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]

Read all of my posts, none of them contain the string "IQ is a criterion for classifying fossils", so Mr. Fly was wrong so attribute that to me.

So why did you bring it up in a thread specifically about classification of fossils?

Fossils alone cannot tell us if some other species was "human"

Again.....why, because you say so?

several of you have objected to me saying this rather reasonable, obvious fact

So now it's a "fact" simply because you have declared it to be so. Wow....just who do you think you are?

Who? I am your worst nightmare in a public debating forum Mr. Fly, that's who I am.

[Clownboat]

Read all of my posts, none of them contain the string "IQ is a criterion for classifying fossils", so Mr. Fly was wrong so attribute that to me.

I never claimed that your posts contained that exact string of words. All of us here have been reading your words though.

It seems that you and some others here simply dislike being disagreed with so much, that you attack the person on all sorts of specious grounds when you are unable to attack their arguments.

Sorry Inquirer, you would need to make a valid argument first. IQ was a terrible start especially when you ignored what we do know. Again, being hunter gatherers that used tools cannot be ignored, yet you fail to address it.

Fossils alone cannot tell us if some other species was "human"

Correct, for that we have taxonomists. If you feel taxonomists are wrong, please explain why you think so. Not knowing if a fossil was ticklish or what its IQ score was is irrelevant.

several of you have objected to me saying this rather reasonable, obvious fact yet I still have no idea if you, brunum, Dr.NoGods or Mr.Fly agree or disagree with it!

We object to your IQ argument and your refusal to acknowledge the hunter gatherer and tool making arguments.

Remember post 94 where I asked and you refused to respond?:
Neanderthals have contributed approximately 1-4% of the genomes of non-African modern humans, although a modern human who lived about 40,000 years ago has been found to have between 6-9% Neanderthal DNA
What is a theistic explanation for this?

Your claim that we just dislike being disagreed with falls on deaf ears when in reality you fail to address rebuttals. I think the work you are doing here for us is great personally.

[Clownboat]

Read all of my posts, none of them contain the string "IQ is a criterion for classifying fossils", so Mr. Fly was wrong so attribute that to me.

So why did you bring it up in a thread specifically about classification of fossils?

Fossils alone cannot tell us if some other species was "human"

Again.....why, because you say so?

several of you have objected to me saying this rather reasonable, obvious fact

So now it's a "fact" simply because you have declared it to be so. Wow....just who do you think you are?

Who? I am your worst nightmare in a public debating forum Mr. Fly, that's who I am.

What Are Delusions of Grandeur?

Delusional disorder is a serious mental illness where you can’t tell the difference between what’s real and what’s not. Delusions, or false beliefs, comes in several types. Delusions of grandeur are one of the more common ones. It’s when you believe that you have more power, wealth, smarts, or other grand traits than is true. Some people mistakenly call it “illusions” of grandeur.
https://www.webmd.com/schizophrenia/del ... 20grandeur.

[Jose Fly]

You choose your experts don't you?

I defer to professional paleoanthropologists on classification of hominid fossils.

I guess that strikes you as odd.

You OTOH reject the experts' methods and instead utilize your own personal, made-up criterion.

Even if that were true what of it? If your only real argument against what I said is to pick some "experts" and then use an argument from authority how does that settle the matter?

What "matter"? Earlier you said you're not advocating that IQ be a criterion for classifying fossils.

We each choose our experts, you do, I do, everyone does.

What experts have you chosen?

I see, argue against a silly analogy that you just made up (didn't you just object to me doing that?) rather than argue against what I actually said, same old same old Mr. Fly.

Well it's a moot point if you're not advocating the view that IQ be a criterion for classifying human fossils.

No, this really won't do Mr. Fly. You are permitted to pick your experts but I am not?

Huh?

First, I never said you cannot pick your experts.

Second, you've not named any experts you've picked.

Third, you said you're not proposing that IQ be a criterion for classifying human fossils, so I'm not even sure what you're doing in this thread.

it is a scientific fact that humans are characterized by their high intelligence, this is not my criteria it is an objective fact - do you agree or disagree - can you answer this question? or only continue to attack me for asking it?

Before we get into the weeds on what you mean, I have to ask.....what does any of that have to do with the subject of this thread (classifying human fossils)?

[Inquirer]

Well I'm certainly not going to use your chosen criteria" since that excludes one of the very things that makes humans human.

You error here in thinking you are using Jose Fly's criteria. Jose Fly is not a taxonomist. It is taxonomists that you disagree with.

So? picking some authority and on the basis of that choice try to reason that therefore I must be wrong, IS the definition of the argument from authority fallacy, it really is a fallacy, go and check - you know, with an expert.

A taxonomist is a biologist that groups organisms into categories. A plant taxonomist for example, might study the origins and relationships between different types of roses while an insect taxonomist might focus on the relationships between different types of beetles.

These are the people you disagree with. The rest of us are trying to figure out why and if we should amend our thinking. So far, the conclusion of taxonomists seems apt, but I'm open to being shown as to why you think they are wrong in their conclusions. You will need to do better than pointing out the obvious fact that we don't know some IQ scores. Perhaps the IQ argument is the best you got?

