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]

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.

Prove me wrong, prove scientifically, rationally, systematically, that genocide is immoral? You know you'll fail of course, that's why you won't attempt it!

You readily persecute me for what I say yet cannot prove your case, an unproven accusation is all you have.

[Jose Fly]

Prove me wrong, prove scientifically, rationally, systematically, that genocide is immoral? You know you'll fail of course, that's why you won't attempt it!

You readily persecute me for what I say yet cannot prove your case, an unproven accusation is all you have.

You still think science deals in proof. Like I said, very telling.

Further, why do you think whether or not something is "moral" is a scientific question?

[Inquirer]

Prove me wrong, prove scientifically, rationally, systematically, that genocide is immoral? You know you'll fail of course, that's why you won't attempt it!

You readily persecute me for what I say yet cannot prove your case, an unproven accusation is all you have.

You still think science deals in proof. Like I said, very telling.

Further, why do you think whether or not something is "moral" is a scientific question?

Well science is how we strive to understand objective reality Jose, so if morals are objectively good or bad then yes, science is what we'd use.

But science can't prove anything and morality is not objective, this then is why you cannot prove your accusation that genocide is immoral, all you can do is stamp your feet and shout "but it is, it is, I know it is"...

[Jose Fly]

Well science is how we strive to understand objective reality Jose, so if morals are objectively good or bad then yes, science is what we'd use.

Huh...never figured you for an adherent to scientism, but here we are.

But science can't prove anything and morality is not objective, this then is why you cannot prove your accusation that genocide is immoral, all you can do is stamp your feet and shout "but it is, it is, I know it is"...

Well, if you want to be on the side that argues genocide and taking little girls as spoils of war are potentially moral acts, be my guest. In fact, I urge you to proclaim that loudly and clearly in the context of Christianity.

[Inquirer]

Well science is how we strive to understand objective reality Jose, so if morals are objectively good or bad then yes, science is what we'd use.

Huh...never figured you for an adherent to scientism, but here we are.

But science can't prove anything and morality is not objective, this then is why you cannot prove your accusation that genocide is immoral, all you can do is stamp your feet and shout "but it is, it is, I know it is"...

Well, if you want to be on the side that argues genocide and taking little girls as spoils of war are potentially moral acts, be my guest. In fact, I urge you to proclaim that loudly and clearly in the context of Christianity.

So here we have it, another empty claim from the world of scientism, claiming to know what's good and what's bad yet being unable to prove it. Your position is one of taboo, for you certain ideas and subjects are taboo and that's pretty much the basis for your position.

Do you know that in many Muslim nations men take wives who might be as young as 12 or even 10, in some cultures there isn't even a minimum age! Their reasoning is that since she's reached puberty she is ready for marriage, child birth, so this is a reasoning based on biology, science one could say, so tell me Jose - is this immoral?

[Jose Fly]

So here we have it, another empty claim from the world of scientism, claiming to know what's good and what's bad yet being unable to prove it. Your position is one of taboo, for you certain ideas and subjects are taboo and that's pretty much the basis for your position.

Do you know that in many Muslim nations men take wives who might be as young as 12 or even 10, in some cultures there isn't even a minimum age! Their reasoning is that since she's reached puberty she is ready for marriage, child birth, so this is a reasoning based on biology, science one could say, so tell me Jose - is this immoral?

Like I said, if you want to engage in apologetics for killing an entire population of people, except the little girls you want to keep for your own uses, be my guest.

It's always fascinated me how in my experiences, it's only Christians who do that. I guess that's just what you have to do given the OT.

[Inquirer]

So here we have it, another empty claim from the world of scientism, claiming to know what's good and what's bad yet being unable to prove it. Your position is one of taboo, for you certain ideas and subjects are taboo and that's pretty much the basis for your position.

Do you know that in many Muslim nations men take wives who might be as young as 12 or even 10, in some cultures there isn't even a minimum age! Their reasoning is that since she's reached puberty she is ready for marriage, child birth, so this is a reasoning based on biology, science one could say, so tell me Jose - is this immoral?

Like I said, if you want to engage in apologetics for killing an entire population of people, except the little girls you want to keep for your own uses, be my guest.

It's always fascinated me how in my experiences, it's only Christians who do that. I guess that's just what you have to do given the OT.

So no rational argument, only "Jose is very upset when you say nasty things like this" which is not a reasoned, rationally argued position. If your definition of an immoral act is any act that upsets you personally then fine, all you had to do was say that, at least I could respect the honesty.

Different people are outraged by different things Jose, your views are no more valid than any other persons, if someone finds abortion abhorrent and you see it as a medical procedure then how is that any different to someone seeing genocide as a means of eradicating an existential threat of some form?

You also keep trying very hard to label me as some kind of perverse individual by repeating as often as you can accusations like "except the little girls you want to keep for your own uses" and other insinuations.

This is an act of desperation, I have no personal desire for any such thing nor have I ever expressed it here, any insinuation that I have is disgusting.

Attacking a person for asking a question that you have no answer for is all that's going in here, you cant defend your beliefs, you can't scientifically justify your position, all you can do is keep attacking me for asking a question, a question that exposes your vacuous reasoning.

Do I say this about you "your apologetics for butchering alive, unborn human babies"? I could, some would, but that's emotive and you can't make the case than an emotional claim to being right is the definition of morally right else everybody is morally right!

You picked this scrap with me and now you have a bloody nose, blame yourself for daring to debate me without being prepared.

[Jose Fly]

So no rational argument, only "Jose is very upset when you say nasty things like this" which is not a reasoned, rationally argued position. If your definition of an immoral act is any act that upsets you personally then fine, all you had to do was say that, at least I could respect the honesty.

Different people are outraged by different things Jose, your views are no more valid than any other persons, if someone finds abortion abhorrent and you see it as a medical procedure then how is that any different to someone seeing genocide as a means of eradicating an existential threat of some form?

That you even demand rational, scientific proof for why genocide and taking little girls for your own uses isn't moral is all one needs to know about you.

You also keep trying very hard to label me as some kind of perverse individual by repeating as often as you can accusations like "except the little girls you want to keep for your own uses" and other insinuations.

This is an act of desperation, I have no personal desire for any such thing nor have I ever expressed it here, any insinuation that I have is disgusting.

You forget (again) that you were specifically asked if genocide and taking little girls as spoils of war was good and moral, and you answered "it depends". Now I figure most folks (non-Christians apparently) would be rather offended at even being asked such a bizarre question, but not you. You were like....I dunno, maybe, maybe not.

You might as well own it.

Attacking a person for asking a question

You forget (again) that you were specifically asked if genocide and taking little girls as spoils of war was good and moral, and you answered "it depends". So this isn't about questions you're asking, it's about you being okay with war crimes and horrific atrocities.

You picked this scrap with me and now you have a bloody nose, blame yourself for daring to debate me without being prepared.

And more 5 year old level trash-talking. You really are a very immature person, aren't you?

[brunumb]

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.

Please explain how they are potentially moral acts. This stems from your initial claim so the burden is on you in this case. Or, can we expect the usual back-pedaling and diversionary tactics?

[Clownboat]

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.

I find taking little girls to be spoils of war to be a threat to children. Specifically the girls being taken as spoils.
Spoil: 1.
goods stolen or taken forcibly from a person or place.

Therefore, I find you to be a threat to any children you would deem worthy as being a spoil of war. I am not a threat to such children myself.
Stop desparaging me for a position you hold! I have been clear about my stance on taking little girls as spoils and my stance on genocide. I find your views on both to be deplorable. Why does this bother you so much? Is it because you do in fact know that it is wrong to forcibly take little girls from their parents?