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]

All scripture is interpreted, you are doing nothing more than espousing your interpretation.

And your interpretation is......?

Frankly I'm not sure. The events may have taken place so that the story could be recorded and it may have been recorded because it carries a spiritual meaning not just a physical one. So God's motive for the entire event might be to convey some other far more profound meaning, some aspect of spiritual struggle. After all God is not concerned with our material well being, that is not his goal, it is our eternal life, a non physical existence that is far far more important to him.

Christ repeatedly spoke in parables to hide the true meaning, Christ revealed prophecies about himself to his disciples, until he did that, they too - like you - could only see a physical meaning to those scriptures.

[Jose Fly]

All scripture is interpreted, you are doing nothing more than espousing your interpretation.

And your interpretation is......?

Frankly I'm not sure. The events may have taken place so that the story could be recorded and it may have been recorded because it carries a spiritual meaning not just a physical one. So God's motive for the entire event might be to convey some other far more profound meaning, some aspect of spiritual struggle. After all God is not concerned with our material well being, that is not his goal, it is our eternal life, a non physical existence that is far far more important to him.

Christ repeatedly spoke in parables to hide the true meaning, Christ revealed prophecies about himself to his disciples, until he did that, they too - like you - could only see a physical meaning to those scriptures.

Noted.

[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?

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.

Truth. Ya know, not a lie. Not false. Real. Not made up.

Or as I've said on multiple occasions - pick you a definition and answer the question based on that.

I do find it quite amusing, if a bit sad, that this word, and its definition, is what's preventing you from answering the question.

Are we to conclude truth is incompatible with god belief?

[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.

Truth. Ya know, not a lie. Not false. Real. Not made up.

Or as I've said on multiple occasions - pick you a definition and answer the question based on that.

I do find it quite amusing, if a bit sad, that this word, and its definition, is what's preventing you from answering the question.

Are we to conclude truth is incompatible with god belief?

There is then a standard used to establish historic truths, claims about the past based on evidence like preserved literature.

The comments about Christ meet the criteria, it meets the threshold generally recognized as sufficient to regard some claim as reasonably true.

These don't prove that the record is true of course, but they do suggest that if we are prepared to accept various other unrelated claims from antiquity as true, there are good grounds for regarding the NT as also true. If the stories were false, made up, it seems - and many even secular experts agree - it is very unlikely we'd see the evidence that we do see, the evidence does not fit well with a made up, contrived account.

Ultimately its a personal choice of course, but as I say the NT does reach a pretty high bar.

[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?

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.

Truth. Ya know, not a lie. Not false. Real. Not made up.

Or as I've said on multiple occasions - pick you a definition and answer the question based on that.

I do find it quite amusing, if a bit sad, that this word, and its definition, is what's preventing you from answering the question.

Are we to conclude truth is incompatible with god belief?

There is then a standard used to establish historic truths, claims about the past based on evidence like preserved literature.

The comments about Christ meet the criteria, it meets the threshold generally recognized as sufficient to regard some claim as reasonably true.

These don't prove that the record is true of course, but they do suggest that if we are prepared to accept various other unrelated claims from antiquity as true, there are good grounds for regarding the NT as also true. If the stories were false, made up, it seems - and many even secular experts agree - it is very unlikely we'd see the evidence that we do see, the evidence does not fit well with a made up, contrived account.

Ultimately its a personal choice of course, but as I say the NT does reach a pretty high bar.

Well finally. Thanks.

I note the difficulty in determining the "reasonable" part of "reasonably true".

I point out to the observer that there's no reliable data that shows human / god hybrids are possible, much less viable. With that on mind, tales of a human / god hybrid being resurrected are more "reasonably" considered as a genre of literature that doesn't rely on truth to tell the tale.

[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.

Truth. Ya know, not a lie. Not false. Real. Not made up.

Or as I've said on multiple occasions - pick you a definition and answer the question based on that.

I do find it quite amusing, if a bit sad, that this word, and its definition, is what's preventing you from answering the question.

