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]

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.

Speak for yourself. I do choose what to believe, what to regard as true, using rationalism, logic and reason. I mean you freely chose your assumptions so consequentially you chose whatever conclusions those assumptions lead you to, if you choose different assumptions you'll get different conclusions, what's so hard to understand about that? Are you saying other minds force you to believe the things you believe?

[Inquirer]

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?

Logic and reason.

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?

You seem to be preaching to some imaginary, passive audience rather a lot (starting sentences with "Notice..."), as if you have a captive audience hanging on your every word; you don't, you're imagining things Joey. Why not simply interact with me? why the need for some imagined security blanket? why can't you simply converse?

There is no "excuse" I cannot show you something is true when you are already convinced it is false, you've said already that it is a myth - you have already made up your mind and unless you're willing to examine yourself, how you made up your mind, there's nothing I can do.

The answers to all your questions lie within you, not me, discovering the truth requires you to look yourself in the mirror so to speak, to coldly examine your own thoughts and beliefs and biases - it's not my responsibility nor my problem, you can't blame me for you not seeing truths.

[brunumb]

Speak for yourself. I do choose what to believe, what to regard as true, using rationalism, logic and reason.

Back to front. When you apply that rationalism, logic and reason and you end up convinced that something is true, you believe. It is not simply a matter of choosing to believe. Even when you accept certain assumptions it is because you are convinced they are correct.

[brunumb]

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

Logic and reason.

But applying logic and reason to the tales of the resurrection of Jesus leads to the conclusion that it is false. Maybe you did something wrong despite having a brain superior to most of us ordinary folk.

[Bust Nak]

It is immoral to me, but I cannot prove it to be absolutely immoral...

They why didn't you say "it is immoral to me" when asked if taking slaves as spoils of war is moral or not?

That might or might not be the case, he (or you) is free to raise that and quote me to continue the discussion if he wants. My complaint about Jose is nothing to do with whether he stated "his own stance" but on his insinuation that I approve of the sexual exploitation of children, which (as your reprimand to him shows) is a violation of the forum rules, a very different matter altogether.

Would you have complained if the insinuation was that you approved of taking slaves as spoils of war? You are not really helping your own case here.

[JoeyKnothead]

You seem to be preaching to some imaginary, passive audience rather a lot (starting sentences with "Notice..."), as if you have a captive audience hanging on your every word; you don't,

I'm aware others may read our comments within these various threads, yes. I also note some comments are marked with a "like", indicating some folks are appreciative of our efforts.

you're imagining things Joey.

Says the guy who thinks humans and gods can produce viable offspring who then hop em up after a three day dead.

Why not simply interact with me?

You're not the only one on this site.

why the need for some imagined security blanket?

Says the Bible promoter.

why can't you simply converse?

I got me an eighth grade education, simple conversation's what I do.

There is no "excuse" I cannot show you something is true when you are already convinced it is false, you've said already that it is a myth - you have already made up your mind and unless you're willing to examine yourself, how you made up your mind, there's nothing I can do.

I've only made up my mind insofar as Jesus promoters fail to show related claims are truth.

I'd be fine having my beliefs in this regard overturned.

The answers to all your questions lie within you, not me, discovering the truth requires you to look yourself in the mirror so to speak, to coldly examine your own thoughts and beliefs and biases - it's not my responsibility nor my problem, you can't blame me for you not seeing truths.

Discovering the truth, in debate, requires a claimant to show they speak it.

Ain't it odd how some theists carry on about "truths", only to fuss about when ya ask em to show how they know it?

Face it, the claims of Jesus's divinity are questionable to laughable, up to and including his zombification.

[Inquirer]

You seem to be preaching to some imaginary, passive audience rather a lot (starting sentences with "Notice..."), as if you have a captive audience hanging on your every word; you don't,

I'm aware others may read our comments within these various threads, yes. I also note some comments are marked with a "like", indicating some folks are appreciative of our efforts.

you're imagining things Joey.

Says the guy who thinks humans and gods can produce viable offspring who then hop em up after a three day dead.

Why not simply interact with me?

You're not the only one on this site.

why the need for some imagined security blanket?

Says the Bible promoter.

why can't you simply converse?

I got me an eighth grade education, simple conversation's what I do.

There is no "excuse" I cannot show you something is true when you are already convinced it is false, you've said already that it is a myth - you have already made up your mind and unless you're willing to examine yourself, how you made up your mind, there's nothing I can do.

I've only made up my mind insofar as Jesus promoters fail to show related claims are truth.

I'd be fine having my beliefs in this regard overturned.

The answers to all your questions lie within you, not me, discovering the truth requires you to look yourself in the mirror so to speak, to coldly examine your own thoughts and beliefs and biases - it's not my responsibility nor my problem, you can't blame me for you not seeing truths.

Discovering the truth, in debate, requires a claimant to show they speak it.

Ain't it odd how some theists carry on about "truths", only to fuss about when ya ask em to show how they know it?

