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?

[Clownboat]

It's not that I don't like it (I find it amusing, if a little tedious at times), I believe its against the civility rules of the forum and it distracts attention from the subject under discussion to the person disagreeing with you, but this is your modus operandi when out argued, you should know better by now but this is hardly surprising.

When you post things that are nothing more than your say-so, what else is there to discuss? Your entire argument is nothing more than "because I say so" (including quite serious accusations against lots of professional scientists), which, to me, puts you and your credibility front and center.

If you don't like that, try debating differently.

Like a flat earther, pretending to know more than the professionals in a field is a powerful feeling. Why would a person that has convinced themselves of this want to give up that feeling?

We understand this, yet there are still debators that don't even seem to realize that they are offering no evidence (just doubts) and are just like a flat earther pretending to know more than those in the field.

You can ask for evidence, qualifications or even point out their folly, only to have made a victim. I don't think it is a loss though, as I believe most readers pick up on it.

[Diogenes]

Like a flat earther, pretending to know more than the professionals in a field is a powerful feeling. Why would a person that has convinced themselves of this want to give up that feeling?

We understand this, yet there are still debators that don't even seem to realize that they are offering no evidence (just doubts) and are just like a flat earther pretending to know more than those in the field.

You can ask for evidence, qualifications or even point out their folly, only to have made a victim. I don't think it is a loss though, as I believe most readers pick up on it.

Exactly! I know a couple flat Earthers. They also don't believe in evolution. They use the same logic and lack of information for both arguments. Joey said it well:

The difficulty of debating this topic, of sorting human from non-human relations, like so much of evolutionary theory, comes down to reasonable, logical conclusions based on a thorough, educated analysis of various fossils and other collected data.

Substituting statements of faith doesn't cut it.

[EarthScienceguy]

[Replying to Jose Fly in post #33]

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

In the article that you cited.

It is demonstrated that A. afarensis possessed anatomic characteristics that indicate a significant adaptation for movement in the trees. Other structural features point to a mode of terrestrial bipedality that involved less extension at the hip and knee than occurs in modern humans, and only limited transfer of weight onto the medial part of the ball of the foot, but such conclusions remain more tentative than that asserting substantive arboreality.

The males were probably less arboreal and engaged more frequently in terrestrial bipedalism. In our opinion, A. afarensis from Hadar is very close to what can be called a “missing link.”

The only observation that was made was that "A. afarensis possessed anatomic characteristics that indicate a significant adaptation for movement in the trees" Every other conclusion they make here is not based on observation.

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?

You might want to ask that question to yourself.

[EarthScienceguy]

[Replying to Clownboat in post #34]

"In our opinion, A. afarensis from Hadar is very close to what can be called a “missing link.”"

So what observation are they basing this conclusion on? It really is not even a conclusion it really just a belief or an opinion.

[Clownboat]

[Replying to Clownboat in post #34]

"In our opinion, A. afarensis from Hadar is very close to what can be called a “missing link.”"

So what observation are they basing this conclusion on? It really is not even a conclusion it really just a belief or an opinion.

Dr: I'm sorry, but you have brain cancer.
Patient: Well, what observations are you basing this conclusion on? Is it even a conclusion or just a belief and how are you interpreting the data? I don't believe your interpretations Doctor. I'm off to consult my dentist and am going to ignore the conclusion, which is probably just a belief or an opinion from the oncologist anyway.

Experts have identified A. afarensis as being very close to what can be called a 'missing link'.
You are free to consult your dentist or pretend it is just a belief they seem to hold for no reason. This will allow you to not have to wonder why the experts disagree with your holy book as far as the mechanism we observe for explaining the life we see not only now, but also in the fossil record.

[Jose Fly]

Like a flat earther, pretending to know more than the professionals in a field is a powerful feeling. Why would a person that has convinced themselves of this want to give up that feeling?