Are we to conclude truth is incompatible with god belief?

There is then a standard used to establish historic truths, claims about the past based on evidence like preserved literature.

The comments about Christ meet the criteria, it meets the threshold generally recognized as sufficient to regard some claim as reasonably true.

These don't prove that the record is true of course, but they do suggest that if we are prepared to accept various other unrelated claims from antiquity as true, there are good grounds for regarding the NT as also true. If the stories were false, made up, it seems - and many even secular experts agree - it is very unlikely we'd see the evidence that we do see, the evidence does not fit well with a made up, contrived account.

Ultimately its a personal choice of course, but as I say the NT does reach a pretty high bar.

Well finally. Thanks.

I note the difficulty in determining the "reasonable" part of "reasonably true".

I point out to the observer that there's no reliable data that shows human / god hybrids are possible, much less viable. With that on mind, tales of a human / god hybrid being resurrected are more "reasonably" considered as a genre of literature that doesn't rely on truth to tell the tale.

No, you're quite wrong, there's lots of data, we just interpret it differently. There's also the matter of distinguishing between the integrity of the record and the veracity of the events described, these are not the same thing.

There is broad agreement that what is recorded is a reliable record, that is the writers genuinely believed that Jesus said these things and performed these miracles. They wrote as if the events described did occur, were seen and so on. Now as to the the explanation given for these events (Jesus was son of God, sent by the Father, died for us etc) that is a separate question altogether. I am of the opinion that the described miracles really did occur, that he was really resurrected. Yes we must step away from our pre conceived notions of what we think can and cannot happen the the real world, but we'd have to do that for any kind of extraordinary event, any kind of thing that was outside of our experience.

If a person from 2,000 years ago were to witness a man playing chess against a machine, he would have to step away from his pre conceived notions of what can and cannot happen, the fact that we might be dealing with something beyond our expectations does not mean that we should therefore insist that it cannot happen.

If these events really did take place, were witnessed by many and so on, then the NT is - when all is said and done - very much what we'd expect to find, if it were false, lies, delusions etc. we'd not expect to find what we do, this is more or less the view of many scholars, including secular scholars of New Testament history and I know you place great trust in experts and their views.

[JoeyKnothead]

..
I point out to the observer that there's no reliable data that shows human / god hybrids are possible, much less viable. With that on mind, tales of a human / god hybrid being resurrected are more "reasonably" considered as a genre of literature that doesn't rely on truth to tell the tale.

No, you're quite wrong, there's lots of data, we just interpret it differently.

I'm curious to see what data supports the contention that not only can humans and gods can produce hybrids from their ministrations.

Got any?

There's also the matter of distinguishing between the integrity of the record and the veracity of the events described, these are not the same thing.

There is broad agreement that what is recorded is a reliable record, that is the writers genuinely believed that Jesus said these things and performed these miracles.

Of course folks believe things. I seek to determine if those things they believe can be found factual or true as described.

They wrote as if the events described did occur, were seen and so on.

So did Chrichton.

Do you lay awake at night fretting a T-rex pounding on your door?

Now as to the the explanation given for these events (Jesus was son of God, sent by the Father, died for us etc) that is a separate question altogether. I am of the opinion that the described miracles really did occur, that he was really resurrected. Yes we must step away from our pre conceived notions of what we think can and cannot happen the the real world, but we'd have to do that for any kind of extraordinary event, any kind of thing that was outside of our experience.

This whole "preconceived notions bad" angle is a common ploy of bridge salesmen.

It's used to imply someone is stubbornly refusing to accept claims that can't be shown to be true.

If rhetorical tricks are the best you can do, well there we go.

If a person from 2,000 years ago were to witness a man playing chess against a machine, he would have to step away from his pre conceived notions of what can and cannot happen, the fact that we might be dealing with something beyond our expectations does not mean that we should therefore insist that it cannot happen.

"If" is a poor means of establishing truth.

Beyond that, those who try to drag folks into the past, with its superstitions and relative ignorance, let them go alone.

