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
-
- 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 #171Everything is always evolving but the theory of punctuated equilibrium kinda answers this one. Not to mention the timespan necessary for evolution to occur is so many times greater than any individual's lifespan it's not logical to think that a single person could be more evolved than anyone else.EarthScienceguy wrote: ↑Fri Sep 30, 2022 2:39 pm Evolution is a dangerous belief that causes one group of people to believe that they are better than another group of people. It is a logical progression if man did evolve then he has still to be evolving.
- brunumb
- Savant
- Posts: 5993
- Joined: Thu Nov 02, 2017 4:20 am
- Location: Melbourne
- Has thanked: 6607 times
- Been thanked: 3209 times
Re: What is the current theistic explanation for archaic human fossils?
Post #172There is no such thing as "more evolved".EarthScienceguy wrote: ↑Fri Sep 30, 2022 2:39 pm So you are saying that the smarter a person is the more evolved they are. So those that have an IQ of 140 are more evolved than those that have an IQ of 100.
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: 5993
- Joined: Thu Nov 02, 2017 4:20 am
- Location: Melbourne
- Has thanked: 6607 times
- Been thanked: 3209 times
Re: What is the current theistic explanation for archaic human fossils?
Post #173So those unfortunate people lumbered with very low intelligence know exactly who to thank for it.EarthScienceguy wrote: ↑Fri Sep 30, 2022 3:21 pm Creationists believe that humans were given their intelligence by God.
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 #174Religion?brunumb wrote: ↑Fri Sep 30, 2022 6:15 pmSo those unfortunate people lumbered with very low intelligence know exactly who to thank for it.EarthScienceguy wrote: ↑Fri Sep 30, 2022 3:21 pm Creationists believe that humans were given their intelligence by God.
He asked, rhetorically.
I might be Teddy Roosevelt, but I ain't.
-Punkinhead Martin
-Punkinhead Martin
- Inquirer
- Banned
- Posts: 1012
- Joined: Tue May 31, 2022 6:03 pm
- Has thanked: 23 times
- Been thanked: 30 times
Re: What is the current theistic explanation for archaic human fossils?
Post #175Right we are only animals on a taxonomic basis just as some ancient fossils are only human on a taxonomic basis.DrNoGods wrote: ↑Wed Sep 28, 2022 12:50 pm [Replying to Inquirer in post #106]
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.Well said, no animal cooks, no animals keeps pets, yet some insist on calling people animals!
Kingdom: Animalia
Phylum: Chordata
Class: Mammalia
Order: Primates
Suborder: Haplorhini
Infraorder: Simiiformes
Family: Hominidae
Subfamily: Homininae
Tribe: Hominini
Genus: Homo
Species: Homo sapiens
Now humans and apes are taxonomically close, yet intellectually there is no comparison, therefore taxonomy alone is a very poor indicator of whether some fossils were "archaic human".
- Inquirer
- Banned
- Posts: 1012
- Joined: Tue May 31, 2022 6:03 pm
- Has thanked: 23 times
- Been thanked: 30 times
Re: What is the current theistic explanation for archaic human fossils?
Post #176But its no more true that saying "humans are organisms" if your definition of human is intentionally restricted to the physiological then I agree, but mine isn't.brunumb wrote: ↑Wed Sep 28, 2022 6:30 pmThat'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.
Last edited by Inquirer on Sun Oct 02, 2022 1:04 pm, edited 1 time in total.
- Inquirer
- Banned
- Posts: 1012
- Joined: Tue May 31, 2022 6:03 pm
- Has thanked: 23 times
- Been thanked: 30 times
Re: What is the current theistic explanation for archaic human fossils?
Post #177You too have misunderstood, I never wrote "IQ should not be considered as one of the criteria for classifying humans" I said the exact opposite in fact!
- Inquirer
- Banned
- Posts: 1012
- Joined: Tue May 31, 2022 6:03 pm
- Has thanked: 23 times
- Been thanked: 30 times
Re: What is the current theistic explanation for archaic human fossils?
Post #178You're accusing me here of deliberately avoiding discussion of a question when in fact I'm simply pointing out what is termed in debating circles a "loaded question".DeMotts wrote: ↑Wed Sep 28, 2022 10:55 pmThis 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.
