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?

[Inquirer]

One thing we can confidently say, is that the prominent eugenicists were influential and card carrying members of the AAAS and NAS:

And so were many prominent Christians. What's your point?

That science is no better than religion when it comes to ethics and morals.

[Jose Fly]

That science is no better than religion when it comes to ethics and morals.

Well since science is in no way a system of morality, that's expected. Religion OTOH most definitely claims to be a system of morality, so the fact that it's no better than science at it is quite an indictment against religion.

[Inquirer]

That science is no better than religion when it comes to ethics and morals.

Well since science is in no way a system of morality, that's expected. Religion OTOH most definitely claims to be a system of morality, so the fact that it's no better than science at it is quite an indictment against religion.

Religions are man made structures, there are many of them, I draw a distinction between "religion" and God. Many "religions" share much with other human organizational hierarchies, I don't conflate those with God as you seem to. I'm happy to indict many religions, take Warren Jeffs or US Evangelism or faith healers and so on, I pay no heed to such busy bodies.

I argue with "religious" people just as readily as I argue with scientism and materialism, perhaps you never noticed either how Christ too argued with religion and religious busy bodies?

But as you say science is not a system of morality, but moreover it cannot be used construct one, the eugenicists tried and failed.

[Jose Fly]

That science is no better than religion when it comes to ethics and morals.

Well since science is in no way a system of morality, that's expected. Religion OTOH most definitely claims to be a system of morality, so the fact that it's no better than science at it is quite an indictment against religion.

Religions are man made structures, there are many of them, I draw a distinction between "religion" and God. Many "religions" share much with other human organizational hierarchies, I don't conflate those with God as you seem to. I'm happy to indict many religions, take Warren Jeffs or US Evangelism or faith healers and so on, I pay no heed to such busy bodies.

I argue with "religious" people just as readily as I argue with scientism and materialism, perhaps you never noticed either how Christ too argued with religion and religious busy bodies?

But as you say science is not a system of morality, but moreover it cannot be used construct one, the eugenicists tried and failed.

Noted.

[Clownboat]

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

This is what you chose to apologies for!

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

I suggested you stay away from little girls. That was not an argument.

The question asked was: "Under what circumstances would you consider genocide and taking little girls as spoils of war good and right?"

It depends.

spoil
1.
goods stolen or taken forcibly from a person or place.

Genocide
1.
the deliberate killing of a large number of people from a particular nation or ethnic group with the aim of destroying that nation or group

I cannot get behind a claim that says it is sometimes (depends) ok to steal little girls.
I cannot get behind the killing of a large number of people from a particular nation or ethnic group with the aim of destroying that nation or group.

And you told me to look in a mirror!

[Jose Fly]

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

This is what you chose to apologies for!

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

I suggested you stay away from little girls. That was not an argument.

The question asked was: "Under what circumstances would you consider genocide and taking little girls as spoils of war good and right?"

It depends.

spoil
1.
goods stolen or taken forcibly from a person or place.

Genocide
1.
the deliberate killing of a large number of people from a particular nation or ethnic group with the aim of destroying that nation or group

I cannot get behind a claim that says it is sometimes (depends) ok to steal little girls.
I cannot get behind the killing of a large number of people from a particular nation or ethnic group with the aim of destroying that nation or group.

And you told me to look in a mirror!

Also note the juxtaposition of creationists trying to tar evolution by associating it with Nazism and eugenics, while at the same time saying genocide and taking little girls as spoils of war could be moral and good, depending on the circumstances.

[Inquirer]

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

This is what you chose to apologies for!

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

I suggested you stay away from little girls. That was not an argument.

Such vile insinuations have no place in a debating forum, I can't believe sometimes the depths people are willing to sink to just because they find someone disagreeing with them.

[EarthScienceguy]

[Replying to DrNoGods in post #226]

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?

True I should have said they believe in the principles of the theory of evolution. I have already cited numerous articles about the headlines that the eugenics movement has made.

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.

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.

To quote the United States president. "Come on man". Natural selection is death. That is what natural selection means. So yes you listed death and murder, it really does not matter how the death occurs, is a major mechanism if not the most important mechanism in evolution. Without death then there would be no mutations becoming fixed in the genome. So at least stick to the major tenets of your own theory, please.

[Jose Fly]

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?

Bump for ESG.

[DrNoGods]

[Replying to EarthScienceguy in post #238]

To quote the United States president. "Come on man". Natural selection is death. That is what natural selection means. So yes you listed death and murder, it really does not matter how the death occurs, is a major mechanism if not the most important mechanism in evolution. Without death then there would be no mutations becoming fixed in the genome. So at least stick to the major tenets of your own theory, please.

Death of living things would happen whether the theory of evolution (TOE) were valid or not. Changes in the genome through generations via the reproductive process, mutations, etc. is something that is observed. It is not happening because some evil humans came up with TOE and somehow forced nature to follow it, but that seems to be what you are suggesting.

And thanks for giving me credit for discovering TOE and its mechanisms ... please contact the Nobel committee with this news.