We who live in the here and now understand that death is final.

If these events really did take place, were witnessed by many and so on, then the NT is - when all is said and done - very much what we'd expect to find, if it were false, lies, delusions etc. we'd not expect to find what we do, this is more or less the view of many scholars, including secular scholars of New Testament history and I know you place great trust in experts and their views.

"If" is a poor means of establishing truth.

I place no trust in folks who try to promulgate myth as truth, or bridge salesmen.

[Inquirer]

..
I point out to the observer that there's no reliable data that shows human / god hybrids are possible, much less viable. With that on mind, tales of a human / god hybrid being resurrected are more "reasonably" considered as a genre of literature that doesn't rely on truth to tell the tale.

No, you're quite wrong, there's lots of data, we just interpret it differently.

I'm curious to see what data supports the contention that not only can humans and gods can produce hybrids from their ministrations.

Got any?

I can't help you, you have created some idea in your mind of "humans and gods can produce hybrids from their ministrations" that's probably some kind of interpretation of something you heard or read, but it means nothing to me.

There's also the matter of distinguishing between the integrity of the record and the veracity of the events described, these are not the same thing.

There is broad agreement that what is recorded is a reliable record, that is the writers genuinely believed that Jesus said these things and performed these miracles.

Of course folks believe things. I seek to determine if those things they believe can be found factual or true as described.

Well as I told you before the process you use to decide if some historic claims is "factual or true" is for you to decide, you choose the method for deciding what you believe, not me.

They wrote as if the events described did occur, were seen and so on.

So did Chrichton.

Do you lay awake at night fretting a T-rex pounding on your door?

Now as to the the explanation given for these events (Jesus was son of God, sent by the Father, died for us etc) that is a separate question altogether. I am of the opinion that the described miracles really did occur, that he was really resurrected. Yes we must step away from our pre conceived notions of what we think can and cannot happen the the real world, but we'd have to do that for any kind of extraordinary event, any kind of thing that was outside of our experience.

This whole "preconceived notions bad" angle is a common ploy of bridge salesmen.

It's used to imply someone is stubbornly refusing to accept claims that can't be shown to be true.

If rhetorical tricks are the best you can do, well there we go.

If a person from 2,000 years ago were to witness a man playing chess against a machine, he would have to step away from his pre conceived notions of what can and cannot happen, the fact that we might be dealing with something beyond our expectations does not mean that we should therefore insist that it cannot happen.

"If" is a poor means of establishing truth.

Beyond that, those who try to drag folks into the past, with its superstitions and relative ignorance, let them go alone.

We who live in the here and now understand that death is final.

If these events really did take place, were witnessed by many and so on, then the NT is - when all is said and done - very much what we'd expect to find, if it were false, lies, delusions etc. we'd not expect to find what we do, this is more or less the view of many scholars, including secular scholars of New Testament history and I know you place great trust in experts and their views.

"If" is a poor means of establishing truth.

I place no trust in folks who try to promulgate myth as truth, or bridge salesmen.

As you wish, but something that you've chosen not to believe does not thereby prove it to be a myth, if you want to believe its a myth then go ahead that's your right, we all choose what we want to believe but please don't promulgate your beliefs as truth.

Joey, listen to me, the argument "I do not believe claim X is true therefore said claim is false" isn't going to win you any prizes in a logic or mathematics course.

I see this a great deal with arguments promulgated by some atheists, that there's often an absence of rigor, hard logic and dispassionate reasoning, I know of what I speak, I'm a scientist and work with logic, computers, software, electronic systems, complex data all day every day, I'm pretty good at this.

[brunumb]

As you wish, but something that you've chosen not to believe does not thereby prove it to be a myth, if you want to believe its a myth then go ahead that's your right, we all choose what we want to believe but please don't promulgate your beliefs as truth.

That old furphy again. We do not choose what we believe. We are either convinced that something is true from our interpretation of the information we receive, or we have our beliefs inculcated in us through indoctrination.

