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]

you'll find no statement written by me that says "IQ is a criterion for classifying fossils"

Then what in the world is your point in bringing up IQ in a thread that's specifically about classification of fossils?

Is this an admission then that I never said "IQ is a criterion for classifying fossils"? Good, thanks.

As to why, to make the case that we can't confidently refer to fossils as "archaic human" when we have absolutely no idea what kind of intelligence level the creature had.

LOL...you're talking yourself in circles.

If, as you assert, we can't "confidently refer to fossils as archaic human" unless we know their IQ, then you are saying that IQ is a criterion for classifying fossils.

Care to try again?

[EarthScienceguy]

[Replying to Jose Fly in post #89]

do you think science can only investigate events that are directly observed?

Oh my, this is priceless.

Here is a video that you can watch to answer your question.

[Jose Fly]

[Replying to Jose Fly in post #89]

do you think science can only investigate events that are directly observed?

Oh my, this is priceless.

Here is a video that you can watch to answer your question.

I'm not watching a 9 minute video when you could actual debate ethically and just answer the question. Yes or no, do you believe science can only investigate events that have been directly observed?

[Clownboat]

Then what in the world is your point in bringing up IQ in a thread that's specifically about classification of fossils?

Is this an admission then that I never said "IQ is a criterion for classifying fossils"? Good, thanks.

What this is, is a dodge. You are uncomfortable answering what your point was because the entire IQ distraction made you look foolish. We all saw it, sorry.

As to why, to make the case that we can't confidently refer to fossils as "archaic human" when we have absolutely no idea what kind of intelligence level the creature had.

Intelligence matters not. Taxonomists have already done what you refuse to accept. If you know better than taxonomists, please share any info you have that escapes them when classifying things so we can all be more knowledgable.

Is it possible that you reject taxonomists because their findings conflict with your religious beliefs? My mommy rejects lots of known things to continue believing in her religion. Perhaps that is fairly common?

Its frankly ridiculous, fancy, wishful thinking, confirmation bias.

Then stop rejecting the conclusions of the experts, unless you can supply a valid reason of course. To continue to do so is ridiculous.

Neanderthals have contributed approximately 1-4% of the genomes of non-African modern humans, although a modern human who lived about 40,000 years ago has been found to have between 6-9% Neanderthal DNA
What is a theistic explanation for this?

[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.

More appeals to authority, this is a well known fallacy in debating circles. Note the phrase "recognized experts" which we all know means recognized (chosen) by you because they share your interpretations.

I'm happy to trust people who are experts in their fields. Would you accept a plumber's opinion concerning a lump in your chest or would you seek the opinion of a qualified medical practitioner? When your argument is no more than 'I'm not accepting that opinion because it conflicts with my religious beliefs' there is a serious problem. That said, you nevertheless rely on the authority of those anonymous authors who contributed to the compendium called the Bible. It doesn't have much of a track record for explaining what goes on in this world we inhabit.

[brunumb]

[Replying to brunumb in post #76]

"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."

Why don't modern humans live in trees?

Oh, dear Zeus. Spare us. It's obviously because we are not koalas.

[brunumb]

[Replying to brunumb in post #0]

When one is not an expert in any particular field it makes sense to defer to those who are recognized, 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.

What else would humans be made of? You know experts that say that humans are made of something different than what is on this Earth.
What would that be? This sounds interesting.

Are you saying that humans are not different than animals? Do you live in a tree? Can you hang by your feet? That would be interesting also.

Humans are animals. Not all animals live in trees. We are not made from dirt. You are making no sense.

[brunumb]

As to why, to make the case that we can't confidently refer to fossils as "archaic human" when we have absolutely no idea what kind of intelligence level the creature had.

Good grief. You are clearly implying that intelligence level is a factor in determining if a creature is human or not.

[Inquirer]

you'll find no statement written by me that says "IQ is a criterion for classifying fossils"

Then what in the world is your point in bringing up IQ in a thread that's specifically about classification of fossils?

Is this an admission then that I never said "IQ is a criterion for classifying fossils"? Good, thanks.

As to why, to make the case that we can't confidently refer to fossils as "archaic human" when we have absolutely no idea what kind of intelligence level the creature had.

LOL...you're talking yourself in circles.

If, as you assert, we can't "confidently refer to fossils as archaic human" unless we know their IQ, then you are saying that IQ is a criterion for classifying fossils.

Care to try again?

I do not see how you can classify fossils as coming from an intelligent being either, so as I said ten times, you have some explaining to do.

[Inquirer]

[Replying to Jose Fly in post #89]

do you think science can only investigate events that are directly observed?

Oh my, this is priceless.

Here is a video that you can watch to answer your question.

I'm not watching a 9 minute video when you could actual debate ethically and just answer the question. Yes or no, do you believe science can only investigate events that have been directly observed?

By "debate ethically" does that include calling others "arrogant"?