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]

You error here in thinking you are using Jose Fly's criteria. Jose Fly is not a taxonomist. It is taxonomists that you disagree with.

So?

So you shouldn't have claimed you're not going to use your (Jose Fly's) chosen criteria". That was a mistake.

picking some authority and on the basis of that choice try to reason that therefore I must be wrong,

We find your reasoning to be lacking and you mistake here in thinking that we picked some authority. Taxonomists and paleoanthropologists are experts though. Do you think they are wrong about how they classify ancient human fossils? If so, I would love to hear some good reasoning.

No, the record is clear it is you, brunumb, Dr.NoGods and Mr. Fly that I disagree with, the record is clear on this point, go and check the facts, the posts, the evidence, stop making things up.

Why do you think that Clownboat, brunumb, Dr. NoGods and Jose Fly determined the clasification of ancient fossils? I personally have not found a reason to doubt the findings of experts, but I'm open if you have any reasons.

Nobody has the strength of character it seems to openly state whether they agree or disagree with my claim that high intelligence is a necessary condition for regarding an organism as human, none of you, all you do - all of you - is complain about me for asking that question!

Your question is dumb and you failed to define what 'high intelligence' means anyway, but I'll attempt to answer your question in hopes we can move beyond this idiocy.
It is not as we have less intelligent humans that are still human. Even our most intelligent humans are still human, surely you agree!

For the 3rd time:
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?

[Jose Fly]

what on earth does "not in the context of" mean? Once again the OP's title is "What is the current theistic explanation for archaic human fossils?".

Before I can begin to talk about "explanations for" I must ask, how one chooses to label a fossil as "archaic human" when a key criteria is high intelligence?

This is utterly ridiculous.

You: I never said "IQ is a criterion for classifying fossils"

You: how one chooses to label a fossil as "archaic human" when a key criteria is high intelligence

You: You cannot infer IQ from fossils and if you cannot infer IQ you cannot - by extension - infer human.

I'll just note that you are all over the map and repeatedly contradict yourself, oftentimes in the same day, which makes any sort of debate or even discussion effectively impossible.

I suspect that may be your intent...to muddy the thread to the point where sane, rational people throw up their hands in exasperation and leave.

Of course you could clear this up very easily by simply stating right now whether or not you are proposing that IQ be a criterion when classifying fossils as human. But if what I said just above is accurate, you won't.

[EarthScienceguy]

[Replying to DrNoGods in post #107]

Are all 92 naturally occurring elements in the periodic table "dirt"? These elements are what combine to make everything on earth, but the H2O that flows down rivers and fills the oceans is not dirt by any definition. Humans are something like 60% H2O.

Oh, you are taking me back to my old soil judging days in FFA. Those were the days. Going down in a hole that was dug and determining how good the soil was for growing crops. Silt loam has the highest percentage of water and if I remember right it is a dark soil and is very good for farming. Clay on the other held less water and was good for making lakes but not so good for farming.

So yes dirt has water in it.

Rocks and minerals also have water in them.


Ringwoodite has water in it. In fact, there is more water in the ringwoodite in the mantle than there is in all of the oceans in the world.
Minerals with oxygen and hydrogen
Brucite
manganite
diaspore
goethite

The ore bauxite,

So yes rocks, minerals, and dirt all have water in them.

[EarthScienceguy]

[Replying to Jose Fly in post #110]

So yet another "debate" with a creationist becomes little more than chasing them around, trying to get them to answer basic questions, and the creationist doing everything they can to avoid doing so.

I'll say it again....this is precisely why creationists keep losing in court and science; both are areas where you can't dodge questions without consequence.

That is what makes this conversation so priceless. I did answer your question.

[Jose Fly]

[Replying to Jose Fly in post #110]

So yet another "debate" with a creationist becomes little more than chasing them around, trying to get them to answer basic questions, and the creationist doing everything they can to avoid doing so.

