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]

So no rational argument, only "Jose is very upset when you say nasty things like this" which is not a reasoned, rationally argued position. If your definition of an immoral act is any act that upsets you personally then fine, all you had to do was say that, at least I could respect the honesty.

Different people are outraged by different things Jose, your views are no more valid than any other persons, if someone finds abortion abhorrent and you see it as a medical procedure then how is that any different to someone seeing genocide as a means of eradicating an existential threat of some form?

That you even demand rational, scientific proof for why genocide and taking little girls for your own uses isn't moral is all one needs to know about you.

You also keep trying very hard to label me as some kind of perverse individual by repeating as often as you can accusations like "except the little girls you want to keep for your own uses" and other insinuations.

This is an act of desperation, I have no personal desire for any such thing nor have I ever expressed it here, any insinuation that I have is disgusting.

You forget (again) that you were specifically asked if genocide and taking little girls as spoils of war was good and moral, and you answered "it depends". Now I figure most folks (non-Christians apparently) would be rather offended at even being asked such a bizarre question, but not you. You were like....I dunno, maybe, maybe not.

You might as well own it.

Attacking a person for asking a question

You forget (again) that you were specifically asked if genocide and taking little girls as spoils of war was good and moral, and you answered "it depends". So this isn't about questions you're asking, it's about you being okay with war crimes and horrific atrocities.

You picked this scrap with me and now you have a bloody nose, blame yourself for daring to debate me without being prepared.

And more 5 year old level trash-talking. You really are a very immature person, aren't you?

It does depend, like I said elsewhere surely torture is moral if it is to save the lives of others, what alternative are you suggesting?

I see nothing wrong with deciding the matter based on outcomes, if the outcome arising from some decision leads to a better moral result than some other, then the decision is - by definition - a morally good one.

As Spock once said - the needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few, wouldn't you agree?

All those pointing a disapproving finger at me need to a good long look in the mirror.

Besides Jose, we are - as you have often said - just animals, animals kill, yet I hear no cries of anguish about animals being immoral, I suspect you really haven't thought any of this through have you, evolution has no morals, there is no good or bad just those who survive and those who do not - yes?

Like I said, I've no interest in debating morality with someone who thinks taking little girls as sexual slaves just might be a good thing (and also frequently engages in kindergarten-level boasting).

Nor me, so can we just get back to the questions I asked please? Perhaps you really mean you've no interest in debating morality with someone who's a more capable debater, because I am Jose, I'm the better debater, no emotion, no vile insinuations, no insults or references to sexual abuse of minors (in fact these are all things you introduced to the discussion - as the record proves), no Jose, just logic and plain English; this isn't a "boast" either, its a fact supported by the public record of our exchanges here.

(I've explained to you before, don't attack me the person, attack my argument).

[JoeyKnothead]

Nor me, so can we just get back to the questions I asked please? Perhaps you really mean you've no interest in debating morality with someone who's a more capable debater, because I am Jose, I'm the better debater, no emotion, no vile insinuations, no insults or references to sexual abuse of minors (in fact these are all things you introduced to the discussion - as the record proves), no Jose, just logic and plain English; this isn't a "boast" either, its a fact supported by the public record of our exchanges here.

(I've explained to you before, don't attack me the person, attack my argument).

I dare say if you were such a capable debater, you'd quit ignoring a simple question...

Do you believe the resurrection of Jesus tales are true?

(This is really for the observer, our most capable, unemotional debater's had me on ignore because I keep asking him this question.)

[Jose Fly]

Nor me, so can we just get back to the questions I asked please? Perhaps you really mean you've no interest in debating morality with someone who's a more capable debater, because I am Jose, I'm the better debater, no emotion, no vile insinuations, no insults or references to sexual abuse of minors (in fact these are all things you introduced to the discussion - as the record proves), no Jose, just logic and plain English; this isn't a "boast" either, its a fact supported by the public record of our exchanges here.

(I've explained to you before, don't attack me the person, attack my argument).

Wow....I don't know for sure what made you write such a juvenile post, but it looks to me like you may be so bored and lonely that you've stooped to childishly taunting and goading people, desperately hoping it'll trigger them into interacting with you.

Get a life dude. Go out and make some IRL friends or take up a hobby.

[Inquirer]

Nor me, so can we just get back to the questions I asked please? Perhaps you really mean you've no interest in debating morality with someone who's a more capable debater, because I am Jose, I'm the better debater, no emotion, no vile insinuations, no insults or references to sexual abuse of minors (in fact these are all things you introduced to the discussion - as the record proves), no Jose, just logic and plain English; this isn't a "boast" either, its a fact supported by the public record of our exchanges here.

