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: 6002
- Joined: Thu Nov 02, 2017 4:20 am
- Location: Melbourne
- Has thanked: 6627 times
- Been thanked: 3222 times
Re: What is the current theistic explanation for archaic human fossils?
Post #141That's because all humans are animals regardless of the difference in skill sets between them and other animals.Inquirer wrote: ↑Wed Sep 28, 2022 12:42 pmWell said, no animal cooks, no animals keeps pets, yet some insist on calling people animals!EarthScienceguy wrote: ↑Wed Sep 28, 2022 12:14 pm [Replying to brunumb in post #97]
Humans are different than animals. Can an animal write this sentence? I think not. Can an animal contemplate their future existence?Humans are animals.
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.
- brunumb
- Savant
- Posts: 6002
- Joined: Thu Nov 02, 2017 4:20 am
- Location: Melbourne
- Has thanked: 6627 times
- Been thanked: 3222 times
Re: What is the current theistic explanation for archaic human fossils?
Post #142I hope you are not going to say that the one thing is IQ since you've been quite emphatic that it should not be considered as one of the criteria for classifying humans. Maybe you have used a different string of words but the meaning is exactly the same.
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.
- brunumb
- Savant
- Posts: 6002
- Joined: Thu Nov 02, 2017 4:20 am
- Location: Melbourne
- Has thanked: 6627 times
- Been thanked: 3222 times
Re: What is the current theistic explanation for archaic human fossils?
Post #143What is the Dunning-Kruger effect?Clownboat wrote: ↑Wed Sep 28, 2022 2:51 pm
What Are Delusions of Grandeur?
Delusional disorder is a serious mental illness where you can’t tell the difference between what’s real and what’s not. Delusions, or false beliefs, comes in several types. Delusions of grandeur are one of the more common ones. It’s when you believe that you have more power, wealth, smarts, or other grand traits than is true. Some people mistakenly call it “illusions” of grandeur.
https://www.webmd.com/schizophrenia/del ... 20grandeur.
The Dunning-Kruger effect is a type of cognitive bias in which people believe they are smarter and more capable than they are. Essentially, low-ability people do not possess the skills needed to recognize their own incompetence.
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.
- brunumb
- Savant
- Posts: 6002
- Joined: Thu Nov 02, 2017 4:20 am
- Location: Melbourne
- Has thanked: 6627 times
- Been thanked: 3222 times
Re: What is the current theistic explanation for archaic human fossils?
Post #144The response to Inquirer would probably go something like:JoeyKnothead wrote: ↑Wed Sep 28, 2022 4:18 pmI reckon Inquirer's plumber does proctology as a side hustle.
"HUH? I'm a plumber. My wife is the cardiologist. Ask her!"
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.
- brunumb
- Savant
- Posts: 6002
- Joined: Thu Nov 02, 2017 4:20 am
- Location: Melbourne
- Has thanked: 6627 times
- Been thanked: 3222 times
Re: What is the current theistic explanation for archaic human fossils?
Post #145Isn't it true that individual IQs will sit somewhere on a binomial distribution curve from very low through to very high? If we found a lost tribe where the intelligence of any individual member lay below some threshold that Inquirer suggests is a minimum, would we then have to classify that tribe as being non-human? While high mean intelligence is a characteristic of humans, I don't see it as a criterion for determining if something is human.DrNoGods wrote: ↑Wed Sep 28, 2022 5:05 pm [Replying to Inquirer in post #125]
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.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!
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.
- 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 #146At best intelligence is only one in a set of criteria.brunumb wrote: ↑Wed Sep 28, 2022 7:10 pmIsn't it true that individual IQs will sit somewhere on a binomial distribution curve from very low through to very high? If we found a lost tribe where the intelligence of any individual member lay below some threshold that Inquirer suggests is a minimum, would we then have to classify that tribe as being non-human? While high mean intelligence is a characteristic of humans, I don't see it as a criterion for determining if something is human.DrNoGods wrote: ↑Wed Sep 28, 2022 5:05 pm [Replying to Inquirer in post #125]
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.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!
In fossils, we can come to some conclusions based on cranial volume. Even then, further data is warranted.
I might be Teddy Roosevelt, but I ain't.