No, the record is clear it is you, brunumb, Dr.NoGods and Mr. Fly that I disagree with, the record is clear on this point, go and check the facts, the posts, the evidence, stop making things up.

It seems that you look to things we don't know about to form your beliefs when looking to things we do know, then forming beliefs would be much more logical.
Knowing if groups were hunter gatherers, or if they used tools is to use info we have.
You want to ignore that they were hunter gatherers and that they used tools to instead focus on their IQ score that is unknown to us. This is nonsensical.

Nobody has the strength of character it seems to openly state whether they agree or disagree with my claim that high intelligence is a necessary condition for regarding an organism as human, none of you, all you do - all of you - is complain about me for asking that question!

[Jose Fly]

Read all of my posts, none of them contain the string "IQ is a criterion for classifying fossils", so Mr. Fly was wrong so attribute that to me.

So why did you bring it up in a thread specifically about classification of fossils?

Fossils alone cannot tell us if some other species was "human"

Again.....why, because you say so?

several of you have objected to me saying this rather reasonable, obvious fact

So now it's a "fact" simply because you have declared it to be so. Wow....just who do you think you are?

Who? I am your worst nightmare in a public debating forum Mr. Fly, that's who I am.

Oh wow....whenever I think creationists can't get any more ridiculous, one comes along and manages to surprise me.

But again....why did you bring up IQ in this thread if we all agree it isn't a criterion for classifying fossils? And do you think things become facts merely because you say they are?

[Inquirer]

You choose your experts don't you?

I defer to professional paleoanthropologists on classification of hominid fossils.

I guess that strikes you as odd.

You OTOH reject the experts' methods and instead utilize your own personal, made-up criterion.

Even if that were true what of it? If your only real argument against what I said is to pick some "experts" and then use an argument from authority how does that settle the matter?

What "matter"? Earlier you said you're not advocating that IQ be a criterion for classifying fossils.

We each choose our experts, you do, I do, everyone does.

What experts have you chosen?

I see, argue against a silly analogy that you just made up (didn't you just object to me doing that?) rather than argue against what I actually said, same old same old Mr. Fly.

Well it's a moot point if you're not advocating the view that IQ be a criterion for classifying human fossils.

No, this really won't do Mr. Fly. You are permitted to pick your experts but I am not?

Huh?

First, I never said you cannot pick your experts.

Second, you've not named any experts you've picked.

Third, you said you're not proposing that IQ be a criterion for classifying human fossils, so I'm not even sure what you're doing in this thread.

it is a scientific fact that humans are characterized by their high intelligence, this is not my criteria it is an objective fact - do you agree or disagree - can you answer this question? or only continue to attack me for asking it?

Before we get into the weeds on what you mean, I have to ask.....what does any of that have to do with the subject of this thread (classifying human fossils)?

What does it have to do with it? In order to give meaning to the term "archaic human" we must establish what we mean by "human" - I regard it as inarguable that high intelligence is a necessary condition that a species must meet if we are to regard it as "human" - that's what it has to do with it, now may I have an answer please?

[Inquirer]

Read all of my posts, none of them contain the string "IQ is a criterion for classifying fossils", so Mr. Fly was wrong so attribute that to me.

So why did you bring it up in a thread specifically about classification of fossils?

Fossils alone cannot tell us if some other species was "human"

Again.....why, because you say so?

several of you have objected to me saying this rather reasonable, obvious fact

So now it's a "fact" simply because you have declared it to be so. Wow....just who do you think you are?

Who? I am your worst nightmare in a public debating forum Mr. Fly, that's who I am.

Oh wow....whenever I think creationists can't get any more ridiculous, one comes along and manages to surprise me.

But again....why did you bring up IQ in this thread if we all agree it isn't a criterion for classifying fossils? And do you think things become facts merely because you say they are?

As I just answered above:

Why did I bring IQ up? In order to give meaning to the term "archaic human" we must establish what we mean by "human" - I regard it as inarguable that high intelligence is a necessary condition that a species must meet if we are to regard it as "human" - that's why I brough up IQ, now may I have an answer please?

[Jose Fly]

What does it have to do with it? In order to give meaning to the term "archaic human" we must establish what we mean by "human" - I regard it as inarguable that high intelligence is a necessary condition that a species must meet if we are to regard it as "human"

But not in the context of fossil specimens, right?

that's what it has to do with it, now may I have an answer please?

Let's clearly settle the above first (since it possibly renders your question irrelevant).

[Inquirer]

What does it have to do with it? In order to give meaning to the term "archaic human" we must establish what we mean by "human" - I regard it as inarguable that high intelligence is a necessary condition that a species must meet if we are to regard it as "human"

But not in the context of fossil specimens, right?

Can you write more clearly please? what on earth does "not in the context of" mean? Once again the OP's title is "What is the current theistic explanation for archaic human fossils?".

Before I can begin to talk about "explanations for" I must ask, how one chooses to label a fossil as "archaic human" when a key criteria is high intelligence?

You cannot infer IQ from fossils and if you cannot infer IQ you cannot - by extension - infer human.

I really don't expect an answer to my question, it's now very clear, that you do not know the answer.