(I've explained to you before, don't attack me the person, attack my argument).

Wow....I don't know for sure what made you write such a juvenile post, but it looks to me like you may be so bored and lonely that you've stooped to childishly taunting and goading people, desperately hoping it'll trigger them into interacting with you.

Get a life dude. Go out and make some IRL friends or take up a hobby.

That's not a particularly good response Jose, I don't see how that outburst strengthens your morality argument. Instead of being concerned at my reasons for debating, try to focus instead on my arguments, once again you focus on the person and not their argument, you keep doing this despite me bringing it to your attention.

[Jose Fly]

This is my last post on the subject, because I will not feed into your desperate need for attention.

To repeat, I've no interest in debating morality with someone who thinks taking little girls as sexual slaves just might be a good thing (and also frequently engages in kindergarten-level boasting).

[Inquirer]

This is my last post on the subject, because I will not feed into your desperate need for attention.

To repeat, I've no interest in debating morality with someone who thinks taking little girls as sexual slaves just might be a good thing (and also frequently engages in kindergarten-level boasting).

If anyone - me or anyone - ever makes a post advocating "taking little girls as sexual slaves" then it is your duty to report that to the moderators but you have not have you, because it is emphatically untrue, a made up slur because your are angry at me for out-arguing you.

Your disgusting insinuations have no place in a debating forum, perhaps someone other than me will report your abusive conduct but I'm sure some will approve and even applaud you.

Finally there is no "boasting" it is a statement of fact I am a better debater, I avoid attacking the person, you do it routinely, I do not accuse my opponent of sexual perversity you have just done so, at every juncture you have resorted to insults and slurs, that is not the hallmark of a good debater.

[JoeyKnothead]

This is my last post on the subject, because I will not feed into your desperate need for attention.

To repeat, I've no interest in debating morality with someone who thinks taking little girls as sexual slaves just might be a good thing (and also frequently engages in kindergarten-level boasting).

If anyone - me or anyone - ever makes a post advocating "taking little girls as sexual slaves" then it is your duty to report that to the moderators but you have not have you, because it is emphatically untrue, a made up slur because your are angry at me for out-arguing you.

Your disgusting insinuations have no place in a debating forum, perhaps someone other than me will report your abusive conduct but I'm sure some will approve and even applaud you.

"Your post oughta be reported, it's just I ain't going to, cause, well, someone just needs to report it!"

Conclusions?

"You win this debate, but I'll never admit ya did."

[Inquirer]

This is my last post on the subject, because I will not feed into your desperate need for attention.

To repeat, I've no interest in debating morality with someone who thinks taking little girls as sexual slaves just might be a good thing (and also frequently engages in kindergarten-level boasting).

If anyone - me or anyone - ever makes a post advocating "taking little girls as sexual slaves" then it is your duty to report that to the moderators but you have not have you, because it is emphatically untrue, a made up slur because your are angry at me for out-arguing you.

Your disgusting insinuations have no place in a debating forum, perhaps someone other than me will report your abusive conduct but I'm sure some will approve and even applaud you.

"Your post oughta be reported, it's just I ain't going to, cause, well, someone just needs to report it!"

Conclusions?

"You win this debate, but I'll never admit ya did."

I won, that's plain to see by an basic assessment of the facts. You applauded his post yet I never made any suggestion of "taking little girls as sexual slaves" none, it is a baseless lie, the kind of behavior I'd expect from Donald Trump, Roger Stone, Steve Bannon or Alex Jones all of whom are shameless liars who despise the truth if it frustrates their goals.

[JoeyKnothead]

I won, that's plain to see by an basic assessment of the facts. You applauded his post yet I never made any suggestion of "taking little girls as sexual slaves" none, it is a baseless lie, the kind of behavior I'd expect from Donald Trump, Roger Stone, Steve Bannon or Alex Jones all of whom are shameless liars who despise the truth if it frustrates their goals.

While I got ya here...

Do you believe tales of the resurrection of Jesus to be truth?

[Inquirer]

I won, that's plain to see by an basic assessment of the facts. You applauded his post yet I never made any suggestion of "taking little girls as sexual slaves" none, it is a baseless lie, the kind of behavior I'd expect from Donald Trump, Roger Stone, Steve Bannon or Alex Jones all of whom are shameless liars who despise the truth if it frustrates their goals.

While I got ya here...

Do you believe tales of the resurrection of Jesus to be truth?

You had me some time ago then lost me because you steadfastly refused (or did not know) to tell me what you mean by "truth" insofar as purported past events are concerned, you are the reason our discussion ceased, not I.