on the attack so that you don't have to defend the nonsense you posted last?

I didn’t post nonsense...

Might work if you were the defendant, judge, and jury, but of course, you're not.

Jayjay4547 wrote:... and I’m keen to get on to what I posted BEFORE you flared up this issue of canines.

Oh I bet you are, that's why you've only talked about these diversions since! :)

Jayjay4547 wrote:The options I raised are universal: (a) throw up a smokescreen (the option you are still taking), (b) prove using pics which I don’t recall you having posted (c) withdraw (d) discuss the pics you did post.


You are perfectly permitted to raise options you wish to engage in. The trouble you might be having is in expecting me to conform to them after you phrase them as commands.

I am, of course, under no obligation to jump hoops for your pleasure, and the fact that I have already posted the pics in this thread is sufficient for me to say I have posted them, and also sufficient to justify me saying that your claim I haven't posted them is untrue.

Jayjay4547 wrote:
Spearthrower wrote: Which obviously contains a whole heap of inane assumptions.

Firstly, the notion that you would leave the website on account of anything factual - I already talked about this a page or two back - given your track record for simply evading reality and concocting fairy tales, for outright reality-denial... are we supposed to believe that a mere picture is going to send you scampering off with your tail between your legs?

If you posted up a pic of an australopithecus skull with long/pointy or sharp canines that would show me that my whole understanding of human origins was wrong. It would be a bit like finding the earth is actually flat. Certainly I would leave this forum.

So you respond to the point about how inane this is by repeating an inanity. If you want to keep on talking about this, perhaps you could fill in the gaping logical gap where you'd go from 'learning something you didn't know' to 'leaving the forum' because they don't seem related in the slightest to me. Are you saying you'd leave in shame? And the shame you'd be feeling is because you weren't aware of some morphological characteristics of australopithecines?

But you're still here JJ, and yet you were shown flat-footed outright unable to process that you didn't know you'd presented a female afarensis skull as a male afarensis skull.

So even waving over the silly logical gap which appears to revolve around you acknowledging a mistake, unlike you ever do, the fact is that if this really were to be the outcome, you'd have disappeared half a dozen pages ago after you called my post pointing out that the replica skull you had posted was a female the worst crap you'd ever read on the forum and then I gave you ample technical detail to understand why that was, in fact, factually the case.

What's actually happened is you've done everything you can to pretend it never happened! :grin:

So why are you drawing lines in the sand now? Do you think other people might consider your threats of self-harm to be credible?

Jayjay4547 wrote:
Spearthrower wrote: Secondly, you assume I want you to leave the forum. That's genuinely ridiculous and something I've certainly never expressed, but undoubtedly generates a whole lot of the victimhood and martyrdom narrative threads that certain types of Christian thrive on. Who says I want you to leave the forum, JJ? In reality, all you'll ever see me asking of you is that you stop bullshitting. For me, there's space enough for everyone here, so long as they can abide by simple universal etiquette.

Simple universal etiquette doesn’t include calling someone a liar,..

Again JJ, you can keep trying with this but the simple fact is that you have lied. Not once, not twice, but half a dozen times.

When someone lies, calling their declarations a lie is not uncivil, not lacking in etiquette at all.

You keep trying to pretend you're the victim, but all you're doing is gaslighting.

Jayjay4547 wrote:... failing to back that up

Um, I have backed up my accusations of your lies each and every time I've made that accusation.

Jayjay4547 wrote:... and making out you couldn’t respond to an “Order”.

Ahh you misunderstand. I never said I couldn't respond to your command, I told you I wouldn't respond to your command. Slight difference in terms of spelling perhaps, but a world of difference in terms of implied status differences. I am simply not yours to command, JJ - so if you want something of me, then you can make a request.

You do seem to struggle in that regard. Before you couldn't bring yourself to request information as to how I knew the replica afarensis skull you posted wasn't a male as you'd implied, but was actually a female. I made fun of your attempts to get to that information without lowering yourself to having to make a request of someone you exhibit endless arrogant disdain for, so I am surprised you think this will be any different.

As usual JJ, if you don't like how the tango's going, there's two people involved in it, so blaming your dance-partner is perhaps missing the point.

Jayjay4547 wrote:I don’t assume you want me to leave this forum,...


You've just contradicted yourself - before you were suggesting that this should incentivize me to perform your command.

Jayjay4547 wrote: just that you could earn kudos for sending this creationist off with his tail between his legs as you put it.


I doubt everything about that.

I doubt that you'd actually go. It's not like you've shown any acknowledgment of your errors in the past, so why would this be any different?

I doubt that I would earn kudos from anyone simply for you ceasing to post. I expect you'd be forgotten pretty quickly, to be frank, up until someone used an argument in the same vein of paucity as yours and then it would bring back fond memories ala Robert Byers.

I doubt anyone would even care, to be honest... in fact, the only people who might care might think quite the opposite, and be critical of me if I were literally the reason you left the forum.

So yeah, I don't find your notional exercise to be grounded on any thing real. I do feel it's probably part of the delusional bigotry you routinely formulate about people here though.

Jayjay4547 wrote:
Spearthrower wrote: Thirdly, I neither expect nor aim for anyone's approval - not in this life, chap! :) My peers, in terms of rational skepticism, includes you - we're all equal members here, after all. In terms of this topic, who is supposed to be my peer here? There used to be some very knowledgeable palaeoanthropological folks here like Gib and Steviepinhead, and their presence would have made this discussion much more interesting for me (they'd have spotted the same errors you made, for example, and would also probably have noted some of the amusement I intentionally generated which you missed completely), and they'd have been able to actually have a technical conversation with me about anatomy which you can't.

My arguments aren’t about details of anatomy...

Umm? They are, though JJ. Yes, yes, I know they're not ULTIMATELY about anatomy - what I call your babushka arguments, but you are making claims about anatomy which I have shown wrong.

Jayjay4547 wrote: but about obvious messages that are clear from pics readily available on the internet and that were indeed drawn by Dart nearly 90 years ago.

Yeeeeaaah, but no, no, not at all. They're not 'obvious' just because you see them; you need to consider whether you just have flawed vision with respect to them. I don't know whether you possess the kind of hubris that makes such introspection impossible for you, but even in the fields I specialize and teach in, I still don't ever claim to be in possession of absolute confidence about anything. That's because I know and value how tenuous knowledge really is. How easily a new find could throw out so much that was previously so obvious.

