Missing link found?

[Yorick]

Originally Posted by Firestormalpha Interesting article with a different view. Honestly, makes a lot of sense to me.

Great article.
Interesting that the video I saw earlier didn't show the long tail.
Nor did it point out that lemurs today have opposable thumbs.
What a load of hogwash.

[SpiritWarrior]

Originally Posted by Yorick Scientists are the priests of their religion. A religion complete with Dogma, heresies, schisms, worldviews and the like. They preach via the media, to their faithful flock who have complete faith their assumption-leaps about their discoveries are true. And who then respond with taxpayer-funding.

But scientists only preach what evidence proves. Unless there is evidence, there isn't preaching. Their "flock" are free to study the evidence, and draw conclusions. Some of it is theory, but most of it is based on proven truth. Even the theories are logical extrapolations of these proven truths. Note that it not based on heresay, myth, faith or fable and/or conclusions that tolerate no questions. A scientist is a skeptic. He does not believe in an assumption and sets out to prove himself wrong. Until he finds hard evidence to support the assumption he continues to reject that which has not been proven.

[Yorick]

Originally Posted by SpiritWarrior But scientists only preach what evidence proves. Unless there is evidence, there isn't preaching. Their "flock" are free to study the evidence, and draw conclusions. Some of it is theory, but most of it is based on proven truth. Even the theories are logical extrapolations of these proven truths. Note that it not based on heresay, myth, faith or fable and/or conclusions that tolerate no questions. A scientist is a skeptic. He does not believe in an assumption and sets out to prove himself wrong. Until he finds hard evidence to support the assumption he continues to reject that which has not been proven.

Science is full of unproven extrapolated assumptions SpiritWarrior.

Plus you've exalted scientists to be holy men, beyond the petty temptations of fame, recognition, funding, or jobs. Proving the point that people believe somehow scientists are above us all.

The fact is, have you studied the skeleton yourself?
No, all we get are the opinions from the scientists.
As i said, in the video, I didn't even get to see his tail. I wasn't told lemurs have opposable thumbs now. All I was fed in that video was hype about textbooks for the next 100 years, that this was the holy grail of archaelogy and then stuff about the thumb and fingernails etc.
I had to actively reject the POV being pushed. It wasn't a neutral description of the data - "we found these bones and here they are."
No, instead we got an INTENT shoved down our throats.

[SpiritWarrior]

Originally Posted by Yorick Science is full of unproven extrapolated assumptions SpiritWarrior.

Yes, as I mentioned, theories. Educated guesses. Logical assumptions adhering to previous patterns.

Originally Posted by Yorick Plus you've exalted scientists to be holy men, beyond the petty temptations of fame, recognition, funding, or jobs. Proving the point that somehow scientists are above us all.

Have I? I haven't mentioned anything about them being beyond these things. I was referring to the ideal that is science, the majority of scientists (or perhaps the minority?). But no, I don't intend to say they're not human. Like everyone they are capable of succumbing to greed, and are also capable of a selfless generosity in the same token. There are scientists who want fame, and there are those who want the betterment of mankind. What's the problem?

Originally Posted by Yorick The fact is, have you studied the skeleton yourself? No, all we get are the opinions from the scientists. As i said, in the video, I didn't even get to see his tail. I wasn't told lemurs have opposable thumbs now. All I was fed in that video was hype about textbooks for the next 100 years, that this was the holy grail of archaelogy and then stuff about the thumb and fingernails etc. I had to actively reject the POV being pushed. It wasn't a neutral description of the data - "we found these bones and here they are." No, instead we got an INTENT shoved down our throats.

Have I studied this skeleton? No. But what's your point? That this is all a conspiracy? Like I said, with science there is evidence to back it up...if you feel so strongly about it, seek out this skelly and make your mind up. Or take up archaelogy and debunk it. The point is, there is actually solid evidence to work with, and that is a major plus as the answers are there, if you want them.

[Yorick]

Originally Posted by SpiritWarrior Yes, as I mentioned, theories. Educated guesses. Logical assumptions adhering to previous patterns.

We can all make educated guesses. There's never the admission of guesswork though, just more and more bold declarations of assumptions as proven fact.

Have I? I haven't mentioned anything about them being beyond these things. I was referring to the ideal that is science, the majority of scientists (or perhaps the minority?). But no, I don't intend to say they're not human. Like everyone they are capable of succumbing to greed, and are also capable of a selfless generosity in the same token. There are scientists who want fame, and there are those who want the betterment of mankind. What's the problem?