Here's a legitimate way to respond to loaded questions (emphasis mine)
Which is exactly the accusation you made.A common way out of this argument is not to answer the question (e.g. with a simple 'yes' or 'no'), but to challenge the assumption behind the question. To use an earlier example, a good response to the question "Have you stopped beating your wife?" would be "I have never beaten my wife".[5] This removes the ambiguity of the expected response, therefore nullifying the tactic. However, the asker is likely to respond by accusing the one who answers of dodging the question.
so, moving on...
God is the only explanation, a supernatural explanation is the only satisfactory answer as has been known to scholars for centuries.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.
Any material, naturalistic (based on laws) explanation must itself presuppose something material which leads to infinite regress, the only way out of that infinite regress is to abandon naturalistic explanations as being the only legitimate form of explanation, again this is old hat, scholars have recognized this for many centuries but sadly the rise of scientism and pop-science has misled many people, led them astray.
If you're truly interested you can listen to this very polite and mutually respectful debate between Bertrand Russell and Frederick Copleston, two highly respected intellectuals from a bygone era and each of whom authored major publications in the history of philosophy (I've skipped the short preamble):
- 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 #179It's only satisfactory to those who think It's satisfactory.
From where comes this god?
Whereas "Goddidit" relies on faith.Any material, naturalistic (based on laws) explanation must itself presuppose something material which leads to infinite regress,
From where comes this god?
Scientism gets us skyscrapers, religion gets us planes flown into em.the only way out of that infinite regress is to abandon naturalistic explanations as being the only legitimate form of explanation, again this is old hat, scholars have recognized this for many centuries but sadly the rise of scientism and pop-science has misled many people, led them astray.
Had your education continued past 1948, maybe you'd see that we have no way of knowing how these folks might think, here, 47 years later.If you're truly interested you can listen to this very polite and mutually respectful debate between Bertrand Russell and Frederick Copleston, two highly respected intellectuals from a bygone era and each of whom authored major publications in the history of philosophy (I've skipped the short preamble):
(Snip links)
I might be Teddy Roosevelt, but I ain't.
-Punkinhead Martin
-Punkinhead Martin
- Clownboat
- Savant
- Posts: 9342
- Joined: Fri Aug 29, 2008 3:42 pm
- Has thanked: 883 times
- Been thanked: 1242 times
Re: What is the current theistic explanation for archaic human fossils?
Post #180When I was a Christian, I believed that billions of people deserved to burn in hell for eternity for not having my beliefs. It was me being set free from these beliefs that allowed me to no longer hate the homosexual, Muslim or Catholic.EarthScienceguy wrote: ↑Fri Sep 30, 2022 4:04 pm [Replying to DrNoGods in post #163]
Yes, this is what the belief in evolution causes.Evolution is a dangerous belief that causes one group of people to believe that they are better than another group of people.
No ... that is called racism.
"Racism: the belief that different races possess distinct characteristics, abilities, or qualities, especially so as to distinguish them as inferior or superior to one another." https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/racism
Unless you are saying that man is no longer evolving.
Your claim about evolution causing racism had the opposite affect on me, but you will continue to make such claims for no other reason then to justify the belief in your religion. This is sad.
You can give a man a fish and he will be fed for a day, or you can teach a man to pray for fish and he will starve to death.
I blame man for codifying those rules into a book which allowed superstitious people to perpetuate a barbaric practice. Rules that must be followed or face an invisible beings wrath. - KenRU
It is sad that in an age of freedom some people are enslaved by the nomads of old. - Marco
If you are unable to demonstrate that what you believe is true and you absolve yourself of the burden of proof, then what is the purpose of your arguments? - brunumb
I blame man for codifying those rules into a book which allowed superstitious people to perpetuate a barbaric practice. Rules that must be followed or face an invisible beings wrath. - KenRU
It is sad that in an age of freedom some people are enslaved by the nomads of old. - Marco
If you are unable to demonstrate that what you believe is true and you absolve yourself of the burden of proof, then what is the purpose of your arguments? - brunumb