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?
What is the current theistic explanation for archaic human fossils?
Moderator: Moderators
- brunumb
- Savant
- Posts: 5993
- Joined: Thu Nov 02, 2017 4:20 am
- Location: Melbourne
- Has thanked: 6608 times
- Been thanked: 3209 times
Re: What is the current theistic explanation for archaic human fossils?
Post #51So even if it bears a strong resemblance to humans, if it has an IQ lower than is characteristic of humans we should not regard it as human. Maybe it's a demon in disguise.Inquirer wrote: ↑Sat Sep 24, 2022 11:44 amWhen you get a minute, lookup the definition of "characterize", let me know if you still need help after reading that.
George Orwell:: “The further a society drifts from the truth, the more it will hate those who speak it.”
Voltaire: "Those who can make you believe absurdities can make you commit atrocities."
Gender ideology is anti-science, anti truth.
Voltaire: "Those who can make you believe absurdities can make you commit atrocities."
Gender ideology is anti-science, anti truth.
- Diogenes
- Guru
- Posts: 1304
- Joined: Sun May 24, 2020 12:53 pm
- Location: Washington
- Has thanked: 862 times
- Been thanked: 1265 times
Re: What is the current theistic explanation for archaic human fossils?
Post #52This description is replete with false assumptions, over generalizations and facts not in evidence.Inquirer wrote: ↑Sat Sep 24, 2022 11:53 am Unless you can show that fossils bearing a resemblance to human bones came from creatures with a comparable high IQ then of course I do not regard them as "human" just something that bears a physical resemblance to humans.
There is a huge element of deceit here, saying that because there are fossilized bones that bear some morphological resemblance to humans then we can conclude these creatures were "human" is unjustified.
Every case we see today of animals with some morphological resemblance to us are all dumb apes, there is not trace of any living ape-like animal that even remotely exhibits our intellectual capacity.
1st "some morphological resemblance" is a meaningless description in the context of this discussion. Certainly all the apes have "some morphological resemblance" to each other, but then all mammals bear "some morphological resemblance" to each other.
2d, tho' chimpanzees (for example) may bear "some morphological resemblance" to homo sapiens, no expert in the field would confuse the skeletal remains of one with the other, any more than they would confuse the intelligence of an average chimp with an average human.
3d neanderthals, cro magnon man and even perhaps homo habilis and others had much closer "morphological resemblance" to modern homo sapiens than do extant apes, AND were all tool makers with comparable intelligence.
Another issue that has been glossed over in some flippant arguments is the idea that outliers within a species are not members of that species. Modern homo sapiens include individuals at the extreme lower end of the bell curve of intelligence. That hardly makes them "non human."
___________________________________
“Before You Embark On A Journey Of Revenge, Dig Two Graves”
— Confucius
“Before You Embark On A Journey Of Revenge, Dig Two Graves”
— Confucius
- Inquirer
- Banned
- Posts: 1012
- Joined: Tue May 31, 2022 6:03 pm
- Has thanked: 23 times
- Been thanked: 30 times
Re: What is the current theistic explanation for archaic human fossils?
Post #53Am I now to take it that you've finally abandoned all pretense of logic and science, and once again eagerly embrace petty insults as your modus operandi?
- Jose Fly
- Guru
- Posts: 1462
- Joined: Tue Jan 18, 2022 5:30 pm
- Location: Out west somewhere
- Has thanked: 337 times
- Been thanked: 906 times
Re: What is the current theistic explanation for archaic human fossils?
Post #54It's not "petty" to point out the arrogance exhibited in your last post. I'm sure you don't like it, but that's hardly surprising.
Being apathetic is great....or not. I don't really care.
- Inquirer
- Banned
- Posts: 1012
- Joined: Tue May 31, 2022 6:03 pm
- Has thanked: 23 times
- Been thanked: 30 times
Re: What is the current theistic explanation for archaic human fossils?
Post #55It'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.
Last edited by Inquirer on Sun Sep 25, 2022 2:41 pm, edited 5 times in total.
- JoeyKnothead
- Banned
- Posts: 20879
- Joined: Fri Jun 06, 2008 10:59 am
- Location: Here
- Has thanked: 4093 times
- Been thanked: 2572 times
Re: What is the current theistic explanation for archaic human fossils?
Post #56It seems our resident theist has nothing to say regarding this excellent argument.Diogenes wrote: ↑Sat Sep 24, 2022 10:03 pmThis description is replete with false assumptions, over generalizations and facts not in evidence.Inquirer wrote: ↑Sat Sep 24, 2022 11:53 am Unless you can show that fossils bearing a resemblance to human bones came from creatures with a comparable high IQ then of course I do not regard them as "human" just something that bears a physical resemblance to humans.
