What is the current theistic explanation for archaic human fossils?

[DeMotts]

There's quite a body of fossils that exist that illustrate a variety of archaic humans, from australopithecines to Homo rhodesiensis, Homo heidelbergensis, Homo naledi, Homo ergaster, Homo antecessor, and Homo habilis.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_h ... on_fossils

For the theistic anti-evolutionists on the board: how do you explain such a variety of human fossils? What are australopithecines? How do they fit in with the creation story of the bible? Do you believe these fossils are legitimate or forgeries?

[DeMotts]

[Replying to EarthScienceguy in post #22]

In your opinion, what happened to A. Africanus? Why do they not exist now? When did they exist?

What are you trying to get me to say? 90% of all organisms that have existed are now extinct. What difference does it make when they exist? If you really want to have a discussion on the flood, I can do that and I have done that on this forum before. But just be careful about what you ask for.

Just trying to get a concise and clear answer to the questions I asked. If that's not your thing that's ok.

[EarthScienceguy]

The feet still indicate that it is an ape. And in their opinion, the feet were ape feet.

Sorry bud, I'm not about to take your baseless say-so over the analyses and conclusions from professionals.

So I take it this is all you have...nothing more than "Because I say so"?

Dude, I did not say it Paleoanthropologists Jack Stern and Randall Sussman said it. I am sorry if you are not used to evolutionists talking out of both sides of their mouths. It is a very common practice.

[Jose Fly]

Dude, I did not say it Paleoanthropologists Jack Stern and Randall Sussman said it.

Where?

I am sorry if you are not used to evolutionists talking out of both sides of their mouths. It is a very common practice.

That's quite an accusation. Where did they do that?

Also, if it turned out your arguments are wrong, could you potentially accept human/primate ancestry as valid? Would you have to alter your religious beliefs? If so, how?

[Clownboat]

The feet still indicate that it is an ape. And in their opinion, the feet were ape feet.

Sorry bud, I'm not about to take your baseless say-so over the analyses and conclusions from professionals.

So I take it this is all you have...nothing more than "Because I say so"?

Dude, I did not say it Paleoanthropologists Jack Stern and Randall Sussman said it. I am sorry if you are not used to evolutionists talking out of both sides of their mouths. It is a very common practice.

When the debate is lost, slander becomes the tool of the loser. - Socrates

Post 23 Copy/paste: Also, is this the work from Stern and Susman you're referring to? https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10. ... 1330600302
"In our opinion, A. afarensis from Hadar is very close to what can be called a “missing link.”"

missing link
evolutionary theory

By The Editors of Encyclopaedia Britannica • Edit History
Related Topics: evolution
missing link, hypothetical extinct creature halfway in the evolutionary line between modern human beings and their anthropoid progenitors.

This was ignored to instead pretend that evolutionists practice doublespeak.
Quite the arguments you put forth!

[brunumb]

If we cannot determine what it's IQ was then we can't scientifically claim it was human can we?

Are you suggesting that there is a threshold of IQ for classification as a human being?

[DeMotts]

If we cannot determine what it's IQ was then we can't scientifically claim it was human can we?

Are you suggesting that there is a threshold of IQ for classification as a human being?

Online forums and youtube comments would be a direct refutation of this theory for sure

[Inquirer]

surely that involves interpreting the fossils, yes? and all interpretation is subjective, yes?

No. We went over this before, and you stated that the way to tell which interpretation is more accurate/valid is via scientific testing. Then I posted an example of researchers scientifically testing between two interpretations of the data regarding human origins (separate ancestry vs. common ancestry with other primates) and concluding that common ancestry is overwhelmingly the superior interpretatation.

I tried three times to get you to address that and you ignored it each time (as you did with examples of speciation, gradualism in the fossil record, and preCambrian-Cambrian transitionals).

That speaks for itself.

So you travelled back in time millions of years to test this hypothesis?

Oh come on...you can't be serious. You actually think the only way to investigate a past event is via time travel?

Er, no Mr. Fly, that's your melodramatic interpretation of what I wrote. Anyway you pretty much admit you have never observed these living organisms you regard as "human", have no objective information about their IQ.

How did you determine that these fossils come from organisms with an IQ typical of the modern human population?

[Inquirer]

If we cannot determine what it's IQ was then we can't scientifically claim it was human can we?

Are you suggesting that there is a threshold of IQ for classification as a human being?

Possibly, it is true that human IQ is exceptional among the animal kingdom, so can be regarded as a characteristic of humans.

[DeMotts]

Er, no Mr. Fly, that's your melodramatic interpretation of what I wrote. Anyway you pretty much admit you have never observed these living organisms you regard as "human", have no objective information about their IQ.

How did you determine that these fossils come from organisms with an IQ typical of the modern human population?

It's certainly not conclusive (as I don't think any neuroarcheological study can be) but here is an interesting take using a variety of methodology: https://www.nature.com/articles/s10038-022-01039-8

[Jose Fly]

Er, no Mr. Fly, that's your melodramatic interpretation of what I wrote.

So do you agree that we don't need to travel back in time and observe an event in order to study that event?

Anyway you pretty much admit you have never observed these living organisms you regard as "human", have no objective information about their IQ.

Um....that's correct. So?

How did you determine that these fossils come from organisms with an IQ typical of the modern human population?

The only one here focused on IQ is you. I've said nothing about that.