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.

I'm happy to trust people who are experts in their fields.

Sure, so long as you can choose those experts, eh, there's the rub!

Would you accept a plumber's opinion concerning a lump in your chest or would you seek the opinion of a qualified medical practitioner?

If the plumber was married to a cardiologist or pulmonologist I might be interested in what they have to say, it all depends on the plumber doesn't it? or do you tend to label all plumbers as having zero knowledge in anything other than plumbing?

When your argument is no more than 'I'm not accepting that opinion because it conflicts with my religious beliefs' there is a serious problem.

You must be confusing me with someone else.

That said, you nevertheless rely on the authority of those anonymous authors who contributed to the compendium called the Bible. It doesn't have much of a track record for explaining what goes on in this world we inhabit.

What's the Bible got to do with a scientific discussion about purported "archaic human" fossils?

This is yet-another-thread in danger of being derailed from the intended subject by the very people who claim to align themselves with so-called scientific reasoning, you're all over the place; I mean "Bible", "religious beliefs", what are you talking about!

Perhaps its simply that you're on the back foot with me, as some others often are here and when on the ropes you strike out wildly with bizarre comments about "religion" and "Bible" and so on, please focus on the subject under discussion, re-reading the OP is a good way to reset.

[Inquirer]

As to why, to make the case that we can confidently refer to fossils as "archaic human" when we have absolutely no idea what kind of intelligence level the creature had.

Good grief. You are clearly implying that intelligence level is a factor in determining if a creature is human or not.

Yes, of course I am and I'm not implying I'm saying it plainly and clearly and have been for the past three pages of this discussion for God's sake!

Without some knowledge of their intellectual abilities we're dealing with apes that look similar to humans, you have no way of distinguishing based on fossils do you? of course you don't so why are you wasting your time even arguing with me about this?

A corner stone of science is basic sound logic, remember that.

[EarthScienceguy]

[Replying to brunumb in post #97]

Humans are animals.

Humans are different than animals. Can an animal write this sentence? I think not. Can an animal contemplate their future existence?

Not all animals live in trees

.

No, they have to have hands and FEET that are adapted to living in trees.

We are not made from dirt. You are making no sense.

Ashes to Ashes dust to dust. We are made of the material which is on this planet. "Dirt"

[EarthScienceguy]

[Replying to Jose Fly in post #93]

I'm not watching a 9 minute video when you could actual debate ethically and just answer the question. Yes or no, do you believe science can only investigate events that have been directly observed?

If you are really saying that you do not know the steps in the scientific method, then you might need to watch the 9 min video before we go on.

[DrNoGods]

[Replying to Inquirer in post #102]

Without some knowledge of their intellectual abilities we're dealing with apes that look similar to humans, you have no way of distinguishing based on fossils do you?

Go back to post 46 on page 5 (which you never responded to). Do you consider only Homo sapiens as "human" and all the other Homo members something else? Are "archaic humans" not considered humans in your view so that term should not be used? Do you consider Homo erectus as human, archaic human, or neither and just some kind of ape that happens to look very much like a human in skeletal form?

[Inquirer]

[Replying to brunumb in post #97]

Humans are animals.

Humans are different than animals. Can an animal write this sentence? I think not. Can an animal contemplate their future existence?

Well said, no animal cooks, no animals keeps pets, yet some insist on calling people animals!

[DrNoGods]

[Replying to EarthScienceguy in post #103]

We are made of the material which is on this planet. "Dirt"

Are all 92 naturally occurring elements in the periodic table "dirt"? These elements are what combine to make everything on earth, but the H2O that flows down rivers and fills the oceans is not dirt by any definition. Humans are something like 60% H2O.

[Inquirer]

[Replying to Inquirer in post #102]

Without some knowledge of their intellectual abilities we're dealing with apes that look similar to humans, you have no way of distinguishing based on fossils do you?

Go back to post 46 on page 5 (which you never responded to). Do you consider only Homo sapiens as "human" and all the other Homo members something else? Are "archaic humans" not considered humans in your view so that term should not be used? Do you consider Homo erectus as human, archaic human, or neither and just some kind of ape that happens to look very much like a human in skeletal form?

I simply do not know, I cannot say, what evidence (remember that word?) can you show me that these fossils came from creatures possessing something like human intellect?

[DrNoGods]

[Replying to Inquirer in post #106]

Well said, no animal cooks, no animals keeps pets, yet some insist on calling people animals!

Taxonomically we are animals, as we are members of the kingdom Animalia. This is a simple definition. The fact that we cook and keep pets relates to intelligence and what that has allowed humans to become, and has nothing to do with our taxonomic classification as animals.

Kingdom: Animalia
Phylum: Chordata
Class: Mammalia
Order: Primates
Suborder: Haplorhini
Infraorder: Simiiformes
Family: Hominidae
Subfamily: Homininae
Tribe: Hominini
Genus: Homo
Species: Homo sapiens

[Jose Fly]

[Replying to Jose Fly in post #93]

I'm not watching a 9 minute video when you could actual debate ethically and just answer the question. Yes or no, do you believe science can only investigate events that have been directly observed?

If you are really saying that you do not know the steps in the scientific method, then you might need to watch the 9 min video before we go on.

So yet another "debate" with a creationist becomes little more than chasing them around, trying to get them to answer basic questions, and the creationist doing everything they can to avoid doing so.

I'll say it again....this is precisely why creationists keep losing in court and science; both are areas where you can't dodge questions without consequence.