And those pics you keep showing are part of the problem JJ. It's ironic that you claim to be able to see these messages in pictures, but don't seem able to pick up messages in messages written in English directed straight at you. The pics you are showing aren't fossils JJ - they're replica / composites made by.... who? I don't know? No one who's necessarily credible.

When I talk about these hominids, I am not looking at your pictures, I am looking at the actual fossils found, and they are nearly always fragmentary, and thus compositing them would require being aware of things like geographical and temporal differences, the age of death of the specimens, and trying to see the entire group of fossil fragments typologically.

One of the key messages you should have taken away from the outset of this thread is how unreliable those pics you're finding on the internet are. The afarensis 'skull' you posted, for example, is at least 60% just made up. Wholly made up. And the largest part that's made up? All the dentition. I told you this. Either you ignored it because it was inconvenient, you ignored it because you're not interested in fact-based discussion, or you aren't aware that you ignored it and it's basically cognitive dissonance. Well, there's one other possibility, I suppose... you bluntly dismissed what I said believing that the bone clones model was right because you posted it.

Sometimes JJ, it might help if you engaged in a little empathy and thought: how do my posts come across to other people?

And follow that up with: can I really expect them to always employ the principle of charity endlessly?

Jayjay4547 wrote:
Spearthrower wrote: Fourthly, when I've already made a post, it is not really my obligation to scurry off and find it on your command. Whether you acknowledge reality or not, there it remains.

It would at least help you establish your point, provided such a post existed.

With whom? With you? Well, if you need me to repost pictures I already posted, then it's clearly not going to make the slightest bit of difference given it didn't the first time round.

With others? Honestly... I think anyone following this conversation would agree with me not you.

And that's really quite integral to all of these side-topics you've generated in the last couple of pages - they're all about expecting me to satisfy you, to do things that you want, in the way you want me to do them, and for you to be the judge of it all. Of course, you're entitled to engage in any kind of control drama you want, but I am not obliged to adhere to such a fiction.

Jayjay4547 wrote:
Spearthrower wrote:Well, I could also just as easily have compiled a list of your lies, because it's not like I've forgotten them JJ. This is just one example where you claim I haven't posted any pics of australopithecine crania when anyone reading this thread knows I have.

Ha ha Spearthrower my friend, an australopithecus skull WITH LONG SHARP CANINES, of which you claimed to have posted several, “within hours” of my post.

What's with all the joviality? What's with the caps lock?

There's a fundamental Dunning Kruger illusion of superiority and consequent lack of metacognitive awareness going on here. I've already told you that the 'skull notion' is problematic. Why is it problematic? Because there aren't any 'skulls'... there are no whole afarensis skulls complete with dentition JJ - there are 'partially complete crania' and 'associated mandibles', for example, but what you're asking me to produce is something that simply doesn't exist as far as anyone knows.

It's one of the many points I've made to you criticizing your reliance on bone clones pictures. And it does inescapably point out that you aren't in possession of any real knowledge on the subject if you don't even know the fossils in question, yet think you can draw massive generalizations from something that you basically know nothing about.

Jayjay4547 wrote:
Spearthrower wrote:Which is fantastically convoluted because to have made this 'collation' of pics that I posted then you must recognize that I did in fact post said pics, ergo... :doh:

But dear friend, the only image in this collation (compilation?) of an animal with long pointy canines (c), doesn’t seem to be even be of a fossil, let alone an australopithecus.

Umm?

According to whom, JJ?

And what's that 'seem' business?

And who's telling who this?

And you think there's not an australopithecine in the picture?

B, D, E, F are all australopithecines JJ - even more specifically, they're all Australopithecus afarensis.

Why you've labeled them A, B, and C I don't know because they were posted together as one picture expressly for a reason; to show the similarity of afarensis dentition to chimpanzees comparative to humans.

But what I DO know is that you don't know what's in those pictures, and it's like you feel like you'd be lowering yourself in people's estimation if you had to ask to find out what's in those pictures.

I specifically cut away their URL's so you didn't have an easy time of blagging them JJ. Really, it wouldn't be THAT hard to go and find those pictures anyway if you wanted to profess knowledge about them that you don't have, but instead you've played this genuinely bizarre game where you talk around them pretending that I haven't done something and that even if I had done something then it isn't what I said I'd done, and even if I've done what I said then why would you believe me anyway....

How hard is it really for you to ask?

Straight up: why half a dozen pages of this guessing game? If you'd asked me straight away, I would have told you. Just like if you'd lowered yourself to asking me how I knew the afarensis composite you posted was female, I would have told you right away. Again, your behavior - outlandish behavior I might add - is what's generating all this aside because I sure as shit am not going to make it easy for you to blag or pretend to knowledge or to act so arrogantly; that's exactly what I have set out to let you do - burst your own bubble JJ. So if you're all worried about your credibility being damaged and how the shame would drive you away, then you have only yourself to blame here.

Your credibility on this topic at the moment can only go up.

I can identify the very moment for you when you lost any pretense of credibility you might have had if you like? It's when you ignored all the technical morphological descriptions to sex afarensis.

What you still don't know yet is that the descriptions I gave actually comprised some gotchas as well.

Yeah, I am playing you JJ, albeit not in the way you think. But you do really, really deserve 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: 24848
Age: 43
Male

Country: Thailand
Print view this post

Re: How atheist ideology messed up the human origin story

#3484  Postby Cito di Pense » Jun 19, 2019 3:19 pm

Jayjay4547 wrote:
Spearthrower wrote:
Jayjay4547 wrote:What is really bothering me here, is my growing suspicion that you are playing me and I have been ludicrously falling for it.


Oh I am playing you JJ. I am toying with your arrogance and pomposity, your self-absorbed ignorance.

Jayjay4547 wrote: I just can’t square your behaviour over those pics, with that of someone who as you say, has spent his adult life studying human evolution and teaching it to undergraduates... In my experience, professional teachers are all over their material and eager to explain it; to take and own the role of mentor.


Great, now add into that equation a potential student who is ignorant, arrogant, and who has spent years using evasive argumentative strategies to continue a line of argumentation that is fundamentally hostile to not just the discipline but the entire methodology uniting all the sciences.


It’s not so dramatic. My position is simply this: Origin stories, like all historical stories, reflect the position of the teller and further his ideological position.


No, your position is not simply about an origin story and what ideology it reflects, or you wouldn't have spent so much effort trying (and failing) to show you have any technical competence in arguments relating to fossils, and failing to own up to some monumentally bonehead ignorance you have demonstrated in regard to analyzing fossil evidence.

