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?

[EarthScienceguy]

[Replying to DrNoGods in post #250]

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.

Why can't evolution be blamed for people's decision-making process? People make decisions based on belief systems. You make decisions based on what you believe is the morally right thing to do and I make decisions based on what I believe is the morally right thing to do. Why would it be wrong for someone to want to enhance the human race by selective breeding and creating an artificial bottle neck to fix the enhancement into the population? Kind of like Star Trek's Augments.

[Clownboat]

Such vile insinuations have no place in a debating forum

I will not own up to words you uttered. You made your bed, not I, so you sleep in it. I have my own bed and in my bed, there will be no genocide or taking of little girls as the spoils of war. There is no 'depends' about it for me as that is your position. If I have errored in your position, you should clarify because as it stands now, it seems there are times that you would justify taking little girls as the spoils of war and comitting acts of genocide.

This is your chance to clarify if a mistake is being made, not the time to pretend that is was I that said something vile.

I can't believe sometimes the depths people are willing to sink to just because they find someone disagreeing with them.

Let's let the record show that where we disagree is on the taking of little girls as spoils of war and act of genocide. Now what depths have I gone to in pointing out this fact?

[Inquirer]

Such vile insinuations have no place in a debating forum

I will not own up to words you uttered. You made your bed, not I, so you sleep in it. I have my own bed and in my bed, there will be no genocide or taking of little girls as the spoils of war. There is no 'depends' about it for me as that is your position. If I have errored in your position, you should clarify because as it stands now, it seems there are times that you would justify taking little girls as the spoils of war and comitting acts of genocide.

This is your chance to clarify if a mistake is being made, not the time to pretend that is was I that said something vile.

I can't believe sometimes the depths people are willing to sink to just because they find someone disagreeing with them.

Let's let the record show that where we disagree is on the taking of little girls as spoils of war and act of genocide. Now what depths have I gone to in pointing out this fact?

I find it disgusting that some here would applaud your words, to say to me "I suggest you stay away from little girls" is not to be applauded, it is a vile insinuation.

I'm happy to discuss morality and answer questions but to insinuate as you do is not a discussion, insinuating that I am a threat to children is an act of desperation on your part, the kind of mob rule mentality that often characterizes the irrational.

If you want to debate morality then do so but there's no place for posting vile insinuations about someone who has you on the back foot.

Now if you really want to rationally debate me do so, quote something I said and challenge it, do not simply disapprove and then publicly attempt to characterize me as a threat to children, debate rationally not emotionally.

[Jose Fly]

So basically the person who answered "it depends" when asked if genocide and taking little girls as spoils of war is morally good is now complaining about others holding him accountable for that answer.

But like he said, he's only here to criticize what others do and is not here to defend anything he says.

[Inquirer]

So basically the person who answered "it depends" when asked if genocide and taking little girls as spoils of war is morally good is now complaining about others holding him accountable for that answer.

But like he said, he's only here to criticize what others do and is not here to defend anything he says.

I'm here for my own reasons, I enjoy the intellectual challenge in my case, abusing others in your case.

[Jose Fly]

So basically the person who answered "it depends" when asked if genocide and taking little girls as spoils of war is morally good is now complaining about others holding him accountable for that answer.

But like he said, he's only here to criticize what others do and is not here to defend anything he says.

I'm here for my own reasons, I enjoy the intellectual challenge in my case, abusing others in your case.

And I'm here to expose Christians who think genocide and taking little girls as spoils of war are potentially moral acts.

[Inquirer]

So basically the person who answered "it depends" when asked if genocide and taking little girls as spoils of war is morally good is now complaining about others holding him accountable for that answer.

But like he said, he's only here to criticize what others do and is not here to defend anything he says.

I'm here for my own reasons, I enjoy the intellectual challenge in my case, abusing others in your case.

And I'm here to expose Christians who think genocide and taking little girls as spoils of war are potentially moral acts.

They are potentially moral acts, the sooner you wake up and recognize this the sooner we can get back to the discussion, but of course your content to leave immoral atheists to run free, all your exposing here is your own prejudices.

[Jose Fly]

And I'm here to expose Christians who think genocide and taking little girls as spoils of war are potentially moral acts.

They are potentially moral acts,

Speaks for itself.

But of course in your world, no one is allowed to call you out for that.

[Inquirer]

And I'm here to expose Christians who think genocide and taking little girls as spoils of war are potentially moral acts.

They are potentially moral acts,

Speaks for itself.

But of course in your world, no one is allowed to call you out for that.

Does your use of the term "call out" mean to disagree or prove me wrong? can you please clarify?

You're welcome to disagree but you can't prove me wrong, try as you might you'll fail - understand Jose? you'll fail.

[Jose Fly]

And I'm here to expose Christians who think genocide and taking little girls as spoils of war are potentially moral acts.

They are potentially moral acts,

Speaks for itself.

But of course in your world, no one is allowed to call you out for that.

Does your use of the term "call out" mean to disagree or prove me wrong? can you please clarify?

You're welcome to disagree but you can't prove me wrong, try as you might you'll fail - understand Jose? you'll fail.

And you wonder why I made reference to "trash talking like a 5 year old"? Exhibit A.