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?

[Jose Fly]

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

No, it's basically "it depends", where each case is considered individually and in context.

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

You didn't really answer the question. Do you believe genocide and taking little girls as the spoils of war are "good" and "right"?

[Inquirer]

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

No, it's basically "it depends", where each case is considered individually and in context.

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

You didn't really answer the question. Do you believe genocide and taking little girls as the spoils of war are "good" and "right"?

You didn't really answer mine either, perhaps I'll take the easy way out as you did and say "It depends".

[Jose Fly]

You didn't really answer mine either

Sure I did. You asked how I establish if something is good or right, and I answered that I do so by evaluating each instance individually and in context.

perhaps I'll take the easy way out as you did and say "It depends".

Under what circumstances would you consider genocide and taking little girls as spoils of war good and right?

[EarthScienceguy]

[Replying to DrNoGods in post #205]

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.

I was not trying to have a conversation about liberals and conservatives. Although I might start another thread on that. What I was trying to do is frame the conversation on morals.

Using Difflugia analogy, "I know that guns are real and work, but my knowledge and understanding of them doesn't make me a murderer."


People in the eugenics movement know how evolution works and they use that knowledge to murder and sterilize other people. The eugenics movement attempts to make artificial bottlenecks to advance the human race in the desired direction.

And you are correct in saying that Evolution has no moral component therefore death and murder is a viable option and is in fact the mechanism of evolution.

[Clownboat]

You didn't really answer the question. Do you believe genocide and taking little girls as the spoils of war are "good" and "right"?

You didn't really answer mine either, perhaps I'll take the easy way out as you did and say "It depends".

Taking little girsl as the spoils of war is never good or right! If it can 'depend' and sometimes it is ok to take little girls as the spoils of war, it is you that is evil.

I suggest you stay clear of little girls and do some major self reflection about their value and how their parents might feel about what you might do to them once they are your spoils.
Seriously, shame on you!

[JoeyKnothead]

...
People in the eugenics movement know how evolution works and they use that knowledge to murder and sterilize other people. The eugenics movement attempts to make artificial bottlenecks to advance the human race in the desired direction.

And you are correct in saying that Evolution has no moral component therefore death and murder is a viable option and is in fact the mechanism of evolution.

Preacher says to shoot homosexuals.

Ain't it kinda odd EarthScienceGuy, or other theists don't consider such when they harp on about eugenics?

In a thread about fossils, no less.

[Inquirer]

You didn't really answer mine either

Sure I did. You asked how I establish if something is good or right, and I answered that I do so by evaluating each instance individually and in context.

perhaps I'll take the easy way out as you did and say "It depends".

Under what circumstances would you consider genocide and taking little girls as spoils of war good and right?

It depends.

[Inquirer]

You didn't really answer the question. Do you believe genocide and taking little girls as the spoils of war are "good" and "right"?

You didn't really answer mine either, perhaps I'll take the easy way out as you did and say "It depends".

Taking little girsl as the spoils of war is never good or right! If it can 'depend' and sometimes it is ok to take little girls as the spoils of war, it is you that is evil.

I suggest you stay clear of little girls and do some major self reflection about their value and how their parents might feel about what you might do to them once they are your spoils.
Seriously, shame on you!

My apologies, I had thought we were having a scientific discussion, not an emotional one.

If my words outrage you so much, then why do you do nothing for the child victims of Western military and geopolitical escapades? when did you ever do anything at all for a child in Vietnam, Iraq, Yemen, Laos or even your own country who's parents and home has been destroyed by war or greed or economic exploitation? Never.

Take a look in the mirror my friend, that's the person you should be arguing with, not me.

[Jose Fly]

You didn't really answer mine either

Sure I did. You asked how I establish if something is good or right, and I answered that I do so by evaluating each instance individually and in context.

perhaps I'll take the easy way out as you did and say "It depends".

Under what circumstances would you consider genocide and taking little girls as spoils of war good and right?

It depends.

So there are circumstances under which you could see genocide and taking little girls as spoils of war as good and right.

I'll allow that to speak for itself.

[Inquirer]

You didn't really answer mine either

Sure I did. You asked how I establish if something is good or right, and I answered that I do so by evaluating each instance individually and in context.

perhaps I'll take the easy way out as you did and say "It depends".

Under what circumstances would you consider genocide and taking little girls as spoils of war good and right?

It depends.

So there are circumstances under which you could see genocide and taking little girls as spoils of war as good and right.

I'll allow that to speak for itself.

I always speak for myself, I stand by what I said, it all depends. That's why Churchill bombed the French fleet, that's why the US used a nuclear weapon - twice, that's why we turned Dresden into a furnace and burned people alive in their homes, that why US society still reels from centuries of brutal murderous slavery of black people. it depends, you have no idea what "good" is, you just make up your own definition so long as that definition never limits your freedoms.

What is worse taking a child as a "spoil of war" or burning her alive? blowing her limbs off? blinding her and leaving her to fend in her country without parents, resources or support? Go on, answer that Jose, lets hear your lofty wisdom please.