Bonehead? No pun intended. But there you go, withdrawing into the innermost shell of the story you've constructed. It's all you've got, now.

Jayjay4547 wrote:There’s no part of my position that is hostile to the entire methodology uniting all the sciences, as you put it.


It's not that your attitude is hostile to anything but atheism. Your scientific competence does not extend to divorcing your ideas about human origins from your hostility to atheism, or you wouldn't keep retreating into your little ideological shell when embarrassed by the limitations of your scientific competence.

Jayjay4547 wrote:In the first place, I doubt that you are as authoritative as you pretend.


Science is not about authority, JJ. If that's your view of science, than you are hostile to the enterprise of science, your limp protest notwithstanding. Let's add to that, then, that you have not shown scientific competence in any field. You have claimed it, but the kinds of bonehead ignorance you manifest leads me to doubt that you possess the requisite disciplined attention to the details of scientific investigation to be a success in any topic that requires it. Your obsession with trivia you apparently believe support your pet ideology obstruct your capacity to conduct your investigation scientifically.
Last edited by Cito di Pense on Jun 19, 2019 3:32 pm, edited 1 time in total.
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: 28477
Age: 22
Male

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

Re: How atheist ideology messed up the human origin story

#3485  Postby Sendraks » Jun 19, 2019 3:31 pm

Spearthrower wrote:I can identify the very moment for you when you lost any pretense of credibility you might have had if you like? .


So it wasn't back here then?

http://www.rationalskepticism.org/creationism/evolutionary-psychology-creation-and-dysfunction-t31598.html#p1324745
"One of the great tragedies of mankind is that morality has been hijacked by religion." - Arthur C Clarke

"'Science doesn't know everything' - Well science knows it doesn't know everything, otherwise it'd stop" - Dara O'Brian
User avatar
Sendraks
 
Name: D-Money Jr
Posts: 15140
Age: 103
Male

Country: England
Print view this post

Re: How atheist ideology messed up the human origin story

#3486  Postby Cito di Pense » Jun 19, 2019 3:41 pm

Jayjay4547 wrote:
The image I put up came from Dinosaur Corporation and the metadata on it doesn’t bother to define its sex although it declares it to be of “museum quality”. That all supports what I claim to be of major importance in the story of human origins which is that the male skulls of Australopithecus looked notably like those of the females.

I don’t want to carry on badgering you on this particular issue.


You're badgering no one, JJ. You're posting idiotic bollocks and demonstrating deep ignorance of the topic you purport to be commenting upon.

But JJ, the morphology of one skull isn't all there is to it. "How it looks to you" does not produce a scientific statement, but rather, a description of how something looks to you, deep in your caverns of subjectivity. It's just you telling stories to yourself. Don't forget, JJ, Australopithecus is a genus, so you're back to spewing dullwitted crap.

Anyone can swap a circuit board without ideology getting in the way. The only requirement is that the circuit board function according to specs.
Last edited by Cito di Pense on Jun 19, 2019 3:48 pm, edited 1 time in total.
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: 28477
Age: 22
Male

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

Re: How atheist ideology messed up the human origin story

#3487  Postby Spearthrower » Jun 19, 2019 3:47 pm

Jayjay4547 wrote:You don’t need to bother with technicalities,...


Uh no. YOU don't need to bother with the technicalities because YOU aren't expected to know the technicalities, YOUR vocation isn't connected to YOU knowing these details.

However, in terms of this conversation, you SHOULD be bothered with the technicalities: you can't claim to have a special insight into the ultimate understanding of a creature without knowing much at all about it.


Jayjay4547 wrote: just say where in that compilation (in my post above) are several images of australopithecus with long sharp canines.


:lol:

Are you incapable of phrasing this as a request?

Read it from my perspective. I've specifically countered your arguments and claims to knowledge by showing you're wrong.

Of course, you don't acknowledge your errors.

But worse, so much worse, rather than being interested in finding out information, you are playing a bluffing game where you can't admit you don't know. You can't 'ask' me a question because, it seems, you think that implies a weakness. Instead, you try to imply something is wrong then demand I perform some task to help you out.... and that really would be the only reason I would need to perform this: to help you out.

So tell me why I would want to do that, JJ?

Feel free to argue that the dentition isn't from an australopithecine if you want to. Feel free to stick your neck out however you like, but don't tell me I have to throw you a lifebuoy when I'm specifically putting you into a position where your floundering and drowning is meant to be instructional about your claims to being a competent swimmer.

Worry about your own argument, for example, that series of pictures you made supposedly showing scaling comparisons between australopithecines and floriensis.


Jayjay4547 wrote:
Spearthrower wrote:
Which is pretty funny coming from the guy who relies wholly on casts apparently comprised of substantial artistic creativity, and which you don't seem to realize aren't really representing the thing you think they are. :)


Well casts are marketed because they are useful...


Useful for what? Useful to whom?

That's not how they're marketed JJ. They're not being sold to universities. They're being sold to the general public as curiosities and paper-weights.


Jayjay4547 wrote:...and images of them, readily available to all on the internet can be legitimately used on this forum.


No one said you can't show them, but you're going to need to understand that the map and terrain may diverge substantially.


Jayjay4547 wrote:If you showed a boneclone of australopithecus with long sharp canines that sure would settle the issue discussed here.


No, it wouldn't because the bone clones shown so far haven't been anywhere nearly sufficiently accurate. Again, you really should know that if you wish to be claiming expertise in seeing the true animal, JJ. If the bone clones are not actually very good, then your special insight must be off too, no?


Jayjay4547 wrote:
I think you are referring to this image (top right] of an Australopithecus Afarensis skull s that you insisted was a composite of a number that you knew but didn’t identify, as if you were making some major point.


While it was a point I was making, it absolutely wasn't the key point at all. The key point is really going to be difficult for you to wave away. Also, this isn't the bone clones model you used recently, this is the original one you used to compare to a male gorilla.

And yeah, I am playing with you JJ. You deserve it. You might not think you deserve it, but then you're not the arbiter of your actions in a group of people, are you?


Jayjay4547 wrote: Here it is, for comparison with an image you provided of a male (I suppose) skull. I supposed that from the context of your posting, not from what you said about it. Indeed you didn’t say anything about your image.


I know I didn't, thanks for telling me what I intentionally didn't do! :)


Jayjay4547 wrote:The image I put up came from Dinosaur Corporation and the metadata on it doesn’t bother to define its sex although it declares it to be of “museum quality”.


