Posted: Jun 11, 2019 5:57 am
by Cito di Pense
Jayjay4547 wrote:
Cito di Pense wrote:

Blast from the past (2011)

Jayjay4547 wrote:I used Microosoft Paint to draw this critter, whose main feature is two tusk-like teeth that it rams into its foes. I dishonestly claimed, this pic came from a still from a BBC film by David Attenburgh (lie #2). the aim of this deception was to make a point about chimp teeth, where the incisors slope outwards. The point I had wanted to make was that chimps bite and when they bite hard, against a predator, they must use their arms to grab andpull while biting into their antagonist- else they risked breaking their incisors through bending stress. And this was all about how different chimps are from humans, in their way of reacting to predatory attacks on them. I worked out the ratio of compressive force to pulling in force, from images of chimp skulls.

Ah, technical language. Ain't it grand?

That was an embarrassing misstep on my part. Drawing a vector along the axis of a chimp skull’s sloping incisors I worked out orthogonal components of biting force and force towards an object being bitten. I got quite invested in that. But then I dropped it like a hot potato, not because of anything other posters said, but because I noticed that the axis of the chimp’ canines told a different story: they were aligned along the biting axis. That’s how I recall it.

Plus, I have graduated from Paint.exe to Paint.Net

Look, JJ, I was just having another little laugh at your expense. If you would just stop amending minutiae in this or that report of yours, as if you were some junior surveyor on a construction site, and get to the point of something besides the teeth. Since you are a creationist (old- or young-earth, doesn't matter to me) and what you're obviously trying to do is find signs of the hand of some god somewhere, sometime -- you have to stop cherry picking cases you think demonstrate design. There are so many cases that demonstrate crappy design (many have been repeatedly pointed out to you). You aren't the first creationist who has ever tested his ideas in public, but I've never seen someone so desperate to keep away from the obvious cases that have not been designed (cases where function can simply not be attributed to the mysterious divine aims). I mean, really, JJ: Give us an account of the design features of the human male prostate gland, wrapped as it is around the human male's urethra. You may even be old enough to know how this is a bad design. Alan B certainly is. For instance, you could make up a story about putting away childish things.

My only point is that the last few pages of this thread have shown that your interest in human paleontology is not backed up by sufficient expertise for anything you say on the topic to be taken seriously, at least not by anyone with scientific training. The latter is something you readily admit you do not possess. The upshot is just reviewing your resentment of both atheism and technical expertise yet another round. Your ability to feel shame about your ignorance (and lying, too) is all down to the holy mission you find yourself on. Anglicanism is not an excuse.

Jayjay4547 wrote:
If you look at human origins in that light it comes to look oddly MECHANICAL rather than inspirational. One aspect is that a head that doesn’t need to bite effectively, is freed from compromises that the human skull is clearly free from, and our heads support speech. There seems to be some evidence that human brains have been shrinking since around the time human speech appeared. Whether that line of argument is true or not, it sure is obvious.

And it’s curious that all the elements of that argument are vigorously opposed in this little laboratory of atheist thought.

The reason is that it's long since obvious that your entire output is an obsessively repetitive account of how taken you are by the puddle story. Everything fits into the picture, if you expend enough effort on making it fit. The puddle story obviously doesn't flatter your pretensions to scientific knowledge, insight, and critical faculties, but there's nothing there to be flattered, as you yourself readily admit.

Jayjay4547 wrote:
Plus, I have graduated from Paint.exe to Paint.Net

You have selected a sub-standard operating system on which to run your software. So, what else is new? Choose any software you like: If you run it in a clunky operating system, you're stuck with that clunky operation, and all you can do is make it work for you. You can't make it work for anyone else who's not satisfied with less than the best available. There's a lesson there about creationism, JJ.