# Oldest Skeleton of Human Ancestor Found



## Kilgore Trout (Jun 25, 2010)

Oldest Skeleton of Human Ancestor Found


----------



## Teigue (Jun 8, 2010)

That is really cool!


----------



## nevermore (Oct 1, 2010)

Thanks; can't wait to see the pictures!


----------



## Sputnik (Jul 17, 2011)

Interesting, but typical... Earliest human except that we don't know if it's human. False claims that turn people to the Bible which seems to remain consistant.


----------



## Bast (Mar 23, 2011)

Excellent article on an amazing primate find! Thanks for sharing 

EDIT: I just realized this was from last year and someone bumped it  I was wondering why the article sounded familiar. Oh well, great article to share none-the-less


----------



## skycloud86 (Jul 15, 2009)

Sputnik said:


> Interesting, but typical... Earliest human except that we don't know if it's human. False claims that turn people to the Bible which seems to remain consistant.


Why are these claims false and why would anyone turn to the bible if they did turn out to be false? Science is not perfect, and neither are scientists.


----------



## Sputnik (Jul 17, 2011)

skycloud86 said:


> Why are these claims false and why would anyone turn to the bible if they did turn out to be false? Science is not perfect, and neither are scientists.


At the end of the article it was stated that science had not yet determined if the skeleton was actually that of an early human; so the title which said "earliest human skeleton" seems like BS to me.
As for people turning to the Bible, I have found most people want stability and consistancy in their lives. So when science is always updating its beliefs/theories and telling people "we were wrong about "X", this is the real truth" many people will get turned off and choose some kind of unchanging belief system (like a religion).


----------



## skycloud86 (Jul 15, 2009)

Sputnik said:


> At the end of the article it was stated that science had not yet determined if the skeleton was actually that of an early human; so the title which said "earliest human skeleton" seems like BS to me.


That's the journalists, not the scientists.



> As for people turning to the Bible, I have found most people want stability and consistancy in their lives. So when science is always updating its beliefs/theories and telling people "we were wrong about "X", this is the real truth" many people will get turned off and choose some kind of unchanging belief system (like a religion).


So they would choose a book full of contradictions and rules that are ignored by most Christians nowadays, that was written 2000 years ago by some Middle Eastern nomads who, compared to us, knew almost nothing about the world?

Science is meant to update it's theories, or how else would we know more about the world and the universe? Unlike dogmatic religions, who won't ever change in response to new evidence, science embraces that new evidence.


----------



## sprinkles (Feb 7, 2010)

Sputnik said:


> Interesting, but typical... Earliest human except that we don't know if it's human. False claims that turn people to the Bible which seems to remain consistant.


They claim it is a human ancestor. They don't say that the ancestor is itself human. There's a difference.

It is classified as a hominid which does not only include humans (but humans are hominids)

Edit: to make it clear, if they were claiming it was in fact a human, they could just say that it is the oldest human skeleton (and leave off the word 'ancestor') but no, they call it an ancestor, and must include the word 'human' so that we know what it is an ancestor of, otherwise it wouldn't make sense.


----------



## Sputnik (Jul 17, 2011)

skycloud86 said:


> That's the journalists, not the scientists.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


I didn't say I believed in Christianity (I think it's a crock), but there are over 2 billion "believers" and then ther are the other religions as well. As for being contradictory, it may be, but it has remained contradictory which appeals to many who prefer stability over uncertainty.


----------



## sprinkles (Feb 7, 2010)

Uncertainty is not inherently bad and stability is not inherently good. Appeal is also a bit irrelevant. If everything were only based on appeal, we'd be in deep shit.


----------



## Sputnik (Jul 17, 2011)

sprinkles said:


> Uncertainty is not inherently bad and stability is not inherently good. Appeal is also a bit irrelevant. If everything were only based on appeal, we'd be in deep shit.


If stability weren't inherently good, we would all move to war zones. If appeal were irrelevant, there would be no advertising industry. Most things are based upon appeal (vs. rational thought) which is why we "are" in deep shit.


----------



## sprinkles (Feb 7, 2010)

Sputnik said:


> If stability weren't inherently good, we would all move to war zones.


False dichotomy. A degree of instability does not automatically descend into total chaos. A little instability allows changes that normally would not have happened. We would not be talking on computers right now if we always did things in the same old way, because they would not have been invented. If things are always done the same way then nothing changes, if nothing changes then nothing new happens and you miss a hell of a lot.



> If appeal were irrelevant, there would be no advertising industry. Most things are based upon appeal (vs. rational thought) which is why we "are" in deep shit.


That's a bit out of context. Of course appeal is relevant to something that is itself based on appeal. Appeal has nothing to do with truth, however. Not knowing if something is true does not make it false and choosing to abandon it for something you like better does not make it go away.


----------

