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?

[Clownboat]

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 has gone on long enough. Learn your book!

Deuteronomy 20:13 ►
When the LORD your God delivers it into your hand, put to the sword all the men in it. (14) As for the women, the children, the livestock and everything else in the city, you may take these as plunder for yourselves. And you may use the plunder the LORD your God gives you from your enemies.

Myself and Jose argue that genocide and plundering little girls should never be done.
You claim that it depends.

I have no personal desire for any such thing nor have I ever expressed it here

I am so glad you have no desire to commit genocide or to take little children as the spoils of war to be used.

However, when you said 'depends', that opens up the question as to what scenario would need to be in place to make it so you would be fine with genocide or taking little girls as the spoils of war. This is a fair question, you just don't like it.

You really, really, really want us to stop inquiring about when you would find such acts to be justified don't you?

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

Just leaving this one here for the readers...

[Inquirer]

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 has gone on long enough. Learn your book!

Deuteronomy 20:13 ►
When the LORD your God delivers it into your hand, put to the sword all the men in it. (14) As for the women, the children, the livestock and everything else in the city, you may take these as plunder for yourselves. And you may use the plunder the LORD your God gives you from your enemies.

Myself and Jose argue that genocide and plundering little girls should never be done.
You claim that it depends.

So? you offer nothing more than some sense of personal outrage as your argument, we can all do that surely?

I have no personal desire for any such thing nor have I ever expressed it here

I am so glad you have no desire to commit genocide or to take little children as the spoils of war to be used.

However, when you said 'depends', that opens up the question as to what scenario would need to be in place to make it so you would be fine with genocide or taking little girls as the spoils of war. This is a fair question, you just don't like it.

You never asked it.

You really, really, really want us to stop inquiring about when you would find such acts to be justified don't you?

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

Just leaving this one here for the readers...

I asked you elsewhere just now - is torture immoral or does it "depend"?

[AquinasForGod]

The Catholic church leaves evolution open, which would be a process guided by God. The catechism states that we are in the likeness of God in mind only. This was also stated by Aquinas in Summa Theologica in the 1300s. And as a Catholic you must accept that God created the rational soul specially. This leaves the body open to evolution, so physical humans could have evolved for 100s of thousands of years, then at some point in that evolution God create the rational soul for the first family of humans.

[brunumb]

I asked you elsewhere just now - is torture immoral or does it "depend"?

You never explained on what basis you thought genocide or keeping young girls as the spoils of war would be ok. Perhaps you should address that one first.

[Inquirer]

I asked you elsewhere just now - is torture immoral or does it "depend"?

You never explained on what basis you thought genocide or keeping young girls as the spoils of war would be ok. Perhaps you should address that one first.

I did, I said "it depends". It depends upon how we evaluate the best of the possible outcomes.

If supporting genocide leads to a better outcome then obviously genocide is better, if genocide leads to a worse outcome then it's not.

If torturing a man leads to lives being saved then on that basis torture is good, better than the alternative.

The atheist cannot argue otherwise, you cannot demonstrate that some act is moral or immoral other than through moral relativism.

Claiming that genocide is immoral is just an opinion, you cannot prove it is immoral can you? No, so why pretend that you can?

Is abortion immoral? is same sex marriage immoral? is bestiality immoral? is bombing civilians immoral? - Answer? it depends on who you ask!

[JoeyKnothead]

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.

Potentially moral.

Wow.

Of course when the Great Big Book of God Magic is your moral guide, well there we go.

[Clownboat]

I asked you elsewhere just now - is torture immoral or does it "depend"?

You asked me elsewhere... just now... That is an odd string of words.
Yes, torture is immoral.

For example, the story where a god inflicts punishment on all future mothers (I've heard some mothers explain it as their most painful event) due to the actions of one women thousands of years ago is unjustified and immoral.

Or what the Bible god did to Job, or what it ordered for the Midianite Virgins, or what it allowed slave owners to do to their slaves, or how it killed 42 young boys for making fun of a bald guy, or on and on...
I'm just happy I no longer have to attempt to justify as excusable for what I know to be inexcusable.

[Inquirer]

I asked you elsewhere just now - is torture immoral or does it "depend"?

You asked me elsewhere... just now... That is an odd string of words.
Yes, torture is immoral.

For example, the story where a god inflicts punishment on all future mothers (I've heard some mothers explain it as their most painful event) due to the actions of one women thousands of years ago is unjustified and immoral.

Please provide supporting evidence for this claim of immorality.

Or what the Bible god did to Job, or what it ordered for the Midianite Virgins, or what it allowed slave owners to do to their slaves, or how it killed 42 young boys for making fun of a bald guy, or on and on...
I'm just happy I no longer have to attempt to justify as excusable for what I know to be inexcusable.

Your personal views are noted, but if you do ever get around to providing proof that some act is or is not good or evil or moral or immoral let me know.

[Inquirer]

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?

It does depend, like I said elsewhere surely torture is moral if it is to save the lives of others, what alternative are you suggesting?

I see nothing wrong with deciding the matter based on outcomes, if the outcome arising from some decision leads to a better moral result than some other, then the decision is - by definition - a morally good one.

As Spock once said - the needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few, wouldn't you agree?

All those pointing a disapproving finger at me need to a good long look in the mirror.

Besides Jose, we are - as you have often said - just animals, animals kill, yet I hear no cries of anguish about animals being immoral, I suspect you really haven't thought any of this through have you, evolution has no morals, there is no good or bad just those who survive and those who do not - yes?

[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?

It does depend, like I said elsewhere surely torture is moral if it is to save the lives of others, what alternative are you suggesting?

I see nothing wrong with deciding the matter based on outcomes, if the outcome arising from some decision leads to a better moral result than some other, then the decision is - by definition - a morally good one.

As Spock once said - the needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few, wouldn't you agree?

All those pointing a disapproving finger at me need to a good long look in the mirror.

Besides Jose, we are - as you have often said - just animals, animals kill, yet I hear no cries of anguish about animals being immoral, I suspect you really haven't thought any of this through have you, evolution has no morals, there is no good or bad just those who survive and those who do not - yes?

Like I said, I've no interest in debating morality with someone who thinks taking little girls as sexual slaves just might be a good thing (and also frequently engages in kindergarten-level boasting).

Also, the turn this thread has taken serves to illustrate the point in the OP.....creationists really don't have any new arguments and haven't had any for quite some time. In another CvE forum I used to post in, I recently asked those who remained whether they thought the slow death of these debates meant that evolution has won and creationism is effectively dead. They all agreed.

I think it might be difficult for those of us who eagerly participated in the debates to let it go, and thus you can still find a handful of poorly populated places like this, but at some point even they will fade into obscurity......and the biological sciences will continue on, with no care at all about creationism.