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]

[Replying to Clownboat in post #65]

Experts have identified A. afarensis as being very close to what can be called a 'missing link'.

Oh, my that is funny.
Wow, talk about appealing to authority.

You obviously know they are basing their conclusion on no observation but simply a feeling. At least that is what they say it is.

When one is not an expert in any particular field it makes sense to defer to those who are recognised experts. I'm wondering what expertise was involved in formulating the hypothesis that humans were made from dirt and had some life spirit stuff breathed into them.

More appeals to authority, this is a well known fallacy in debating circles. Note the phrase "recognized experts" which we all know means recognized (chosen) by you because they share your interpretations.

[Jose Fly]

[Replying to Jose Fly in post #67]

You're not making any sense. You said those two researchers said the specimen was an ape because it had "ape feet". Nothing you quoted says that.

Wow, do you understand what "arboreality" means? Why don't you look that word up and read my quote again.

Sure, I know what it means (hint: it does not mean "ape"). I'll take your response as a tacit admission that you cannot back up your accusation against the scientists.

[Jose Fly]

[Replying to Clownboat in post #65]

Experts have identified A. afarensis as being very close to what can be called a 'missing link'.

Oh, my that is funny.
Wow, talk about appealing to authority.

You obviously know they are basing their conclusion on no observation but simply a feeling. At least that is what they say it is.

Readers, EarthScienceguy seems to think that those that classify animals do so without observations and simply off of feelings. Does that seem reasonable to you?

Those NASA guys just base the spherical earth off of feelings, not observations as the earth is actually flat (Step 1 is to establish doubt). I note that a person must first convince themselves of this lie before they can become a flat earther. (Step 2: Make claims that establish you as the actual authority on the matter).

Would a similar mechanism not be at play when trying to deny other established sciences? I would expect so.

It's intellectual short-cutting, employed to protect one's religious beliefs from reality. When faced with inconvenient information (e.g., the conclusions of scientists), it's tempting to simply wave it all away as "just based on feelings" and "biased". That way you don't have to actually look at the info, let alone think about it and come to a resolution.

[Jose Fly]

you'll find no statement written by me that says "IQ is a criterion for classifying fossils"

Then what in the world is your point in bringing up IQ in a thread that's specifically about classification of fossils?

[EarthScienceguy]

[Replying to brunumb in post #76]

"Arboreality simply means living in the trees. There are numerous species that live in trees for all or part of their lives, including a wide range of rodent species, monkeys and great apes, koalas, sloths, many species of birds (such as parrots), and lizards like chameleons and geckos."

Why don't modern humans live in trees?

[EarthScienceguy]

[Replying to brunumb in post #0]

When one is not an expert in any particular field it makes sense to defer to those who are recognized, experts. I'm wondering what expertise was involved in formulating the hypothesis that humans were made from dirt and had some life spirit stuff breathed into them.

What else would humans be made of? You know experts that say that humans are made of something different than what is on this Earth.
What would that be? This sounds interesting.

Are you saying that humans are not different than animals? Do you live in a tree? Can you hang by your feet? That would be interesting also.

[EarthScienceguy]

[Replying to Jose Fly in post #83]

It's intellectual short-cutting, employed to protect one's religious beliefs from reality. When faced with inconvenient information (e.g., the conclusions of scientists), it's tempting to simply wave it all away as "just based on feelings" and "biased". That way you don't have to actually look at the info, let alone think about it and come to a resolution.

Conclusions must be based on observations. For like the third time what observations did they make that led to their conclusion?

[JoeyKnothead]

Why don't modern humans live in trees?

Cause some woman a long time ago ate her a piece of fruit from one of em, and God said, "Well that tears it, from now on you bunch can't live you in the trees not never no more."

Ain't science fascinating?

[Jose Fly]

[Replying to Jose Fly in post #83]

It's intellectual short-cutting, employed to protect one's religious beliefs from reality. When faced with inconvenient information (e.g., the conclusions of scientists), it's tempting to simply wave it all away as "just based on feelings" and "biased". That way you don't have to actually look at the info, let alone think about it and come to a resolution.

Conclusions must be based on observations. For like the third time what observations did they make that led to their conclusion?

No, no, no....I'm not playing the dishonest creationist game where you ignore my questions while demanding that I answer yours. So to repeat....do you think science can only investigate events that are directly observed?

[Inquirer]

you'll find no statement written by me that says "IQ is a criterion for classifying fossils"

Then what in the world is your point in bringing up IQ in a thread that's specifically about classification of fossils?

Is this an admission then that I never said "IQ is a criterion for classifying fossils"? Good, thanks.

As to why, to make the case that we can't confidently refer to fossils as "archaic human" when we have absolutely no idea what kind of intelligence level the creature had.

Its frankly ridiculous, fancy, wishful thinking, confirmation bias.