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 DeMotts in post #1]

H. neanderthalensis, H. erectus, H heidelbergensis, and H. ergaster, are modern human

A. africanus, P. boisei, P. robustus, Praeanthropus africanus and H. habilis would be ape.

No evolution here just different-sized humans.

[Jose Fly]

H. neanderthalensis, H. erectus, H heidelbergensis, and H. ergaster, are modern human

A. africanus, P. boisei, P. robustus, Praeanthropus africanus and H. habilis would be ape.

Based on what?

And could human/primate common ancestry ever be a possibility for you? Or is it a conclusion that you cannot accept under any circumstances?

[Miles]

What is the current theistic explanation for archaic human fossils?

For many theists the scientific explanation that ancient vestiges of evolving forms were buried and subsequently became fossilized is reasonable and adequate. For others, like EarthScienceguy here, who ignore the findings of science, there was no such thing as ancient vestiges of evolving forms, but simply "different-sized humans" who left fossil traces over only a few thousand years.

.

[Inquirer]

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's a "human fossil"?

[Clownboat]

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's a "human fossil"?

Definition of human
1: of, relating to, or characteristic of humans

Definition of fossil
1: preserved from a past geologic age

I claim that to accept a religion is easy mode. Answers are supplied and no work is required. Not that it was a lot of work to provide definitions to Inquirer, but it does make me wonder why they were unwilling to put the work in themself for something so basic. We shouldn't have to hold the spoon for those that subscribe to a religion, that is what church is for from my experience.

To the OP:
Many Christians accept evolution as the best explanation we have for the life we see not only now, but also in the fossil record. For them, their god created humans and used evolution as its mechanism to do so. For those types of Christians, ancient human fossils are not an issue.
It is only an issue for the Christians that reject the best explanation that we have and as we saw, blanket, unevidenced proclomations are made in place of a better explanation.
Example from post 2: "No evolution here just different-sized humans." This empty claim is nothing more than a spoon for those conditioned to eat from the spoon IMO.

[DeMotts]

[Replying to EarthScienceguy in post #2]

What happened to all the entries in your "ape" list? I presume they died in the flood?

[DeMotts]

[Replying to Clownboat in post #6]

Agree with everything you said - tried to narrow it down in the question specifically with "For the theistic anti-evolutionists on the board: how do you explain such a variety of human fossils?".

[DeMotts]

What's a "human fossil"?

I think clownboat summed it up fine. Is this a confusing term? A fossil of any of the archaic humans forms that I've listed, in this case. I think the context in the question is pretty evident, no?

[JoeyKnothead]

[Replying to DeMotts in post #1]

H. neanderthalensis, H. erectus, H heidelbergensis, and H. ergaster, are modern human

A. africanus, P. boisei, P. robustus, Praeanthropus africanus and H. habilis would be ape.

No evolution here just different-sized humans.

Humans're apes.