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?

[brunumb]

But as you say science is not a system of morality, but moreover it cannot be used construct one, the eugenicists tried and failed.

Are you saying that the eugenicists tried to construct a system of morality?

[Inquirer]

But as you say science is not a system of morality, but moreover it cannot be used construct one, the eugenicists tried and failed.

Are you saying that the eugenicists tried to construct a system of morality?

Does that surprise you? Eugenicists wanted to replace an existing moral position to a different one, things that were regarded as immoral by society of the time were suddenly "justified scientifically" and declared moral - no longer immoral.

[brunumb]

But as you say science is not a system of morality, but moreover it cannot be used construct one, the eugenicists tried and failed.

Are you saying that the eugenicists tried to construct a system of morality?

Does that surprise you? Eugenicists wanted to replace an existing moral position to a different one, things that were regarded as immoral by society of the time were suddenly "justified scientifically" and declared moral - no longer immoral.

So that's your idea of constructing a system of morality is it? Then just toss in more unsupported wild claims without any substance and hope that the punters will buy it.

[Inquirer]

But as you say science is not a system of morality, but moreover it cannot be used construct one, the eugenicists tried and failed.

Are you saying that the eugenicists tried to construct a system of morality?

Does that surprise you? Eugenicists wanted to replace an existing moral position to a different one, things that were regarded as immoral by society of the time were suddenly "justified scientifically" and declared moral - no longer immoral.

So that's your idea of constructing a system of morality is it? Then just toss in more unsupported wild claims without any substance and hope that the punters will buy it.

Are you disagreeing with something I said or just moaning because I said it?

[brunumb]

But as you say science is not a system of morality, but moreover it cannot be used construct one, the eugenicists tried and failed.

Are you saying that the eugenicists tried to construct a system of morality?

Does that surprise you? Eugenicists wanted to replace an existing moral position to a different one, things that were regarded as immoral by society of the time were suddenly "justified scientifically" and declared moral - no longer immoral.

So that's your idea of constructing a system of morality is it? Then just toss in more unsupported wild claims without any substance and hope that the punters will buy it.

Are you disagreeing with something I said or just moaning because I said it?

Whenever you make dodgy claims that you can't back up you resort to personal attacks. Very telling. Cue another empty retort.

[JoeyKnothead]

Has anyone presented even one eugenistic fossil?

[JoeyKnothead]

Let this thread stand testament to the fact that when some theists begin to lose the debate, they're adept at changing the subject.

[otseng]

I suggest you stay clear of little girls and do some major self reflection about their value and how their parents might feel about what you might do to them once they are your spoils.
Seriously, shame on you!

Moderator Comment

Please avoid making personal comments.

Please review the Rules.





______________



Moderator comments do not count as a strike against any posters. They only serve as an acknowledgment that a post report has been received, but has not been judged to warrant a moderator warning against a particular poster. Any challenges or replies to moderator postings should be made via Private Message to avoid derailing topics.

[EarthScienceguy]

[Replying to DrNoGods in post #240]

Death of living things would happen whether the theory of evolution (TOE) were valid or not. Changes in the genome through generations via the reproductive process, mutations, etc. is something that is observed. It is not happening because some evil humans came up with TOE and somehow forced nature to follow it, but that seems to be what you are suggesting.

And thanks for giving me credit for discovering TOE and its mechanisms ... please contact the Nobel committee with this news.

If I had a vote you know you have mine for your great discovery.

But let us look at the morality of evolution.

Yes everyone has been appointed once to die. Evolution says that you can predict who will live and who will die based on genetics. Those that are better suited for an environment will live and those that are not will die.

But sorry someone already beat you to it. "Natural selection is accepted almost universally as a central part of evolutionary theory." https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals ... 31EB1848E8

Sorry, better luck next time.

Evolution morality states that: individuals with a better genetic code for the environment lives and those with a poor genetic code for the environment dies.

Since man can manipulate the environment they can manipulate which genetic code is better.

This was the central tenet of the eugenics movement.

[DrNoGods]

[Replying to EarthScienceguy in post #249]

Yes everyone has been appointed once to die. Evolution says that you can predict who will live and who will die based on genetics. Those that are better suited for an environment will live and those that are not will die.

All living things die eventually. But evolution works on populations. Those better suited to an environment will reproduce at higher rates (and may live longer as well), thus having their genes passed on to subsequent generations while those less suited will reproduce at lower rates (and maybe not live as long). The result is a population that evolves towards individuals who are well suited to their environment, or who are more preferred by the opposite sex (eg. peacocks and their large tails with lots of "eyes" are a perfect example of sexual selection driving a trait).

Natural selection is accepted almost universally as a central part of evolutionary theory.

Yes ... those more suited to an environment will have their genes "selected' to pass down to future generations by having higher reproductive and survival rates. Nothing new about that.

Evolution morality states that: individuals with a better genetic code for the environment lives and those with a poor genetic code for the environment dies.

Evolution and morality have nothing to do with each other. Evolution has no morals as it is a process, or mechanism. And again, everyone dies eventually ... death of individuals is not the issue. It is those with "good" genes reproducing at higher rates and having a better chance for survival in their environment, compared to those with "less good" genes.

Since man can manipulate the environment they can manipulate which genetic code is better.

This was the central tenet of the eugenics movement.

Sure, no one is arguing that eugenics doesn't exist as a concept and that there were/are proponents of it, and that it involved selecting breeding of humans to achieve an end result. But evolution itself is not the cause of that ... it is people making the decision to use selecting breeding (or extermination) that are the cause. Alcoholics are not the result of yeast consuming sugars and producing ethanol as a waste product. They are the result of people making bad decisions to consume too much of the product that humans make from the ethanol. You can't blame evolution itself for some humans suggesting we use artificial selection on humans like we do on crops and livestock.