I'll say it again....this is precisely why creationists keep losing in court and science; both are areas where you can't dodge questions without consequence.

That is what makes this conversation so priceless. I did answer your question.

Typical creationist behavior.....dodge question, dodge question, dodge question, then when the thread is long enough, claim you already answered the question (without showing where or restating the answer).

You did that regularly at ToL and now you're doing it here. I guess that's the sort of thing creationism forces you to do.

[JoeyKnothead]

Would you accept a plumber's opinion concerning a lump in your chest or would you seek the opinion of a qualified medical practitioner?

If the plumber was married to a cardiologist or pulmonologist I might be interested in what they have to say, it all depends on the plumber doesn't it? or do you tend to label all plumbers as having zero knowledge in anything other than plumbing?

I reckon Inquirer's plumber does proctology as a side hustle.

[EarthScienceguy]

[Replying to DrNoGods in post #109]

Taxonomically we are animals, as we are members of the kingdom Animalia. This is a simple definition. The fact that we cook and keep pets relates to intelligence and what that has allowed humans to become, and has nothing to do with our taxonomic classification as animals.

But we are different.

And what is intelligence anyway? I find this fascinating that the definition of intelligence is controversial.
In fact, there is no consensus on what is even be quantified as intelligent.

"The definition of intelligence is controversial, varying in what its abilities are and whether or not it is quantifiable." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intellige ... r=7b6ecff0

So humans are different from animals, except the difference is not a quantifiable quantity. The intelligence of man is a mystery, to the secular world.

[DrNoGods]

[Replying to EarthScienceguy in post #133]

So yes dirt has water in it.

Rocks and minerals also have water in them.

Ringwoodite has water in it.

So yes rocks, minerals, and dirt all have water in them.

None of this relates to the point of my comments in post 107 about this comment you made in 103:

"We are made of the material which is on this planet. "Dirt"

I was pointing out (post 106) that many (most) things on Earth are not "dirt", and you respond with a list of things that have water in them! How about a list of things that have "dirt" in them? That would be more relevant if you can show that most/all things on Earth are made of this substance. Of the liquid stuff that fills the oceans, what percentage of it is dirt?

[DrNoGods]

[Replying to EarthScienceguy in post #137]

But we are different.

Only in degree when it comes to intelligence. My dog is intelligent compared to a goldfish, but not compared to a human. Homo erectus was evidently smarter than my dog, but not as smart as Neanderthals. It is our degree of intelligence (or capacity for it) that sets us apart as far as intelligence in animals, but that fact alone does not make us "different" in any other special way.

A Homo sapien from 200K years ago may well have had the capacity to learn just as much as we do today if it had an identical brain, but human knowledge was so limited they'd never pass a 6th grade math test. This doesn't mean they were less intelligent ... just not able to utilize the capacity they had for learning because so little was known in subject areas we consider indicative of requiring "intelligence" today (complex language, math, science, biology, etc.), and no ability to disseminate knowledge beyond word of mouth.

[DrNoGods]

[Replying to Inquirer in post #125]

Nobody has the strength of character it seems to openly state whether they agree or disagree with my claim that high intelligence is a necessary condition for regarding an organism as human, none of you, all you do - all of you - is complain about me for asking that question!

I've only been trying to find out what you define as sufficient intelligence to consider something "human", and if you only consider Homo sapiens to be human. No answers yet, so I'll ask again ... what level of intelligence do you require to allow something to be called human? You must have some criteria.

In post 108 you said "something like human intellect", and in the quote above you say "high intelligence." Do these mean the intellect of a Homo sapien from 200K years ago, or the intellect of a Neanderthal from 200K years ago, or a Homo erectus from 200K years ago? The term archaic human is ambiguous (post 46), but you can't seem to define what level of intelligence you require for either archaic human, or just human, and if the latter only refers to Homo sapiens. Without such a definition, it is inot possible to form an opinion as to whether to agree with you, or not.