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?

[Jose Fly]

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.

LOL....I guess we're going to do this for a fifth time now, where you demand I quote you directly, I do, and then you leave. Okay then....

HERE is the post that led me to point out your "because I say so" style of posting. Here is what I responded to....

"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.

Its fantasy, a much cherished narrative permeating the world of biology, confirmation bias not science."

Notice how that is nothing more than a series of personal opinions and empty assertions. Not one shred of supporting information or citations is provided. IOW, everything above stems from "because I say so", exactly as I depicted.

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?

I'd ask you to support those accusations, but we've done this several times before and each time the outcome is the same....I provide links and quotes from your posts, show how I accurately represented what you said, and you just walk away.

by hurling personal insults of "arrogance"?

Are you denying that arguing via "because I say so" is arrogant?

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.

So you make up a criterion for classifying fossils as "human", baselessly accuse professional paleoanthropologists of wrongdoing, and expect folks here to just take your say-so as unquestioned gospel.....and you think that constitutes a "challenge"?

Sheesh....again, your arrogance is truly something to behold, especially in light of your fundamental ignorance of biology/science (e.g., didn't know bacteria are a Domain) and how you repeatedly ignore inconvenient data (e.g., observed speciation, gradualism in the fossil record, preCambrian-Cambrian transitionals).

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.

Now you're acting as if that's all there is to paleoanthropology and as if you're fully qualified to pass judgement on the work of paleoanthropologists.

But you don't see that as at all arrogant, do you? Unbelievable.

[Inquirer]

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.

LOL....I guess we're going to do this for a fifth time now, where you demand I quote you directly, I do, and then you leave. Okay then....

HERE is the post that led me to point out your "because I say so" style of posting. Here is what I responded to....

"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.

Its fantasy, a much cherished narrative permeating the world of biology, confirmation bias not science."

Notice how that is nothing more than a series of personal opinions and empty assertions. Not one shred of supporting information or citations is provided. IOW, everything above stems from "because I say so", exactly as I depicted.

So you actually object to me expressing my opinions? that's an odd attitude given this is a debating forum! Notice also how you interpret what I wrote as "because I say so" which speaks volumes about you Jose, not me and which - by the way - is itself an opinion...

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?

I'd ask you to support those accusations, but we've done this several times before and each time the outcome is the same....I provide links and quotes from your posts, show how I accurately represented what you said, and you just walk away.

by hurling personal insults of "arrogance"?

Are you denying that arguing via "because I say so" is arrogant?

I can't comment on your personal interpretations here Jose, all that matters is that it seems to violate the civility rules FYI.

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.

So you make up a criterion for classifying fossils as "human", baselessly accuse professional paleoanthropologists of wrongdoing, and expect folks here to just take your say-so as unquestioned gospel.....and you think that constitutes a "challenge"?

An appeal to authority is not much of a rebuttal Jose; a high intelligence is a characteristic of humans, now if you want to dispute that then do so with logic and reasoning not specious appeals to your favorite chosen authority, not insults and name calling.

Sheesh....again, your arrogance is truly something to behold, especially in light of your fundamental ignorance of biology/science (e.g., didn't know bacteria are a Domain) and how you repeatedly ignore inconvenient data (e.g., observed speciation, gradualism in the fossil record, preCambrian-Cambrian transitionals).

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.

Now you're acting as if that's all there is to paleoanthropology and as if you're fully qualified to pass judgement on the work of paleoanthropologists.

But you don't see that as at all arrogant, do you? Unbelievable.

[Jose Fly]

So you actually object to me expressing my opinions? that's an odd attitude given this is a debating forum!

It looks like you don't know how debates work. FYI, arguing via empty assertion is a fallacy. In debates, one does not establish or win points by merely stating them to be so. For example, I can assert in a debate "The moon is made of cheese", but that does not establish that the moon is indeed made of cheese, nor does the assertion win me any points.