That's nice. Do they sell bridges too? You might get a good deal.

It doesn't 'bother' to define its sex?

Seems a bit odd, doesn't it? Missing rather an important detail if it were of 'museum quality'.

Of course, by museum quality they may mean the process they used to make it, the materials involved... and that may well be the case, I couldn't tell you much about differential qualities of casting as that's not my field.

I can tell you about the sex of the individual being shown though, just as I can tell you the features it has basically made up because there are no complete fossils which they could be drawing on. I could tell you the details about the fossil fragments they used to composite that skull, and what bits they were missing, and consequently where and what quantity of artistic license they've employed because that is my field... ok, it's actually just outside my very specific field (neanderthals and early sapiens), but comparative anatomy of hominids is something I spent many years studying at a very reputable university with quality professors well known in the field. I'm not making things up to win an argument, JJ. I'm telling you the truth, explaining the facts, and pointing out that these do not seem to correspond to your arguments.


Jayjay4547 wrote: That all supports what I claim to be of major importance in the story of human origins which is that the male skulls of Australopithecus looked notably like those of the females.


There's a gaping logical gap between the first three words and the rest of everything being discussed. Male and female afarensis (not 'Australopithecus' - why don't you stop using these numpty terms?) are readily distinguishable even for a non-expert, so your argument now appears to be blind denial.

Essentially, this is becoming a circular argument: to support your contention that you have special insight into what X animal really was, you now invoke special ability to see things about them that manifestly aren't true.

You can, of course, convince yourself of all of this.... but that belief simply cannot work outside of your headspace.


Jayjay4547 wrote:I don’t want to carry on badgering you on this particular issue.


I do. :)
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: 24848
Age: 43
Male

Country: Thailand
Print view this post

Ads by Google


Re: How atheist ideology messed up the human origin story

#3488  Postby Thomas Eshuis » Jun 19, 2019 4:37 pm

Jayjay4547 wrote:

It’s not so dramatic. My position is simply this: Origin stories, like all historical stories, reflect the position of the teller and further his ideological position.

Atheist ideology is the main biasing theme in the human origin narrative told by people like your good self.


You have failed to present a coherent, rigorous definition of this supposed ideology.
You have failed to present evidence for it's existence.
Most importantly you have failed to address the fact that atheism, by definition cannot be an ideology.
Continued failure to do this things will only demonstrate that you're not acting in a honest manner.
I.e. you're still lying Jayjay.
"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

Re: How atheist ideology messed up the human origin story

#3489  Postby Spearthrower » Jun 19, 2019 5:19 pm

Spearthrower wrote:
Jayjay4547 wrote:What is really bothering me here, is my growing suspicion that you are playing me and I have been ludicrously falling for it. I just can’t square your behaviour over those pics, with that of someone who as you say, has spent his adult life studying human evolution and teaching it to undergraduates... In my experience, professional teachers are all over their material and eager to explain it; to take and own the role of mentor.


Great, now add into that equation a potential student who is ignorant, arrogant, and who has spent years using evasive argumentative strategies to continue a line of argumentation that is fundamentally hostile to not just the discipline but the entire methodology uniting all the sciences.


I'm leaving that quote above so it is remembered within the context of this slice of conversation.


Jayjay4547 wrote:It’s not so dramatic. My position is simply this: Origin stories, like all historical stories, reflect the position of the teller and further his ideological position.


An assertion.

This thread IS that assertion.

So you're just repeating your assertion.

Really, the hundred plus pages in this thread show to what degree that assertion is valid. And the outcome is quite clearly that really all you've got is the assertion, which is why you're still making that assertion rather than having established it.

Every time you find your latest argument (babushka) has failed, or has been shown wrong, you return to asserting your premise again.

Laying aside anything contained herein, just in terms of discourse and persuasive writing, you've clearly got nothing to back it up.


Jayjay4547 wrote:Atheist ideology is the main biasing theme in the human origin narrative told by people like your good self.


As I said, this is just self-aggrandizing delusional bigotry on your part.

You can't actually draw a cogent line between the facts about hominids I've laid out and any atheistic position whatsoever. Rather, it's you who is trying to superimpose your god belief into the argument, but can't actually produce any coherent argument even for that.

In reality, there are plenty of religious palaeoanthropologists who still quite happily believe in their Yahwehs and Vishnus and ineffable messiahs while still coming to exactly the same conclusions as non-religious people about the factual details. In reality, science is perfectly open to everyone because it is necessarily intersubjective; the facts must be apparent and mutually recognized universally.

So your premise is just wrong on so many levels. But you're not actually interested in discussing the premise, you're not looking to test it out and see how well it stands up to reality. Rather, you're effectively proselytizing it, and you're doing so at the very people who you are targeting with it.

Thus, we have a litany of claims on your part which do not stand up to any degree of scrutiny but which you will never back down on (self-aggrandizing), we have utterly absurd notions you insist are valid like primates being selectively adapted towards 'defensive biting' against predators weighing 4 or 5 or more times as much as them (delusional), and all of these forms of arguments are part of a narrative you have constructed solely because of your hostility to people in this forum and your entire message is meant as one long put down, one long criticism, one long attack on them - that's the actual motivation (bigotry).

But you are very, very wrong and I fear you will probably depart this life remaining so very, very wrong because you simply are not amenable to anything, regardless of how evident or evidenced it is, of acknowledging your mistakes.


Jayjay4547 wrote:I don’t know how different a human origin narrative freed from that bias would look,...


Well, it wouldn't look any different because all the fossils remain, all the socioecology remains, all the observations and evidence remains, and you have no alternative that corresponds anywhere near as well to them as the supposed 'atheistic' one.


Jayjay4547 wrote:...but as far as I can see now, it would more invoke natural selection as opposed to sexual selection.


Then, as already established, you are myopic.

For a start, no religious narrative would employ natural selection as we can see both historically and contemporaneously by religious hostility towards natural selection. You yourself are guilty of it.

Secondly, your blind assertions and denial notwithstanding, sexual selection is part of natural selection and always has been. There is no 'opposed' there... it's the same thing. There are many, many factors in natural selection, it's not just predator-prey as you seem to think, in fact, for many species this isn't even a component at all. One example of this is modern humans today - predators have essentially zero selection on us now, but humanity is still undergoing evolution by natural selection and will continue to do so up until the moment that comprehensive gene-editing becomes both the norm and universally available.

When you don't grasp something as basic as this about natural selection, not only does it mean that your arguments are irrevocably flawed, but it also necessarily calls into question quite why you think you're in a position to expound on it.