-Punkinhead Martin
-Punkinhead Martin
- DrNoGods
- Prodigy
- Posts: 2716
- Joined: Wed Jan 11, 2017 2:18 pm
- Location: Nevada
- Has thanked: 593 times
- Been thanked: 1642 times
Re: What is the current theistic explanation for archaic human fossils?
Post #147[Replying to brunumb in post #145]
IQ score distributions are generally Gaussian, with the width for men being a little larger than for women (so there are more men at the really low and really high ends of the distribution relative to the mean than is the case for women ... the averages are about the same for men and women though). Since Inquirer won't reveal his criteria for what is "high intelligence" (or if only Homo sapiens fit that description) and what would not meet that standard, I suppose it is possible for a single tribe to have some human members and some nonhuman members all living at the same time. As for an "archaic" human classification, different people seem to have different criteria for determining who falls into that category. Since we evolved in a very "bushy" pattern with many branches and interbreeding, some of this classification stuff isn't so cut and dry.Isn't it true that individual IQs will sit somewhere on a binomial distribution curve from very low through to very high? If we found a lost tribe where the intelligence of any individual member lay below some threshold that Inquirer suggests is a minimum, would we then have to classify that tribe as being non-human? While high mean intelligence is a characteristic of humans, I don't see it as a criterion for determining if something is human.
In human affairs the sources of success are ever to be found in the fountains of quick resolve and swift stroke; and it seems to be a law, inflexible and inexorable, that he who will not risk cannot win.
John Paul Jones, 1779
The man who does not read has no advantage over the man who cannot read.
Mark Twain
John Paul Jones, 1779
The man who does not read has no advantage over the man who cannot read.
Mark Twain
-
- Scholar
- Posts: 276
- Joined: Tue Apr 28, 2015 1:58 pm
- Has thanked: 1 time
- Been thanked: 22 times
Re: What is the current theistic explanation for archaic human fossils?
Post #148This has devolved to a semantical argument about what the term "archaic human" means, and you have decided that anything "human" must have high intelligence to be considered "human", and if no one can conclusively prove that these organisms had a sufficient (though totally arbitrary) level of intelligence that you have just decided is some sort of demarcation line between "human" and "not human" then you don't have to consider them human and you get to sidestep the entire question.Inquirer wrote: ↑Wed Sep 28, 2022 3:37 pmCan you write more clearly please? 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?".Jose Fly wrote: ↑Wed Sep 28, 2022 3:18 pmBut not in the context of fossil specimens, right?Inquirer wrote: ↑Wed Sep 28, 2022 3:02 pm What does it have to do with it? In order to give meaning to the term "archaic human" we must establish what we mean by "human" - I regard it as inarguable that high intelligence is a necessary condition that a species must meet if we are to regard it as "human"
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?
You cannot infer IQ from fossils and if you cannot infer IQ you cannot - by extension - infer human.
I really don't expect an answer to my question, it's now very clear, that you do not know the answer.
As the OP, let me revise my own OP: What is the current theistic explanation for the following fossils: australopithecines, Homo rhodesiensis, Homo heidelbergensis, Homo naledi, Homo ergaster, Homo antecessor, and Homo habilis. There, I'm not calling them human anymore. Ok, go.
- 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 #149Sinners who drowned in the flood.DeMotts wrote: ↑Wed Sep 28, 2022 10:55 pm As the OP, let me revise my own OP: What is the current theistic explanation for the following fossils: australopithecines, Homo rhodesiensis, Homo heidelbergensis, Homo naledi, Homo ergaster, Homo antecessor, and Homo habilis. There, I'm not calling them human anymore. Ok, go.
Now all we're left with is the humans and the dumb animals.
Theology is the one branch of study where making sense is not a requirement.
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 #150Well, if someone is going to go with this "higher IQ = human" thing, then an obvious question is....is a newborn baby a "human"? If so, what's it's IQ?brunumb wrote: ↑Wed Sep 28, 2022 7:10 pm Isn't it true that individual IQs will sit somewhere on a binomial distribution curve from very low through to very high? If we found a lost tribe where the intelligence of any individual member lay below some threshold that Inquirer suggests is a minimum, would we then have to classify that tribe as being non-human? While high mean intelligence is a characteristic of humans, I don't see it as a criterion for determining if something is human.
Being apathetic is great....or not. I don't really care.