An appeal to authority is not much of a rebuttal Jose

Sigh...."appeal to authority" is "X is true because the authorities say it is". I've not done anything like that.

a high intelligence is a characteristic of humans, now if you want to dispute that then do so with logic and reasoning not specious appeals to your favorite chosen authority, not insults and name calling.

Again, I don't know if you're unable to grasp the point or if this is just a defense mechanism, but IQ is not a criterion for classifying fossils. If you think otherwise, provide an example.

[EarthScienceguy]

[Replying to Clownboat in post #65]

Experts have identified A. afarensis as being very close to what can be called a 'missing link'.

Oh, my that is funny.
Wow, talk about appealing to authority.

You obviously know they are basing their conclusion on no observation but simply a feeling. At least that is what they say it is.

[EarthScienceguy]

[Replying to Jose Fly in post #67]

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.

Wow, do you understand what "arboreality" means? Why don't you look that word up and read my quote again.

[brunumb]

[Replying to Jose Fly in post #67]

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.

Wow, do you understand what "arboreality" means? Why don't you look that word up and read my quote again.

"Arboreality simply means living in the trees. There are numerous species that live in trees for all or part of their lives, including a wide range of rodent species, monkeys and great apes, koalas, sloths, many species of birds (such as parrots), and lizards like chameleons and geckos."

[brunumb]

[Replying to Clownboat in post #65]

Experts have identified A. afarensis as being very close to what can be called a 'missing link'.

Oh, my that is funny.
Wow, talk about appealing to authority.

You obviously know they are basing their conclusion on no observation but simply a feeling. At least that is what they say it is.

When one is not an expert in any particular field it makes sense to defer to those who are recognised experts. I'm wondering what expertise was involved in formulating the hypothesis that humans were made from dirt and had some life spirit stuff breathed into them.

[Bust Nak]

Are you denying that arguing via "because I say so" is arrogant?

Sheesh....again, your arrogance is truly something to behold...

But you don't see that as at all arrogant, do you? Unbelievable.

Moderator Warning

Do not make personal comments about other posters. Making a case about argument style is fine, labels of arrogance is not.

Please review our Rules.



______________



Moderator warnings count as a strike against users. Additional violations in the future may warrant a final warning. Any challenges or replies to moderator postings should be made via Private Message to avoid derailing topics.

[Clownboat]

[Replying to Clownboat in post #65]

Experts have identified A. afarensis as being very close to what can be called a 'missing link'.

Oh, my that is funny.
Wow, talk about appealing to authority.

You obviously know they are basing their conclusion on no observation but simply a feeling. At least that is what they say it is.

Readers, EarthScienceguy seems to think that those that classify animals do so without observations and simply off of feelings. Does that seem reasonable to you?

Those NASA guys just base the spherical earth off of feelings, not observations as the earth is actually flat (Step 1 is to establish doubt). I note that a person must first convince themselves of this lie before they can become a flat earther. (Step 2: Make claims that establish you as the actual authority on the matter).

Would a similar mechanism not be at play when trying to deny other established sciences? I would expect so.

[Inquirer]

So you actually object to me expressing my opinions? that's an odd attitude given this is a debating forum!

It looks like you don't know how debates work. FYI, arguing via empty assertion is a fallacy. In debates, one does not establish or win points by merely stating them to be so. For example, I can assert in a debate "The moon is made of cheese", but that does not establish that the moon is indeed made of cheese, nor does the assertion win me any points.

An appeal to authority is not much of a rebuttal Jose

Sigh...."appeal to authority" is "X is true because the authorities say it is". I've not done anything like that.

a high intelligence is a characteristic of humans, now if you want to dispute that then do so with logic and reasoning not specious appeals to your favorite chosen authority, not insults and name calling.

Again, I don't know if you're unable to grasp the point or if this is just a defense mechanism, but IQ is not a criterion for classifying fossils. If you think otherwise, provide an example.

Again your interpretations are rather imaginative, you'll find no statement written by me that says "IQ is a criterion for classifying fossils", go and reread my posts and show me which one confused you.