As mentioned earlier: it's Dunning-Kruger, JJ. Your ability is nowhere near as high as your impression of your ability suggests. The very same skill set that includes knowledge of evolution is the same skill set you'd need to evaluate knowledge about evolution. Consequently, you are unable to evaluate your own knowledge, or to recognize superior knowledge in others. Basically, you're mentally blinkered. While it's not hard to imagine that being the case: we all suffer from it in many ways, what's near impossible for me to grasp is how you've maintained that self-belief over the years in the face of such a preponderance of evidence and merit countering your weak, poorly conceived and tragically misguided arguments. I have to say the only thing I can think of is towering hubris.

Do you think that's not you? Has anyone else in your life unrelated to all this said you're colossally arrogant?

If so, and if there's a spark inside somewhere that says 'i genuinely want to know stuff' then only you can free yourself from this position.


Jayjay4547 wrote: A narrative in terms of sexual selection focuses on internal elements within the group...


It doesn't as I already explained to you before. This is where you simply repeat errors as if they haven't been shown wrong.


Jayjay4547 wrote: instead of a struggle for existence in relation to other organic beings...


Other organic beings include other individuals of one's own species, particularly because their resource usage has a greater overlap with yours than an organic being of another species.

I told you this before. You can't counter it. You can only repeat the same poorly conceived idea almost like a mantra.


Jayjay4547 wrote: or to external conditions; the nexus where creativity is observed to express itself.


Nonsensical, just nonsensical.


Jayjay4547 wrote:There’s no part of my position that is hostile to the entire methodology uniting all the sciences, as you put it.


I disagree, but that's really rather irrelevant right at this moment compared to what you've just exhibited above.

Now put that back into the context you crafted earlier of someone in accredited, occupational expertise being lectured at by someone who clearly and comprehensively doesn't have a fucking clue what they're talking about.

That's you, JJ. It is you. I do understand if you don't see that as you, but in this topic, that's exactly who you are.


Jayjay4547 wrote:In the first place, I doubt that you are as authoritative as you pretend.


:)

What's funny about this is that each and every time I've even mentioned any expertise it's always been to contradict your assertions about how I just don't get it, I just don't see it, that JJ's got special insight.

So it's actually you who's been appealing to authority.

I've never done so; quite the contrary, I've taken pains many times to explain my position on knowledge, that there are many things I could be wrong about, I've cited other people as being the source of my knowledge rather than pretending I alighted on it because of special me.


***continued below***
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: 24848
Age: 43
Male

Country: Thailand
Print view this post

Re: How atheist ideology messed up the human origin story

#3490  Postby Spearthrower » Jun 19, 2019 5:19 pm

***continued from above***

Jayjay4547 wrote:In this topic you have said that you have spent your adult life teaching evolution to undergraduates but in your profile you say of your occupation: ”Bit of this, bit less of that, and the occasional bit of the other. i.e. lecturer, actor, writer, t.v. producer” . All of those are full time careers for those who become authoritative.


Wow, what a bizarre argument. So you're questioning the credibility of what I've written on the grounds of what I've written? :)

And the credible writing isn't the detailed technical morphological characteristics of afarensis which I wrote to you and you ignored... but the whimsical dozen words I wrote on my profile on a website?

Also, you've just demolished your argument that I am appealing to authority, or else I would write something serious about myself there as I've seen other members do.

But of course, even were we to ignore the obviously weird quantity of the argument you're now forwarding, even taken at face value it's so contrived as to be nearly meaningless.

Lecturer is first.

Why do you think I put it first, JJ?

Want to make some guesses?

Is it alphabetical? Nope, then it would be actor.

Is it by which one I do most? No, because the last in the list would then be second.

Ooh, I know (funny that when it was what I wrote!) how about if it's a list of things I do as an occupation based on the order of interest or importance to me?

Wow what an amazing deduction? How do you do it Holmes? Elementary, said he! I had an expert insight into the workings of the mind of the writer! :shifty:

Again, look JJ this is just bloody dense of you. You don't ask me questions about which you know fuck all - clearly fuck all in this case - you contrive scenarios which paint nefarious pictures of long-term agendas. Basically, you just ran a synopsis of this entire thread in just one paragraph! :lol:

Of course, as usual, you're wrong. In reality, I've never claimed any degree whatsoever of authority in writing or acting. Quite the contrary, I am always looking for writers because I find it a chore, and while there are many types of assignment I can write well and easily, feature length screenplays are just damn hard slogs which end up throwing my fragile circadian rhythm right out of whack and cause me months of grief. I'm not a stage actor, I'm a character voice-actor for animated TV and films, and while I don't claim any great professional acumen in this area, I do have a lot of experience collected over many years of working on dozens of projects. Between writing and acting, I probably spend approximately a month per year on them. Given the option, I'd spend a lot more time doing voice-over work because it's so much fun it's almost absurd to get paid for it.

When it comes to lecturing and producer, these are my primary occupations, as in, these pay for me and my family to live - quite comfortably, I might add! :)

Again though, I wouldn't claim authority as a tv producer. I knows what I knows, and sufficient people trust me in that regard for them to have the confidence to invest in my projects, or to employ me to develop animated tv series and films. This is my primary job in the sense that it pays the most, but it's not full-time. I've only needed to go into the studio once a week for the last few weeks, although earlier this year I practically lived there for 2 months, and when a project gets greenlit, I have to invest time and energy into it.

As for lecturer, that's what's on my visa, my legal, official position in the country which is granted only on proof of academic and vocational expertise and accredited proficiency. So yeah, I'd claim a bit of authority here as it's basically necessary to be reasonably authoritative when it comes to education at university level. However, Thailand's academic culture is a bit different than many other nations you might potentially be more familiar with; I'll never be a tenured professor at a university, my official status translates best into English as Associate Professor, basically, I'm a lecturer, curriculum developer, and I grade some papers.

So what does this entail vocationally? Well, I have my own office, desk, computer, small library, tiny budget, and courses at one of the top 3 universities in this country. Over one academic year, I typically teach 6 courses, although it can sometimes be 5, and occasionally be as many as 8 or 9. These run for either 6 weeks or 18 weeks. Of the 6 main courses, 3 of them are wholly my creation, as in, I have free reign to teach whatever the hell I like: I've developed the entire curriculum and no one interferes at any point. It's the beauty of teaching undergraduate courses, to be honest! :)

However, as you're making such a big hullabaloo over authority, I'll share a little something with you. I get to teach the introductory class to Palaeoanthropology (not the title in Thai, but then that's because Thai is weird in this respect) and the second lesson in that course I spend tricking my students into lazy confident assessments then turning everything upside down as a warning against certainty. I impress upon those students (and it always goes down well) how vital it is that they don't run in automatic mode slurping down the produce of experts, but rather that they grasp tightly the tools they can use to garner that knowledge for themselves and always be ready to drop a proposition whenever it turns out to be dead-weight.

