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?

[EarthScienceguy]

[Replying to DrNoGods in post #195]

It probably came from someone's idea that populations would be better off if the weak, unintelligent and disabled were culled from the population. This may be the case for lions and gazelles and their "arms race" that never ends, but (most) humans do have higher moral standards and understand that intentionally killing other humans because they may not be the smartest or strongest is wrong. This isn't some view that is exclusive to religious people. I hold that view and always have both when I was a young Christian and now that I'm an atheist, and my atheist friends have the same view. Morals don't come from religion.

You cannot say that everyone believes that killing other humans intentionally is wrong. They do not seem to believe that in China or North Korea. Or those that believe in abortion even after the baby is born. You may have had those beliefs but if you live anywhere in the west and especially in the United States then your morality has been influenced by Christian thought.

Jonathan Haidt did a study on the difference in the moral foundation between conservatives and liberals.



In his research, he found that liberals' morality had two foundations Care/harm and Fairness/Reciprocity. Conservatives he found have 5 moral foundations. Care/harm, Fairness/Reciprocity, Authority/Subversion, Loyalty/betrayal, and Sanctity/degradation.

He also found that society cannot exist without authority. There must be an authority that decides what is care and what is fair. Liberals for the most part do not want that authority over them. So someone who does not have authority based on loyalty and sanctity cannot say what morals are correct for anyone. What is caring? What is fair? In China, the government decided that eugenics was fair and caring. There are those in the United States that think that eugenics is fair and caring. If you believe that evolution did happen then yes eugenics would be caring and fair. What is your authority that you base your belief that eugenics is not fair and caring because nature says that it is.

[JoeyKnothead]

You cannot say that everyone believes that killing other humans intentionally is wrong. They do not seem to believe that in China or North Korea. Or those that believe in abortion even after the baby is born. You may have had those beliefs but if you live anywhere in the west and especially in the United States then your morality has been influenced by Christian thought.

Influenced by Christian thought indeed.

Will EarthScienceGuy advocate the teachings of his own religion, or dismiss em?

[Miles]

In his research, [Jonathan Haidt ] found that liberals' morality had two foundations Care/harm and Fairness/Reciprocity. Conservatives he found have 5 moral foundations. Care/harm, Fairness/Reciprocity, Authority/Subversion, Loyalty/betrayal, and Sanctity/degradation.

He also found that society cannot exist without authority. There must be an authority that decides what is care and what is fair. Liberals for the most part do not want that authority over them.

Who says so? Your source with link please.

So someone who does not have authority based on loyalty and sanctity cannot say what morals are correct for anyone.

Why not? Just like yourself, I can say whatever I like, be it fact or folly. Of course it's hardly likely everyone would agree with what either of us say, but then that's not the issue, is it. The issue is being able to say morals XYZ are correct for anyone.

What is caring? What is fair? In China, the government decided that eugenics was fair and caring. There are those in the United States that think that eugenics is fair and caring. If you believe that evolution did happen then yes eugenics would be caring and fair.

What in the world do the processes by which different kinds of living organisms are thought to have developed and diversify through history have to do with the study of the manipulation of reproduction in a human population toward a predetermined goal? It doesn't.

.

[brunumb]

[Replying to brunumb in post #185]

Just how do you see that as a moral thing to do?

Because that is what the modern eugenics movement believes.

So you find it a moral thing to do because that is what the modern eugenics movement believes. OK. To each his own.

[DrNoGods]

[Replying to EarthScienceguy in post #201]

Jonathan Haidt did a study on the difference in the moral foundation between conservatives and liberals.

I'm surprised you're quoting an atheist on this topic. But I'm not talking about politics and morals, but inherent appreciation of right and wrong for humans, and your contention that "evolutionary thought" (whatever that is) somehow supports eugenics. Eugenics is not just intentionally killing people. Oxford Languages defines eugenics as:

"The study of how to arrange reproduction within a human population to increase the occurrence of heritable characteristics regarded as desirable."

The practice of eugenics is the problem and most humans see this is morally wrong if it is controlled breeding as in the above definition applied to humans. We're happy to do this to crops and livestock, for example, but I think the general consensus is that a cow or pig or chicken wouldn't know what is going on, or care.

Evolution has no moral component, so cannot contribute to "eugenic thought." The two have no relationship.

[Jose Fly]

You cannot say that everyone believes that killing other humans intentionally is wrong. They do not seem to believe that in China or North Korea.

Or in the Bible.

I don't know about the rest of you, but it kinda irritates me when someone tries to lecture others about morality while waving the Bible around. Unless that person believes genocide and taking young girls as spoils of war are "moral", then the hypocrisy is off the charts.

[JoeyKnothead]

You cannot say that everyone believes that killing other humans intentionally is wrong. They do not seem to believe that in China or North Korea.

Or in the Bible.

I don't know about the rest of you, but it kinda irritates me when someone tries to lecture others about morality while waving the Bible around. Unless that person believes genocide and taking young girls as spoils of war are "moral", then the hypocrisy is off the charts.

That's the problem with hero worship - any or all of their twisted values become your own, or represent the twisted values ya already hold.

[Inquirer]

You cannot say that everyone believes that killing other humans intentionally is wrong. They do not seem to believe that in China or North Korea.

Or in the Bible.

I don't know about the rest of you, but it kinda irritates me when someone tries to lecture others about morality while waving the Bible around. Unless that person believes genocide and taking young girls as spoils of war are "moral", then the hypocrisy is off the charts.

You never did answer me, what in your mind, is "good"? what is "right"? How do you personally establish these terms?

[Jose Fly]

You cannot say that everyone believes that killing other humans intentionally is wrong. They do not seem to believe that in China or North Korea.

Or in the Bible.

I don't know about the rest of you, but it kinda irritates me when someone tries to lecture others about morality while waving the Bible around. Unless that person believes genocide and taking young girls as spoils of war are "moral", then the hypocrisy is off the charts.

You never did answer me, what in your mind, is "good"? what is "right"? How do you personally establish these terms?

Oh, so now you're okay with straying off the topic of the thread? So transparent....

Nevertheless, I determine whether an action is "good", "right", or otherwise by considering as much context as necessary to decide. How about you? Do you believe genocide and taking young girls as the spoils of war are "good" and "right"?

[Inquirer]

You cannot say that everyone believes that killing other humans intentionally is wrong. They do not seem to believe that in China or North Korea.

Or in the Bible.

I don't know about the rest of you, but it kinda irritates me when someone tries to lecture others about morality while waving the Bible around. Unless that person believes genocide and taking young girls as spoils of war are "moral", then the hypocrisy is off the charts.

You never did answer me, what in your mind, is "good"? what is "right"? How do you personally establish these terms?

Oh, so now you're okay with straying off the topic of the thread? So transparent....

Nevertheless, I determine whether an action is "good", "right", or otherwise by considering as much context as necessary to decide.

You don't know do you! that vacuous reply doesn't surprise me!

How about you? Do you believe genocide and taking young girls as the spoils of war are "good" and "right"?

There is no absolute definition of right and wrong from the perspective of human reasoning, one man's bad is another man's good.