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
- Jose Fly
- Guru
- Posts: 1462
- Joined: Tue Jan 18, 2022 5:30 pm
- Location: Out west somewhere
- Has thanked: 337 times
- Been thanked: 906 times
Re: What is the current theistic explanation for archaic human fossils?
Post #221What is your definition of "good"?Inquirer wrote: ↑Thu Oct 06, 2022 5:48 pm 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, 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.
Being apathetic is great....or not. I don't really care.
- 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 #222The very same (unanswered) question I asked you days ago, if you don't know, then you cannot judge another, not me, not anyone.Jose Fly wrote: ↑Thu Oct 06, 2022 5:50 pmWhat is your definition of "good"?Inquirer wrote: ↑Thu Oct 06, 2022 5:48 pm 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, 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.
- Jose Fly
- Guru
- Posts: 1462
- Joined: Tue Jan 18, 2022 5:30 pm
- Location: Out west somewhere
- Has thanked: 337 times
- Been thanked: 906 times
Re: What is the current theistic explanation for archaic human fossils?
Post #223Then the same applies to you, i.e., you can't criticize others about their criteria for "good" or not having any, since you are in the same boat.Inquirer wrote: ↑Thu Oct 06, 2022 5:57 pmThe very same (unanswered) question I asked you days ago, if you don't know, then you cannot judge another, not me, not anyone.Jose Fly wrote: ↑Thu Oct 06, 2022 5:50 pmWhat is your definition of "good"?Inquirer wrote: ↑Thu Oct 06, 2022 5:48 pm 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, 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.
Being apathetic is great....or not. I don't really care.
- 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 #224Except I never judged you as good or bad, only wrong, occasionally right, but mostly wrong. You fight with yourself when you attack me Jose, one day you'll understand.Jose Fly wrote: ↑Thu Oct 06, 2022 6:00 pmThen the same applies to you, i.e., you can't criticize others about their criteria for "good" or not having any, since you are in the same boat.Inquirer wrote: ↑Thu Oct 06, 2022 5:57 pmThe very same (unanswered) question I asked you days ago, if you don't know, then you cannot judge another, not me, not anyone.Jose Fly wrote: ↑Thu Oct 06, 2022 5:50 pmWhat is your definition of "good"?Inquirer wrote: ↑Thu Oct 06, 2022 5:48 pm 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, 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.
- Jose Fly
- Guru
- Posts: 1462
- Joined: Tue Jan 18, 2022 5:30 pm
- Location: Out west somewhere
- Has thanked: 337 times
- Been thanked: 906 times
Re: What is the current theistic explanation for archaic human fossils?
Post #225Well this didn't take long before it got really stupid.Inquirer wrote: ↑Thu Oct 06, 2022 6:02 pmExcept I never judged you as good or bad, only wrong, occasionally right, but mostly wrong. You fight with yourself when you attack me Jose, one day you'll understand.Jose Fly wrote: ↑Thu Oct 06, 2022 6:00 pmThen the same applies to you, i.e., you can't criticize others about their criteria for "good" or not having any, since you are in the same boat.Inquirer wrote: ↑Thu Oct 06, 2022 5:57 pmThe very same (unanswered) question I asked you days ago, if you don't know, then you cannot judge another, not me, not anyone.Jose Fly wrote: ↑Thu Oct 06, 2022 5:50 pmWhat is your definition of "good"?Inquirer wrote: ↑Thu Oct 06, 2022 5:48 pm 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, 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.
Being apathetic is great....or not. I don't really care.
- DrNoGods
- Prodigy
- Posts: 2716
- Joined: Wed Jan 11, 2017 2:18 pm
- Location: Nevada
- Has thanked: 593 times
- Been thanked: 1642 times
Re: What is the current theistic explanation for archaic human fossils?
Post #226[Replying to EarthScienceguy in post #214]
I thought you did not believe that evolution "works" at all! If it isn't real how can the eugenics movement use it for anything? I think this movement you refer to must be incredibly small and quiet as they don't seem to have made any progress in their goals as you never hear of them in the news or otherwise. Where are these people?People in the eugenics movement know how evolution works and they use that knowledge to murder and sterilize other people.
Death and murder are the mechanisms of evolution? That's news ... I thought it involved mutations, genetic drift, copying errors, changes in genetic makeup each generational cycle, and all of that, influenced by natural selection. You need to start a push to update all the evolutionary biologists on your finding since I expect none of them are aware of it.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.
In human affairs the sources of success are ever to be found in the fountains of quick resolve and swift stroke; and it seems to be a law, inflexible and inexorable, that he who will not risk cannot win.
John Paul Jones, 1779
The man who does not read has no advantage over the man who cannot read.