Face it, the claims of Jesus's divinity are questionable to laughable, up to and including his zombification.

As you wish, but you were pestering me about being "ignored" so I tried to honestly and clearly address the points you raised. You've failed to rationally counter argue.

You have no idea what "truth" is in the context of this discussion. You actually said you believe the NT claims to be a "myth" you wrote that. That isn't the position one takes when seeking evidence, it is a conclusion they already reached. You have already decided that the truth is "it is a myth", so if that's your position why even bother asking for evidence? If you've proven to yourself it is a myth then why waste time asking for something that cannot exist?

The fact is also that to state - as you are on record doing - that the stories are a myth, then that means you must have proof of that claim but you apparently have none. You come to these discussions like a bull in a china shop, attacking the theists for "Jesus promoters fail to show related claims are truth" yet in your mind you are entitled to do just that though, state emphatically it is a myth yet provide no evidence for said claim!

And please stop whining about this "8th grade education" excuse, your an adult, go and buy some books. I was raised fatherless by my mother in poverty in working class 1950s Liverpool, sharing two rooms with my mother, my aunt, my grandmother and two sisters. We had to use an outside toilet in the yard, we had only coal fires for heating, I sometimes went to bed hungry. So please don't seek sympathy and blame your childhood for posting terrible logic, I too had a poor and deprived childhood and second rate education but I never let it define me, I always made an effort to self improve.

If you want to wade into these subjects, to argue with the big boys then start arguing like one and lets have less of the victim card please, it doesn't work with me, I never let my childhood poverty and deprivation define me, if you want to waste time pretending to debate, you'll have to find someone else to waste it with.

Liverpool slum dwellings.

My world as a child.

[JoeyKnothead]

As you wish, but you were pestering me about being "ignored" so I tried to honestly and clearly address the points you raised. You've failed to rationally counter argue.

I mentioned your ignoring me once.

Please note, the rules of this site do not require a challenger to present counter arguments, but does expect folks to support their claims.

You have no idea what "truth" is in the context of this discussion.

So enlighten us...

What is "truth" in the context of tales of Jesus, the human / god hybrid, getting him a resurrection?

You actually said you believe the NT claims to be a "myth" you wrote that.

It's my contention that until the resurrection of Jesus can be shown factual, that's the most generous take.

That isn't the position one takes when seeking evidence, it is a conclusion they already reached.

Now's your chance to embarrass me by showing tales of the resurrection of Jesus are truth.

You have already decided that the truth is "it is a myth", so if that's your position why even bother asking for evidence?

What I've decided is you'll never put truth to tales of the resurrection of Jesus.

Here's you a great chance to prove me wrong.

If you've proven to yourself it is a myth then why waste time asking for something that cannot exist?

This is a debate site.

And you could wipe this smug smile off my face.

The fact is also that to state - as you are on record doing - that the stories are a myth, then that means you must have proof of that claim but you apparently have none.

See above, I contend it's a reasonable and rational conclusion...

...until someone can show tales of Jesus' resurrection are truth.

You come to these discussions like a bull in a china shop,...

Ain't my fault theists claims / beliefs are so fragile.

...attacking the theists for "Jesus promoters fail to show related claims are truth" yet in your mind you are entitled to do just that though, state emphatically it is a myth yet provide no evidence for said claim!

As before, I contend considering claims of human / god hybrids, and their resurrectionings, are more rationally considered myth.

And please stop whining about this "8th grade education" excuse,...

Who's whining? I know folks who'd be proud to've gone so far.

I propose if you hadda, maybe you'd see the errors in your thinking.

...your an adult, go and buy some books.

*You're

Why don't you read one?

See what an advanced education can do?

I have plenty books, my favorites are the Grzimek's, and Jurassic Park..

What I don't have is anyone putting truth to tales of Jesus' resurrection.

I was raised fatherless by my mother in poverty in working class 1950s Liverpool, ..

Now who's whining?

If you want to wade into these subjects, to argue with the big boys...

Lol
Do let us all know when you become one.

...then start arguing like one and lets have less of the victim card please, it doesn't work with me, I never let my childhood poverty and deprivation define me, if you want to waste time pretending to debate, you'll have to find someone else to waste it with.

"Joey, don't whine, let me do it for you."

Liverpool slum dwellings.

My world as a child.

And this is how we know tales of Jesus' resurrection are truth?

Try being homeless. It might humble you a bit.

[Inquirer]

Have a nice day Joey, that was the last chance I'm willing to give you, to debate sensibly, logically and rationally with me. Incidentally your interest in learning more of the evidence for and historicity of, Christ is not really well served in the Science and Religion area, so please ask your question here:

Christianity and Apologetics

There are plenty of people with greater expertise than me who frequent this section, I'm sure you'll find the answers you're looking for there.

[brunumb]

[Replying to JoeyKnothead in post #318]

Did you notice that in Inquirer's lengthy diatribe there was no attempt to give a reasoned response to your question? And then he just ghosts you. One has to wonder why.