There is a huge element of deceit here, saying that because there are fossilized bones that bear some morphological resemblance to humans then we can conclude these creatures were "human" is unjustified.
Every case we see today of animals with some morphological resemblance to us are all dumb apes, there is not trace of any living ape-like animal that even remotely exhibits our intellectual capacity.
1st "some morphological resemblance" is a meaningless description in the context of this discussion. Certainly all the apes have "some morphological resemblance" to each other, but then all mammals bear "some morphological resemblance" to each other.
2d, tho' chimpanzees (for example) may bear "some morphological resemblance" to homo sapiens, no expert in the field would confuse the skeletal remains of one with the other, any more than they would confuse the intelligence of an average chimp with an average human.
3d neanderthals, cro magnon man and even perhaps homo habilis and others had much closer "morphological resemblance" to modern homo sapiens than do extant apes, AND were all tool makers with comparable intelligence.
Another issue that has been glossed over in some flippant arguments is the idea that outliers within a species are not members of that species. Modern homo sapiens include individuals at the extreme lower end of the bell curve of intelligence. That hardly makes them "non human."
I notice that so often theists on this site just ignore any post, or any argument, or any question that might put their magic thinking to the test.
I might be Teddy Roosevelt, but I ain't.
-Punkinhead Martin
-Punkinhead Martin
- Inquirer
- Banned
- Posts: 1012
- Joined: Tue May 31, 2022 6:03 pm
- Has thanked: 23 times
- Been thanked: 30 times
Re: What is the current theistic explanation for archaic human fossils?
Post #571. Then how else do you infer a possible "human" relationship to said fossils if not on the basis of morphology?Diogenes wrote: ↑Sat Sep 24, 2022 10:03 pmThis description is replete with false assumptions, over generalizations and facts not in evidence.Inquirer wrote: ↑Sat Sep 24, 2022 11:53 am Unless you can show that fossils bearing a resemblance to human bones came from creatures with a comparable high IQ then of course I do not regard them as "human" just something that bears a physical resemblance to humans.
There is a huge element of deceit here, saying that because there are fossilized bones that bear some morphological resemblance to humans then we can conclude these creatures were "human" is unjustified.
Every case we see today of animals with some morphological resemblance to us are all dumb apes, there is not trace of any living ape-like animal that even remotely exhibits our intellectual capacity.
1st "some morphological resemblance" is a meaningless description in the context of this discussion. Certainly all the apes have "some morphological resemblance" to each other, but then all mammals bear "some morphological resemblance" to each other.
2d, tho' chimpanzees (for example) may bear "some morphological resemblance" to homo sapiens, no expert in the field would confuse the skeletal remains of one with the other, any more than they would confuse the intelligence of an average chimp with an average human.
3d neanderthals, cro magnon man and even perhaps homo habilis and others had much closer "morphological resemblance" to modern homo sapiens than do extant apes, AND were all tool makers with comparable intelligence.
Another issue that has been glossed over in some flippant arguments is the idea that outliers within a species are not members of that species. Modern homo sapiens include individuals at the extreme lower end of the bell curve of intelligence. That hardly makes them "non human."
2. Since I never said anyone would confuse chimp remains for human, your remark serves no purpose.
3. Right so morphological basis is your criteria for labelling said specimens as "archaic human"?
If one could go back in time to when "cro magnon" were living, if their intelligence was found to be no greater than that of a modern chimp, then would you not agree that we'd have been wrong all this time to regard them as "archaic human" rather than just some other form of ape?
Finally what makes you speak of "idea that outliers within a species are not members of that species"? what idea are you talking about? If it's something I said then please quote me so I can understand you better.
- Diogenes
- Guru
- Posts: 1304
- Joined: Sun May 24, 2020 12:53 pm
- Location: Washington
- Has thanked: 862 times
- Been thanked: 1265 times
Re: What is the current theistic explanation for archaic human fossils?
Post #58This suggests you did not understand what I wrote. I emphasized the use of 'some' with your reference to morphology. Obviously morphological comparisons are important, but vague, unspecified comparisons are of little value.
Your other remarks suggest the same, that you did not understand what I wrote.
Hypotheticals that state facts contrary to evidence are worth ignoring. You might as well ask, "If humans had wings, would they be considered angels?"If one could go back in time to when "cro magnon" were living, if their intelligence was found to be no greater than that of a modern chimp, then would you not agree that we'd have been wrong all this time to regard them as "archaic human" rather than just some other form of ape?
Again, I think you are not reading carefully. My remark on outliers had nothing to do with you and I did not claim it did. Again, all species have outliers that remain within the species. Roughly 1% of humans have IQ's greater than 140; roughly 1% IQ's 55 and lower. Despite the vast difference in intelligence, both the top and bottom 1% are considered human. Other debaters appear to have missed this point. I did not assert that you did.