Mark Twain
John Paul Jones, 1779
The man who does not read has no advantage over the man who cannot read.
Mark Twain
- 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 #227Another masterly example of logic and rational reasoning! your technique is well exemplified by this:Jose Fly wrote: ↑Thu Oct 06, 2022 6:07 pmWell this didn't take long before it got really stupid.Inquirer wrote: ↑Thu Oct 06, 2022 6:02 pmExcept I never judged you as good or bad, only wrong, occasionally right, but mostly wrong. You fight with yourself when you attack me Jose, one day you'll understand.Jose Fly wrote: ↑Thu Oct 06, 2022 6:00 pmThen the same applies to you, i.e., you can't criticize others about their criteria for "good" or not having any, since you are in the same boat.Inquirer wrote: ↑Thu Oct 06, 2022 5:57 pmThe very same (unanswered) question I asked you days ago, if you don't know, then you cannot judge another, not me, not anyone.Jose Fly wrote: ↑Thu Oct 06, 2022 5:50 pmWhat is your definition of "good"?Inquirer wrote: ↑Thu Oct 06, 2022 5:48 pm 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, 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.
If you really want to do well at debating you need to move on from name calling and blanket dismissals.
- Jose Fly
- Guru
- Posts: 1462
- Joined: Tue Jan 18, 2022 5:30 pm
- Location: Out west somewhere
- Has thanked: 337 times
- Been thanked: 906 times
Re: What is the current theistic explanation for archaic human fossils?
Post #228Since EarthScienceguy insists on continuing with the "evolution = eugenics/Nazism" argument, I have a few questions...
Do you agree with the Nazis that Jews and the other groups they killed were "less fit" and should therefore be removed from the population?
Do you agree with the eugenicists that the groups of people they sterilized were "less fit"?
If Hitler allegedly being motivated by evolution reflects on evolution, by the same token do the antisemitic writings from the founder of Protestantism, Martin Luther (e.g., "On The Jews and Their Lies") reflect on Christianity?
Do you agree with the Nazis that Jews and the other groups they killed were "less fit" and should therefore be removed from the population?
Do you agree with the eugenicists that the groups of people they sterilized were "less fit"?
If Hitler allegedly being motivated by evolution reflects on evolution, by the same token do the antisemitic writings from the founder of Protestantism, Martin Luther (e.g., "On The Jews and Their Lies") reflect on Christianity?
Being apathetic is great....or not. I don't really care.
- 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 #229One thing we can confidently say, is that the prominent eugenicists were influential and card carrying members of the AAAS and NAS:Jose Fly wrote: ↑Fri Oct 07, 2022 12:30 pm Since EarthScienceguy insists on continuing with the "evolution = eugenics/Nazism" argument, I have a few questions...
Do you agree with the Nazis that Jews and the other groups they killed were "less fit" and should therefore be removed from the population?
Do you agree with the eugenicists that the groups of people they sterilized were "less fit"?
If Hitler allegedly being motivated by evolution reflects on evolution, by the same token do the antisemitic writings from the founder of Protestantism, Martin Luther (e.g., "On The Jews and Their Lies") reflect on Christianity?
See: Eugenics and the history of Science and AAASIndeed, Science played a shameful and notable role in the scientific acceptance of eugenics in the United States and the world. The opening keynote for the 1921 conference was given by Henry Osborn, whose address was published in Science a week later. His call to bar the “unfit” from sharing in American democracy because of a “handicap of heredity” was clearly discriminatory. This piece was followed by a similarly toned treatise on the goals of eugenical societies by Leonard Darwin, Charles Darwin’s son and the organizer of the First International Eugenics Congress in 1912 (also heralded and promoted by Science). Three weeks after publishing Osborn’s piece, Science gave front-page treatment to Charles Davenport’s “Research in Eugenics,” in which he assured that eugenics was backed by “rigid proof” and should therefore “not arouse contrary opinion.”
Davenport and Osborn were widely recognized as members of the highest echelons of scientific society. Both were fellows of the US National Academy of Sciences and AAAS. Osborn was president of the board of trustees of the American Museum of Natural History from 1908 to 1933. Davenport founded the lab that would become Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory and spurred the creation of the Eugenics Record Office. Additionally, both were members of the AAAS committee on evolution that helped Clarence Darrow defend John Scopes in 1925, and Osborn was elected AAAS president in 1928.
- Jose Fly
- Guru
- Posts: 1462
- Joined: Tue Jan 18, 2022 5:30 pm
- Location: Out west somewhere
- Has thanked: 337 times
- Been thanked: 906 times
Re: What is the current theistic explanation for archaic human fossils?
Post #230And so were many prominent Christians. What's your point?
Being apathetic is great....or not. I don't really care.