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?

[brunumb]

[Replying to brunumb in post #97]

Humans are animals.

Humans are different than animals. Can an animal write this sentence? I think not. Can an animal contemplate their future existence?

Well said, no animal cooks, no animals keeps pets, yet some insist on calling people animals!

That's because all humans are animals regardless of the difference in skill sets between them and other animals.

[brunumb]

Well I'm certainly not going to use your chosen criteria" since that excludes one of the very things that makes humans human, I make no apologies for my emphasizing this either.

I 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.

[brunumb]

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.

What is the Dunning-Kruger effect?

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.

[brunumb]

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.

The response to Inquirer would probably go something like:
"HUH? I'm a plumber. My wife is the cardiologist. Ask her!"

[brunumb]

[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.

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.

[JoeyKnothead]

[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.

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.

At best intelligence is only one in a set of criteria.

In fossils, we can come to some conclusions based on cranial volume. Even then, further data is warranted.

[DrNoGods]

[Replying to brunumb in post #145]

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.

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.

[DeMotts]

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"

But not in the context of fossil specimens, right?

Can 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?".

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.

This 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.

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]

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.

Sinners who drowned in the flood.

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.

[Jose Fly]

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.

Well, 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?