I think you would benefit greatly from that lesson JJ, but I can't help thinking you'd imagine it doesn't apply to you, only to everyone else.

So anyway, you didn't ask, because you never do, but I told you my little story about me and my work anyway.

None of it really matters because I never once said to you: I am right because I am an expert. Rather, I have produced technical and detailed assessments which apparently were outside your ability to respond to, and I've contradicted your authoritative claims to having special insight that I was simply unaware of. As such, this is much like when I spot you saying something untrue and call it a lie, then you act as if you're the victim.


Jayjay4547 wrote: So you are laying it on a bit thick on this forum...


Yeah, you've deduced this from the words in my profile? :)


Jayjay4547 wrote:... and the extent of your possible misrepresentation is what is worrying me,...


My misrepresentation of what, JJ? Why are we in the abstract here? What is it I've misrepresented? Did I misrepresent the morphological characteristics of afarensis? You didn't seem to have the first idea how to respond or to engage on that level, but for me it's perfectly normal conversation I have with my colleagues. We can enter that mode if you like, but honestly, I don't think you'd have anything to input and I'd just end up having to revert to using non-technical language so you could participate.


Jayjay4547 wrote: because nothing could make me look sillier than having what I think is a serious conversation, with a joking pretense.


As I've said before JJ: I am playing you... but it's not about this. I am playing you in a number of ways, testing your knowledge, exposing how little you know while making such confident declarations.

For example, I have repeatedly asked you to clarify what the Wikipedia entry you cited means in your own words. You haven't done so. You asserted that it contradicted my point about the differences between floriensis and the australopithecines, but you can't seem to engage in any substantive function as to what exactly it is that I am supposed to be wrong about and why that wikipedia entry shows that.

Remember when you said I'd made a load of embarrassing arguments, then failed to establish why they were meant to be embarrassing? That's the same thing that's happening here, isn't it? It's a chuck shit and hope something sticks long enough for you to make a get-away onto the next babushka.


Jayjay4547 wrote:Secondly, I think its high time people who assume a monopoly by science for telling the human origin story, hit a bit of an incline. If you spoke in the name of science with more tolerance that would certainly help the prestige of the teller but scientific consensus on the human origin story seems to me too narrow; far narrower say than the consensus of historians about the documented past.


Ahh stuff it back up yer arse you pompous oaf. :)

When you stop engaging in self-aggrandizing delusional bigotry, and show you're open to learning rather than lecturing bollocks nonsensically at people who know you're talking shit, then and only then may the quality of conversation improve.


Jayjay4547 wrote:Beyond that narrowness of outlook,...


Your asserted narrowness that exists only in your mind but you can't actually show exists outside of your mind, you mean?

Self-aggrandizing, delusional bigotry.


Jayjay4547 wrote:...the internet resources have in the last decade so broadened what is available to all,...


Indeed, and it's fantastic. But there should be a warning there too. Just because there are resources available to you, that doesn't make you a de facto expert.

For example, an actual expert wouldn't have made so many silly errors as you have.

So even though you've got access to pictures, you still need to know what the pictures are before engaging a grand sweeping argument on the basis of that picture alone.


Jayjay4547 wrote:that lay persons can figure some things out for themselves...


I should certainly hope so, but they still need to think long and hard about what it is they actually know, to what depth and breadth, because a little bit of knowledge can be a dangerous thing.


Jayjay4547 wrote:...and if putative authorities try to bully them into kowtowing to their authority, we can put up a bit of an argument.


Awww, the martyr narrative is complete.

Bravo JJ, BRAVO!

And you started this post with the words 'not so dramatic'! :lol:

See? This is how your cognitive dissonance protects you from ever acknowledging your errors. This is why you're still battering away at a nonsensical assertion years and years later. It's personal for you. You're desperate to be acclaimed by the people you're so bigoted against. You want approval of your ideas from people who you routinely dismiss and contrive such nonsensical delusions about.

It's batshit JJ. You officially have no shame! :)
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: 24848
Age: 43
Male

Country: Thailand
Print view this post

Re: How atheist ideology messed up the human origin story

#3491  Postby Spearthrower » Jun 19, 2019 5:37 pm

So now JJ's blown his wad, let's pull back the curtain a little and take a glimpse of non-contrived reality.

http://www.rationalskepticism.org/creat ... l#p2700980

Jayjay4547 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”.

Image



Now, there's a fair few problems with this image, but there are two main problems with respect to the argument JJ was making (I'm still saving one for later), but one big fucking glaring one given JJ's repetitious appeal to his special knowledge and insight into knowing what kind of animal it was... an instinctive grasp of the very essence of the being which thereby justifies all JJ's many claims which otherwise are contradicted by all the evidence.

Well, that little conceit was already blown apart when he couldn't tell the difference between a male and female afarensis, but now we have a much more amusing insight into the truth behind the confidence trick that's going on here.

Picture b isn't Australopithecus sediba.

Australopithecus sediba looks like this:

Image

As reported by Berger et all in 2010 here:

https://science.sciencemag.org/content/328/5975/195


Instead, what picture B shows is ironically (given JJ's continual reference to Raymond Dart) the type specimen of Australopithecus africanus.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Taung_Child

So this amazing special insight into knowing the deep nature of being encapsulated in the animal is just a bit problematic when it doesn't also give you the special insight to recognize you're looking at a completely different species that lived half a million years apart.

So let's remember the many pages JJ has produced about the lay person fighting back against the tyranny of scientific experts by employing the powers of the internet and freedom of information...

Beyond that narrowness of outlook, the internet resources have in the last decade so broadened what is available to all, that lay persons can figure some things out for themselves and if putative authorities try to bully them into kowtowing to their authority, we can put up a bit of an argument.


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.


Etc.