Finally what makes you speak of "idea that outliers within a species are not members of that species"? what idea are you talking about? If it's something I said then please quote me so I can understand you better.
___________________________________
“Before You Embark On A Journey Of Revenge, Dig Two Graves”
— Confucius
“Before You Embark On A Journey Of Revenge, Dig Two Graves”
— Confucius
- JoeyKnothead
- Banned
- Posts: 20879
- Joined: Fri Jun 06, 2008 10:59 am
- Location: Here
- Has thanked: 4093 times
- Been thanked: 2572 times
Re: What is the current theistic explanation for archaic human fossils?
Post #59On humans and their relations...
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. There should be rigorous debate, between experts, and 'civilians', about where is the line to be drawn.
First of course, we must set out the requirements of being Homo (you in the back, quit giggling). Unfortunately, there's legitimate debate to be had here. Linnaeus, who coined the term, couldn't be bothered to define Homo, as being human was pretty well understood by the humans of his day. Only until the fossil record was opened to inspection did we get into a fuss on a definition, and it still ain't quite settled.
That said, there are many tools and techniques, and much collected knowledge we can throw at the problem. From anatomical traits, to what we leave behind, a clearer picture is emerging that points us to a definition.
Intelligence is one component, but it doesn't address enough data points to be the final authority. After all, how intelligent is a species that's amassed enough 'intelligence' to wipe itself from the planet?
Morphology is another component, but even here, there's enough room, legitimate room, for us to say we can't directly relate an ancient tooth or jaw to intelligence. They kinda just stay a single point of data.
Artifacts and rituals, if only to me, are a prime factor here. Where we observe tool making, wait, some birds make tools. So let's consider rituals, such as burials, naw, elephants're known to cover their dead with brush, in a form of burial.
See where's this going?
Where the anthropologists among us can consider this or that fossil represents Homo, the creationist has a Newtonian argument to counter our every conclusion - "But we can't know this", or "We can't know that." Or the dreaded, "Kind" gets mentioned, and boy howdy, how can we move on from there. And that's their right, and I can't rightly say they're wrong to do it.
In the "subjective sciences" ( my term), there's enough room for disagreement, legitimate or otherwise, that determining Homo from other similar forms will remain up for debate for as long as there's humans.
So, if only to me, the prime evidence for classification into Homo is how much folks fuss on who is, or who ain't, one of em.
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. There should be rigorous debate, between experts, and 'civilians', about where is the line to be drawn.
First of course, we must set out the requirements of being Homo (you in the back, quit giggling). Unfortunately, there's legitimate debate to be had here. Linnaeus, who coined the term, couldn't be bothered to define Homo, as being human was pretty well understood by the humans of his day. Only until the fossil record was opened to inspection did we get into a fuss on a definition, and it still ain't quite settled.
That said, there are many tools and techniques, and much collected knowledge we can throw at the problem. From anatomical traits, to what we leave behind, a clearer picture is emerging that points us to a definition.
Intelligence is one component, but it doesn't address enough data points to be the final authority. After all, how intelligent is a species that's amassed enough 'intelligence' to wipe itself from the planet?
Morphology is another component, but even here, there's enough room, legitimate room, for us to say we can't directly relate an ancient tooth or jaw to intelligence. They kinda just stay a single point of data.
Artifacts and rituals, if only to me, are a prime factor here. Where we observe tool making, wait, some birds make tools. So let's consider rituals, such as burials, naw, elephants're known to cover their dead with brush, in a form of burial.
See where's this going?
Where the anthropologists among us can consider this or that fossil represents Homo, the creationist has a Newtonian argument to counter our every conclusion - "But we can't know this", or "We can't know that." Or the dreaded, "Kind" gets mentioned, and boy howdy, how can we move on from there. And that's their right, and I can't rightly say they're wrong to do it.
In the "subjective sciences" ( my term), there's enough room for disagreement, legitimate or otherwise, that determining Homo from other similar forms will remain up for debate for as long as there's humans.
So, if only to me, the prime evidence for classification into Homo is how much folks fuss on who is, or who ain't, one of em.
I might be Teddy Roosevelt, but I ain't.
-Punkinhead Martin
-Punkinhead Martin
- Jose Fly
- Guru
- Posts: 1462
- Joined: Tue Jan 18, 2022 5:30 pm
- Location: Out west somewhere
- Has thanked: 337 times
- Been thanked: 906 times
Re: What is the current theistic explanation for archaic human fossils?
Post #60When 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.Inquirer wrote: ↑Sun Sep 25, 2022 1:43 pm 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.
If you don't like that, try debating differently.
Being apathetic is great....or not. I don't really care.