In espousing the ideal you were proclaiming Scientists to be above mortal failings... but if you didn't mean to that's ok. I can forgive.

Have I studied this skeleton? No. But what's your point? That this is all a conspiracy? Like I said, with science there is evidence to back it up...if you feel so strongly about it, seek out this skelly and make your mind up. Or take up archaelogy and debunk it. The point is, there is actually solid evidence to work with, and that is a major plus as the answers are there, if you want them.

The point is, most people accept received knowledge from scientists as though it was firsthand. Trusting firstly that the scientist is telling the truth about what they discovered, and secondly that they are telling the truth about what they are "guessing" and thirdly that the "guess" is in fact correct.

It wouldn't be such a big deal if people did not hold up certain "scientific" worldviews any higher than other so-called "nonscientific" religious worldviews, especially when those religious worldviews may be based on firsthand experiences, rather than received knowledge.

That's all.

I like fairness and equal standards. Faith is faith. You use faith when you step on an airplane. You use faith when you believe in evolution, and you use faith to believe in God. If there were more mutual respect and acknowledgment of these similarities of process, the world would be a happier place.

[SpiritWarrior]

Originally Posted by Yorick We can all make educated guesses. There's never the admission of guesswork though, just more and more bold declarations of assumptions as proven fact. In espousing the ideal you were proclaiming Scientists to be above mortal failings... but if you didn't mean to that's ok. I can forgive. The point is, most people accept received knowledge from scientists as though it was firsthand. Trusting firstly that the scientist is telling the truth about what they discovered, and secondly that they are telling the truth about what they are "guessing" and thirdly that the "guess" is in fact correct. It wouldn't be such a big deal if people did not hold up certain "scientific" worldviews any higher than other so-called "nonscientific" religious worldviews, especially when those religious worldviews may be based on firsthand experiences, rather than received knowledge. That's all. I like fairness and equal standards. Faith is faith. You use faith when you step on an airplane. You use faith when you believe in evolution, and you use faith to believe in God. If there were more mutual respect and acknowledgment of these similarities of process, the world would be a happier place.

Not this dead horse again, lol. The biggest flaw with this argument, to me, is and has always been not about faith, but about "blind faith". I don't think, as much as some would like them to be equal and similiar, that they are. It's like the difference between naivete and bravery.

I mean, one can reason away anything with the "faith" argument. Take eating, for example. You might say that you've been told that if you don't eat, you die, but that you don't take these doctors and scientists at their word, and since you have never died, you have chosen not to believe it and so, you stop eating. In a way, you would never be proven wrong because you'd not be around to see the results when you starve to death. Because you'd be dead. So, even when this faith fails you, it protects you from the truth, shields you with itself so you never know the number it did on you. In essence, blinding you.

Now, why would anyone want faith to blind them? Because, as we see here in this example, it's comforting. To the extreme point where it helps us even avoid the reality of our own demise! Security, protection, warm and fuzzy feelings. Having blind faith in something expels the need to prove it, rationalize it, and thus, understand it. As humans, we are generally frightened of the unknown, but even pretending that we know about it (heaven, for example), will work for us.

[JrKASperov]

Originally Posted by SpiritWarrior But scientists only preach what evidence proves.

Just to give a different twist to this debate: proof is in principle impossible on those areas that are unobservable due to underdetermination and Hume's induction problem.

I feel perfectly at liberty to state that evolution, which is strictly not a theory about the origin of life, only about ongoing processes within it, when extrapolated beyond what we've actually documented (I'll take for granted here that documentation does not yield 100% truth either) is similarly unobservable and thus unprovable.

That said, it is interesting to see how much scientists preach which actually isn't proven, such as the sun being in the middle of the solar system (how much sense does that make in relativity anyway?).

[Gangrell]

Media hype, that's all it is. Scientists don't really know anymore than the day that they originally found it. Great article btw Firestormalpha.

Is that my great aunt? Damn she ugly

[Chewbacca]

OMG science is imperfect!!!!! :HORROR:

[Chewbacca]

Originally Posted by Firestormalpha . A creationist

99% of the world's creation myths are indifferent to science, theory evolution, ect. It's patently incorrect to lump all creationists together as in contradiction to The theory of evolution or Anti-Darwinsim.