What is the current theistic explanation for archaic human fossils?

Creationism, Evolution, and other science issues

Moderator: Moderators

Post Reply
DeMotts
Scholar
Posts: 276
Joined: Tue Apr 28, 2015 1:58 pm
Has thanked: 1 time
Been thanked: 22 times

What is the current theistic explanation for archaic human fossils?

Post #1

Post by 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?

DeMotts
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 #171

Post by DeMotts »

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.
Everything 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.

User avatar
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 #172

Post by brunumb »

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.
There is no such thing as "more evolved".
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.

User avatar
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 #173

Post by brunumb »

EarthScienceguy wrote: Fri Sep 30, 2022 3:21 pm Creationists believe that humans were given their intelligence by God.
So those unfortunate people lumbered with very low intelligence know exactly who to thank for it.
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.

User avatar
JoeyKnothead
Banned
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 #174

Post by JoeyKnothead »

brunumb wrote: Fri Sep 30, 2022 6:15 pm
EarthScienceguy wrote: Fri Sep 30, 2022 3:21 pm Creationists believe that humans were given their intelligence by God.
So those unfortunate people lumbered with very low intelligence know exactly who to thank for it.
Religion?

He asked, rhetorically.
I might be Teddy Roosevelt, but I ain't.
-Punkinhead Martin

User avatar
Inquirer
Banned
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 #175

Post by Inquirer »

DrNoGods wrote: Wed Sep 28, 2022 12:50 pm [Replying to Inquirer in post #106]
Well said, no animal cooks, no animals keeps pets, yet some insist on calling people animals!
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.

Kingdom: Animalia
Phylum: Chordata
Class: Mammalia
Order: Primates
Suborder: Haplorhini
Infraorder: Simiiformes
Family: Hominidae
Subfamily: Homininae
Tribe: Hominini
Genus: Homo
Species: Homo sapiens
Right we are only animals on a taxonomic basis just as some ancient fossils are only human on a taxonomic basis.

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".

User avatar
Inquirer
Banned
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 #176

Post by Inquirer »

brunumb wrote: Wed Sep 28, 2022 6:30 pm
Inquirer wrote: Wed Sep 28, 2022 12:42 pm
EarthScienceguy wrote: Wed Sep 28, 2022 12:14 pm [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.
But 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.
Last edited by Inquirer on Sun Oct 02, 2022 1:04 pm, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
Inquirer
Banned
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 #177

Post by Inquirer »

brunumb wrote: Wed Sep 28, 2022 6:41 pm
Inquirer wrote: Wed Sep 28, 2022 2:17 pm 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.
You 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!

User avatar
Inquirer
Banned
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 #178

Post by Inquirer »

DeMotts wrote: Wed Sep 28, 2022 10:55 pm
Inquirer wrote: Wed Sep 28, 2022 3:37 pm
Jose Fly wrote: Wed Sep 28, 2022 3:18 pm
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"
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.
You'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".

Here's a legitimate way to respond to loaded questions (emphasis mine)
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.
Which is exactly the accusation you made.

so, moving on...
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.
God is the only explanation, a supernatural explanation is the only satisfactory answer as has been known to scholars for centuries.

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):


User avatar
JoeyKnothead
Banned
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 #179

Post by JoeyKnothead »

Inquirer wrote: Sun Oct 02, 2022 12:54 pm God is the only explanation, a supernatural explanation is the only satisfactory answer as has been known to scholars for centuries.
It's only satisfactory to those who think It's satisfactory.

From where comes this god?
Any material, naturalistic (based on laws) explanation must itself presuppose something material which leads to infinite regress,
Whereas "Goddidit" relies on faith.

From where comes this god?
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.
Scientism gets us skyscrapers, religion gets us planes flown into em.
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):
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.

(Snip links)
I might be Teddy Roosevelt, but I ain't.
-Punkinhead Martin

User avatar
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 #180

Post by Clownboat »

EarthScienceguy wrote: Fri Sep 30, 2022 4:04 pm [Replying to DrNoGods in post #163]
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.
Yes, this is what the belief in evolution causes.

"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.
When 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.

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

Post Reply