rationalskepticism.org

Spearthrower wrote:

Jayjay4547 wrote:
All I can observe is that YOU changed my “long, pointy” to the redundant “sharp, pointy” and my “Australopithecus” to “australopithecine”. Why can’t you just come right out and say what I changed.

I was talking to the observant and educated, JJ.

I am both of those things.

Spearthrower wrote:

Jayjay4547 wrote:After evading the challenge I put to you,...

You challenged me?

Funny, I must have missed that! I only saw you attempt to order me to do something.

Order, challenge, request, whatever. You said I lied in claiming you had failed to put up what was needed to settle an issue: i.e. a pic of an australopithecus male with long pointy canines. Then you said you had in fact put up several such. But you haven’t. The only pics you have put up of primate males with long sharp canines, weren’t even of fossils.

Spearthrower wrote:

Jayjay4547 wrote:... you went on to change the subject by posting pics I had put up.

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.

Spearthrower wrote:

Jayjay4547 wrote:That’s one of several options you could have taken:

Oooh! You're going to give ME options about what action I might elect to do?

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

Spearthrower wrote:

Jayjay4547 wrote:(b) You could have actually re-posted these “several pics” of australopithecines with sharp [long] pointy canines. That would have simply ended my career on the ratskep forum and you would have got a deal of approval from your peers. There was every incentive for you to do that, if those pics existed.

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.

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, failing to back that up and making out you couldn’t respond to an “Order”. I don’t assume you want me to leave this forum, just that you could earn kudos for sending this creationist off with his tail between his legs as you put it.

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 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.

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.

Spearthrower wrote:

Jayjay4547 wrote:(c) You could have withdrawn your accusation that I had lied. I don’t see that happening but like (b) above, it is on the face of it a theoretical possibility.

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.

Spearthrower wrote:

Jayjay4547 wrote:(d) You could have re-posted the pics that you actually had posted, from which I made this collation:

Spearthrower_Teeth_Comparisons.png (795.84 KiB) Viewed 248 times

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...

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.