All good stuff, however the availability of pictures is one thing, but you still need to know what you're fucking talking about.
I'm not an atheist; I just don't believe in gods :- that which I don't belong to isn't a group!
Religion: Mass Stockholm Syndrome

Learn Stuff. Stuff good. https://www.coursera.org/
User avatar
Spearthrower
 
Posts: 24848
Age: 43
Male

Country: Thailand
Print view this post

Re: How atheist ideology messed up the human origin story

#3492  Postby Spearthrower » Jun 19, 2019 5:52 pm

I can only surmise that this amusing error occurred because JJ typed 'australopithecus sediba' into the internet, picked a picture he quite fancied, then imported it here.

Here's the problem writ large.

Type australopithecus sediba into Google yourself, go to the images tab and see what you get.

My search has a confusing mix of actual fossils, some imaginations of what the species might have looked like with skin and fur, a picture from Harun Yahya's website with the word FALSE written over it in red letters.

But oh lookee here!!

The 4th picture in my Google images search for 'australopithecus sediba' is the very image JJ chose.

So let's take a look at that link.

https://australianmuseum.net.au/learn/s ... us-sediba/

So it's an article from the Australian Museum; seems perfectly legit, all the information is clearly presented and seems at first glance to be completely correct.

But there on the right side of the page is the picture of the Taung Child... well, isn't that odd?

So here's JJ's layman approach. The internet provides. This page is authoritative. Therefore, because I know bugger all relevant, I will simply acknowledge this as fact.

Problems? Yes, problems. Any spooky quote expert would only need to glance at the picture to know it's not sediba.

Also, there appears to be a problem of sheer laziness in terms of research even of one page.

The picture on the right hand side has two little widgets. Click the bottom one which gives more info on the picture...

The Australian Museum wrote:A partial skull and brain endocast of an Australopithecus africanus child. Discovered: 1924 in Taung, South Africa Age: approximately 2.3 million years old This skull of a young child is the ‘type specimen’ or official representative of this species. It was the first fossil of a human ancestor ever found in Africa and was also the first to be classified in the genus Australopithecus. We know this individual was a young child because its first molar teeth were in the process of erupting from the jaw. Image: Stuart Humphreys
© Australian Museum


(my bold)

That's how well this layperson did in overcoming the tyranny of expertise using the power of the internet. He couldn't even click a fucking button and read the dialogue therein.

Jesus there's simply not enough room in this thread to contain JJ's hubris.


Edit: *shudder* awful grammar
Last edited by Spearthrower on Jun 19, 2019 6:33 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: 24848
Age: 43
Male

Country: Thailand
Print view this post

Re: How atheist ideology messed up the human origin story

#3493  Postby Spearthrower » Jun 19, 2019 5:55 pm

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.


This, this is why there's a vaccine crisis in the developed world.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/w3csz4qm

Hubris and anti-intellectual suspicion of expertise.

But I can just google it!

And that level of expertise (Dunning-Kruger) is brought to bear in the algorithm served up information that then tells you that vaccines cause autism, and because you went and found the information yourself, you believe it over what those self-absorbed, ivory tower academics tell you with their stupid reams of scientific trials. It's all a cover-up; they're all in it together.

The Dunning-Kruger effect should be taken as a serious warning against certainty, and should be learned in high schools all over the world.
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: 24848
Age: 43
Male

Country: Thailand
Print view this post

Re: How atheist ideology messed up the human origin story

#3494  Postby Spearthrower » Jun 19, 2019 6:14 pm

Sendraks wrote:
Spearthrower wrote:I can identify the very moment for you when you lost any pretense of credibility you might have had if you like? .


So it wasn't back here then?

http://www.rationalskepticism.org/creationism/evolutionary-psychology-creation-and-dysfunction-t31598.html#p1324745



I'd like to think he's been given more than ample opportunity over the years to express his ideas, but so very few of them have turned out to be sensible.

However, I meant the credibility loss with regards to the topic of afarensis, palaeoanthropology, primate anatomy, fossil identification etc.

And that was here:

http://www.rationalskepticism.org/creat ... l#p2700024

:lol:

Bear in mind, of course, that when I initially pointed out that the afarenis composite replica skull cast in question (aside from being largely made up) was female not male and he responded:

I have read a lot of crap on this forum but seldom something as rubbish as that.


So this is a case study of how JJ actually engages with the substance of the topic matter. There's little point in me talking technically about morphological features with him because when I did so, he simply ignored it all and pretended it was evidence of everything he's been saying.

I mean, it's not hard to grasp this, is it? It's a technical subject and therefore has technical vocabulary. If you study anatomy in depth, you have to learn the vocabulary to talk in depth. No one who hasn't studied anatomy is expected to know all the terminology, but then someone who hasn't studied anatomy doesn't really have much to say about anatomy that has any merit.

It's only hubris that drove JJ to this, that hubris won't let him see he's way out of his depth, but encourages him continue on expressing such certainty and disdain even after he showed he was simply incapable of engaging in depth about the very topic he raised. The cognitive bias even has JJ writing long excoriations about me and my credibility and science as a whole comparative the noble layman with his trusty Google companion breaking new ground and exposing the dark underbelly of the system!

It's partly whackadoodle, partly magical case study that is now enshrined on this website. We haven't had anything like this since Byers, I am sure.

Watch what happens now that it's made clear he didn't even know what species he was talking about... watch that hubris machine start cranking! :)
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: 24848
Age: 43
Male

Country: Thailand
Print view this post

Re: How atheist ideology messed up the human origin story

#3495  Postby theropod » Jun 20, 2019 1:40 am

What I find interesting in all this is the fact that we have more complete, and better preserved, Tyrannosaurus rex skulls than some of our hominid cousins. What about this fascinates me? The millions of years separating them. Apparently our older relatives either were not very numerous, and or did not die in settings favorable to fossilization. Presevational bias may be playing a role here as well. A dead hominid would be much easier to scavenge than a multi ton theropod. My paleontologist mind sees a “problem” that needs solving.

RS
Sleeping in the hen house doesn't make you a chicken.
User avatar
theropod
RS Donator
 
Name: Roger
Posts: 7529
Age: 65
Male

Country: USA
United States (us)
Print view this post

Ads by Google


Re: How atheist ideology messed up the human origin story

#3496  Postby laklak » Jun 20, 2019 3:03 am

I've been following this thread for years and I still have no goddamn idea what it's about. Why would "atheists" want to hide evidence that early hominids bit cave lions and/or smacked proto-leopards with sticks? What's the point? Where's the payoff? Who benefits? It's not like creationism isn't utter nonsense on the face of it, there's no need to lie to make it even more utterly fucking nonsensical.
A man who carries a cat by the tail learns something he can learn in no other way. - Mark Twain
The sky is falling! The sky is falling! - Chicken Little
I never go without my dinner. No one ever does, except vegetarians and people like that - Oscar Wilde
User avatar
laklak
RS Donator
 
Name: Florida Man
Posts: 19695
Age: 65
Male

Country: The Great Satan
Swaziland (sz)
Print view this post

Re: How atheist ideology messed up the human origin story

#3497  Postby Jayjay4547 » Jun 20, 2019 3:43 am

Spearthrower wrote:
Spearthrower wrote:Here's a little clue for you, JJ.