You're probably right, but it's still something I can't relate to at all. I guess it depends on what a person values (psychologically/emotionally). I'd much rather be as accurate as possible, rather than feel like I'm some sort of authority.

We understand this, yet there are still debators that don't even seem to realize that they are offering no evidence (just doubts) and are just like a flat earther pretending to know more than those in the field.

Yep, and I find it revealing how many of them come from religious environments where "because I say so" is more acceptable than in other settings (e.g., science).

You can ask for evidence, qualifications or even point out their folly, only to have made a victim. I don't think it is a loss though, as I believe most readers pick up on it.

Oh for sure. You have to be somewhat amused at such behaviors.

[Jose Fly]

[Replying to Jose Fly in post #33]

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

In the article that you cited.

It is demonstrated that A. afarensis possessed anatomic characteristics that indicate a significant adaptation for movement in the trees. Other structural features point to a mode of terrestrial bipedality that involved less extension at the hip and knee than occurs in modern humans, and only limited transfer of weight onto the medial part of the ball of the foot, but such conclusions remain more tentative than that asserting substantive arboreality.

The males were probably less arboreal and engaged more frequently in terrestrial bipedalism. In our opinion, A. afarensis from Hadar is very close to what can be called a “missing link.”

The only observation that was made was that "A. afarensis possessed anatomic characteristics that indicate a significant adaptation for movement in the trees" Every other conclusion they make here is not based on observation.

You're not making any sense. You said those two researchers said the specimen was an ape because it had "ape feet". Nothing you quoted says 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?

You might want to ask that question to yourself.

Oh I can answer easily. Since I already accept that humans share a common ancestry with other primates, the question is moot. But in the interest of transparency....the possibility of humans not sharing a common ancestry with other primates is potentially acceptable to me and would have no effect on any religious beliefs I hold. In fact, if that really were the case I would love to be the biologist who discovered it (I'd be among the most famous in history).

So, how about you actually answer this time? 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?

[Jose Fly]

[Replying to Clownboat in post #34]

"In our opinion, A. afarensis from Hadar is very close to what can be called a “missing link.”"

So what observation are they basing this conclusion on? It really is not even a conclusion it really just a belief or an opinion.

LOL....that's from a paper written by two scientists who you cited! Didn't you read it?

[Inquirer]

It's not that I don't like it (I find it amusing, if a little tedious at times), I believe its against the civility rules of the forum and it distracts attention from the subject under discussion to the person disagreeing with you, but this is your modus operandi when out argued, you should know better by now but this is hardly surprising.

When you post things that are nothing more than your say-so, what else is there to discuss?

This just paraphrasing Jose, another tiresome habit.

Your entire argument is nothing more than "because I say so" (including quite serious accusations against lots of professional scientists), which, to me, puts you and your credibility front and center.

If you're referring to something I wrote then quote me, your interpretation is incorrect. My entire argument is reasonable, if you disagree then explain why, don't hurl insults and paraphrase me.

If you don't like that, try debating differently.

Like how? like you? by making things up? by paraphrasing a distortion of what a person wrote rather than simply quoting them? by hurling personal insults of "arrogance"?

You are unable to answer my challenge, that's the real problem you face. If the fossils some call "archaic human" came from animals with no more IQ than a chimp, then why should I regard that has "human"?

Something "human" must possess a characteristic that is specific to humans Jose, one of those is IQ, if you disagree with even this rather obvious truism then come out and say so.

As it stands we have a bunch of old fossils of bits of skull and because there's some morphological similarity you jump up and shout "Look! ancient humans!" which is far from scientific, it is in fact quite ridiculous, unless we have solid evidence these creatures were intelligent then it is just wishful thinking something I see a lot from evolutionists.

[JoeyKnothead]

...
...
unless we have solid evidence these creatures were intelligent then it is just wishful thinking something I see a lot from evolutionists.

Says the guy who thinks there's an intelligent god creature lurking about.