Posted: Jun 25, 2019 11:32 am
by Cito di Pense
Cito di Pense wrote:JJ could ask himself how it is that water (unlike most substances, and the one essential for life) expands to a solid of lower density rather than higher density. This is important, because the earth's climate system has produced epochs in which ice covered nearly the total surface of the oceans (along with much of the land above sea level), called colloquially, "Snowball Earth". The last one of these episodes occurred during the latest pre-Cambrian.

Jayjay4547 wrote:That’s an argument usually made by creationists; that the laws of physics are tailor made for life and “therefore” humanity, to have evolved. I’m interested and I believe there is Godly intent behind the creation, but I park conjecture about physical laws as way beyond the veil. In theory we can agree about what is observable, such as the influence of atheist ideology on the human origin story.

Well, JJ, it's mainly idiot creationists who are at all eager to find intent in it. The laws of physics are not "tailor made'. There's no identifiable Maker unless you study the universe the way a fortune teller reads tea leaves.

Jayjay4547 wrote:
Cito di Pense wrote:
Jayjay4547 wrote:I don’t have a solution to the crisis that humanity is in, my point is that it is the system of actors involved in it is hierarchically greater than we are, contra Alan-B’s argument that the solution is obvious to the intellect (at least, to his intellect and those of other skeptics).

What fucking crisis, JJ? You've got this notion that creativity set us going, but now you seem to be treating the crisis as exogenous to the system that you insist created humans, for which you proffer your reverence. How do you relieve your so-called creative system of the responsibility for creating the crisis? We're in the system, JJ, not outside it; we are part of the 'greatness', which just isn't looking so fucking great. You're trying to pack in a matter of conscience in your latest babushka. Tell your latest babushka to fuck itself off to where it came from, which is up your arse.

You haven't established creativity. You're just looking through the wrong end of the telescope, and what you see looks wacky to anyone not eager to lap up your self-reverential drivel, namely religious nuts. Your reverence is all for yourself and this vision you got by looking through the wrong end of the telescope.

Gosh that’s really abusive.

Sorry, JJ. Did somebody rain on your bollox parade?

Jayjay4547 wrote:
Cito di Pense wrote:Your concept of natural selection is totally botched, because you cherry-pick what the agents are. The rest of your effort you spend on looking through the wrong end of the telescope and fabricating 'creativity'. Fuck that noise.

Fuck this and fuck that hey. What I am alleging is that when it came to HUMAN origins, Darwin, then Dart and then everyone who followed, cherry picked the actors to be members of the same population. Darwin, by devoting 2/3 of Descent to sexual selection, Dart by focusing on his hunting hypothesis where the hunter is the quintessential actor, impressing his will on the hunted.

Well, fuck your obsession with how the story of human origins is being told. From your end, it's being told idiotically. You should be marketing it to idiots.

You ignore pretty much all the rest of the history of life on earth because of your obsession with human origins. Why won't you look farther? Are you really saying the emergence of human beings is some kind of miracle in the biosphere. Why not start with the origins of the mammals. Humans are mammals, too. The dinosaurs left the stage and the mammals took over. Your version of it would be the Gary Larson cartoon. "The situation looks bleak, gentlemen...". There's another Gary Larson cartoon, "The real reason the dinosaurs died out", which shows them out behind the shed, smoking cigarettes.

Jayjay4547 wrote:I have no problem with the theory of natural selection except that it is no more interesting than that water flows downhill. What is intrinsically interesting is the concrete history of life past i.e. palaeontology; for instance, recent genetic findings about the treks made by human ancestors.

Well, JJ, we're truly sorry that the scientific analysis of human origins doesn't flatter your vanity. See "the puddle analogy".

Jayjay4547 wrote:It’s not me who has demonstrated incompetence on the facts of human evolution. I claimed that one of the distinctive features of the Australopithecus genus (and all later human ancestors) was that they lacked the long sharp canines typical of primates, that those teeth make primates dangerous to attack and this showed that these distant ancestors had abandoned defensive biting in favour of using kinetic hand weapons, which created a symbiotic coevolving relationship with objects. Spearthrower, who says he has spent his whole adult life teaching evolution to undergraduates, claimed that he had posted several pics contradicting me but he declined to post them again, ostensibly because I had tried to bully him but actually because his pic (of a skull with fangs) that could have contradicted my position, wasn’t even of a fossil.

You're lying again, JJ. Lying and denying and defying. Brave, brave JJ!

Jayjay4547 wrote:What is really at issue is whether those who tell the story of human origins in term of evolution have been biased by their ideological beliefs. That is, whether those who invoke “Science” in their narrative, speak with God like authority. And I’m arguing that youse all put your trousers on one leg at a time.

You're lying again and again, JJ. Lying for Jebus!

Jayjay4547 wrote:I stay here because I’m interested in how atheist ideology has messed up the story of human evolution. And in just how extreme self-identifying skeptics can get in denying it, as shown partly by my colouring your text above.

You stay here because you get some kind of sick thrill out of hanging around chatting with people whose ideas you despise.