[JoeyKnothead]

I propose this discussion relates to the OP, in that it sheds light on our beliefs, and how we might approach fussing on the question of archaic non / human fossils...

I'm curious to see what data supports the contention that not only can humans and gods can produce hybrids from their ministrations.

Got any?

I can't help you, you have created some idea in your mind of "humans and gods can produce hybrids from their ministrations" that's probably some kind of interpretation of something you heard or read, but it means nothing to me.

I propose a great way of disabusing me or others of their errors in this regard is to let em know how you came to accept the notion that humans and gods can produce offspring.

Of course folks believe things. I seek to determine if those things they believe can be found factual or true as described.

Well as I told you before the process you use to decide if some historic claims is "factual or true" is for you to decide, you choose the method for deciding what you believe, not me.

So I ask...

What method, what facts, what data, has brought you to believe that the tales of Jesus' resurrection are truth?

The following doesn't seem to have been addressed within our currently referenced post...

Now as to the the explanation given for these events (Jesus was son of God, sent by the Father, died for us etc) that is a separate question altogether. I am of the opinion that the described miracles really did occur, that he was really resurrected. Yes we must step away from our pre conceived notions of what we think can and cannot happen the the real world, but we'd have to do that for any kind of extraordinary event, any kind of thing that was outside of our experience.

This whole "preconceived notions bad" angle is a common ploy of bridge salesmen.

It's used to imply someone is stubbornly refusing to accept claims that can't be shown to be true.

If rhetorical tricks are the best you can do, well there we go.

If a person from 2,000 years ago were to witness a man playing chess against a machine, he would have to step away from his pre conceived notions of what can and cannot happen, the fact that we might be dealing with something beyond our expectations does not mean that we should therefore insist that it cannot happen.

"If" is a poor means of establishing truth.

Beyond that, those who try to drag folks into the past, with its superstitions and relative ignorance, let them go alone.

We who live in the here and now understand that death is final.

If these events really did take place, were witnessed by many and so on, then the NT is - when all is said and done - very much what we'd expect to find, if it were false, lies, delusions etc. we'd not expect to find what we do, this is more or less the view of many scholars, including secular scholars of New Testament history and I know you place great trust in experts and their views.

"If" is a poor means of establishing truth.

I place no trust in folks who try to promulgate myth as truth, or bridge salesmen.

...except for this bit...

As you wish, but something that you've chosen not to believe does not thereby prove it to be a myth, if you want to believe its a myth then go ahead that's your right, we all choose what we want to believe but please don't promulgate your beliefs as truth.

Chosen to believe?

Notice how the one with the faith position thinks I've "chosen" my beliefs. As if belief is just a lightbulb that can be switched off or on. This is, if only for me, compelling evidence that it's the theist who holds the lightbulb of belief.

Joey, listen to me, the argument "I do not believe claim X is true therefore said claim is false" isn't going to win you any prizes in a logic or mathematics course.

Such a condition is a problem for the claimant.

Regarding the resurrection of Jesus, I've nowhere here said your claim / belief must be false if you can't show it to be truth. I'm merely pointing out the problems with claiming something as true that can't be shown to be true.

What mathematics, what logic should lead us to believe a human / god hybrid can and did occur, and that upon its death, it was resurrected back to life?

I see this a great deal with arguments promulgated by some atheists, that there's often an absence of rigor, hard logic and dispassionate reasoning, I know of what I speak, I'm a scientist and work with logic, computers, software, electronic systems, complex data all day every day, I'm pretty good at this.

LOL

It's been my experience that smart folks don't hafta tell folks how much of it they are. They just understand it'll come across in the things they say and do.

I dare say if you know of what you speak, you'd wouldn't have to make excuses as to why you can't show the resurrection of Jesus is a true and factual event.

Notice throughout this exchange we're given reasons as to why I, Joey of Knothead don't believe this outlandish tale. Where were we ever given one, just one means by which we may confirm Jesus, the human/god hybrid, died, and then hopped right on back up?