Jayjay4547 wrote: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 that help you attain an epiphany? :)


I take it that's a no then?

So you've posted a series of pics and made an argument on the basis of those pics, right. Part of your claim that you have special insight into what these animals really were, and that I was all wrong about scaling differences between floriensis and afarensis.


Here is how this thread started:

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.


In that passage you demonstrated the unerring bias of authoritarianism in science, away from signal and towards noise. The discovery of the Floris hobbits was arguably the most unexpected discovery in human origins since the Taung child. It was so unexpected that there were several attempts to make out that the fossils were one or other kind of sports of nature. What was unexpected was that hominids with such small brains had existed so recently and so far from the most similar hominids. That went against the preconceptions of human origins. What is unexpected, is signal. And what you were doing in your original passage above, was denying that signal; you were expressing distance between early ancestors and the Flores hobbits. And you did so partly by using the scientific sounding language “had different scaling in essentially all their anatomical features.”

So, the comparative pics I put up were aimed at questioning the extent of that scientific sounding language. Look you, it’s not insolent for a layman to post images, nor is it to pretend to special expertise. I do it in the hope that the viewer will think to himself “Well Floris hobbit does look to have had a similar body plan to Australopithecus, maybe that 'different scaling' Spearthrower was on about, was pretentious bullshit”.


In one of your later posts you pointed out that what I had labelled as Australopithecus sediba was actually the Taung child. I apologise. Here is a revised copy of that pic, with a valid image of A.sediba and corrected labelling in red.

Australopithecus_Floresiensis_Compared.jpg
Australopithecus_Floresiensis_Compared.jpg (34.36 KiB) Viewed 96 times


The point I wanted to present using those images is if anything strengthened by that revision because according to Wikipedia, africanus is regarded as an ancestral species to sediba, so the older species looks more like the Flores hobbit than does the later (admittedly, juvenile) Australopithecus.


Spearthrower wrote:
Jayjay4547 wrote: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)



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


I added the emphasis to show where that passage addressed the signal not the noise you were trying to cloud the story with. Where you claimed difference between Flores hobbits and Ausstralopithecus, it points to similarity. And it dares (”possibly”) to suggest my inference that a small brained bipedal hominins with short canines (body plan) were able to trek so far from their African creation. That would show that they were darn good at defending themselves using hand held kinetic weapons.

Spearthrower wrote: You also talked about the wonderful democratization of knowledge the internet provides us, whereby we no longer really even need experts, so even some random dude on the internet's pontifications have just as much value as, say, someone with actual accreditation and academic and field experience, because you know, all the information is just waiting there to be hoovered up by anyone.

Yeah, yeah, I know you're trying to change the topic JJ, but it's not going to change. I am going to have fun with this because your arrogance is outstripped only by your ignorance of the topic matter.


I have no interest in changing the topic. There has indeed been a wonderful democratization of knowledge via the internet. It doesn’t mean we can do without experts but it does mean that people who rely on their expertise and the ignorance of people who disagree with them, can expect some concrete blowback.

The discussion could move forward if you could present some data to support your claim of “different scaling in essentially all their anatomical feature” between A. sediba (not afarensis as you said at the top of this post, above) and Flores hobbits. Here is an image of A. sediba compared with modern human and a chimp (?) skeletons, seemingly aimed at showing actual differential scaling.
Image

[edit: typos]
User avatar
Jayjay4547
THREAD STARTER
 
Name: Jonathan
Posts: 1092
Male

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

Re: How atheist ideology messed up the human origin story

#3498  Postby Jayjay4547 » Jun 20, 2019 4:00 am

theropod wrote:What I find interesting in all this is the fact that we have more complete, and better preserved, Tyrannosaurus rex skulls than some of our hominid cousins. What about this fascinates me? The millions of years separating them. Apparently our older relatives either were not very numerous, and or did not die in settings favorable to fossilization. Presevational bias may be playing a role here as well. A dead hominid would be much easier to scavenge than a multi ton theropod. My paleontologist mind sees a “problem” that needs solving.

RS

Gosh that is an interesting point. Here's a suggestion, just a possibility. In the case of general palaeontology, there is more neutral interest, so that you are likely to regard two speciments as simply "later" and "earlier" versions of one species. But in the hairily fraught world of human origins, there is a strong tendency to regard newly discovered fossils as in different species or even different genera. Palaeontologists Good. Palaeoanthropologists Bad.

OK I'm ducking out of here.
User avatar
Jayjay4547
THREAD STARTER
 
Name: Jonathan
Posts: 1092
Male

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

Re: How atheist ideology messed up the human origin story

#3499  Postby Jayjay4547 » Jun 20, 2019 4:20 am

No that's not good enough, it could explain why there could seem to be more complete info about dinosaurs, because paleontologists clump their categories more broadly than paleoanthropologists. But it can't explain the more complete fossils of dinoaurs. In terms of RS scavenging, Could it be that as prey species, our ancestor's relatively fragile bones were regularly crunched up and totally destroyed by predators. Like RS is saying? I remember in a nature reserve where lions had brought down a zebra on a tarred road, finding the next morning just a wet area in the tar and a single little gland. The preservation of post-cranial bones in sediba could be because when alive, the animals crawled so far into the cave that their predator could get to them. And the Taung child skull might have just been dropped into a limey lake by the eagle carrying it, maybe a bigger eagle swooped down on it, that successive stealing is common amongst raptors?
User avatar
Jayjay4547
THREAD STARTER
 
Name: Jonathan
Posts: 1092
Male

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

Re: How atheist ideology messed up the human origin story

#3500  Postby Jayjay4547 » Jun 20, 2019 4:47 am

Predators on mammals crunch their bones to get at the marrow. Dinosaurs didn't have marrow in their bones so there was no point in crunching their bones.
User avatar
Jayjay4547
THREAD STARTER
 
Name: Jonathan
Posts: 1092
Male

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

PreviousNext

Return to Creationism

Who is online

Users viewing this topic: No registered users and 3 guests