Calling me names? Come on now.
"It is hard to say who were the first scientists, but there is no doubt that science owes something to the ancient Greek philosophic tradition."
History channel credited it with originating with the Greeks, but the catholic church had created most of the processes and standards of what is scientific. You can start this on another thread if you want, its a little off topic.
Cause this is just wrong.
I like your comment. Right to the point.
What people often don't understand is that science is truth, as best mankind can ascertain it at the time that it is described, and while some details change from time to time, this is no reason to doubt the whole.
So science isnt truth, but is truth, because its man's best attempt at a certain time, in a certain area? Socrates would cry.
that we all have learned from highschool/college ~~
Your right, how could i be so stupid. If something is taught in highschool, therefore it must be true. Is this one of your scientific laws you speak of? You know, I dont have a problem with science, but i sure do have one with the scientific community. Limiting truth to highschool, regardless of other sources, and common sense, i think they've lost it. Well done Sleska. Well done. But thanks for all the fish.
Time for my history lesson #1. Dinosaurs.
You can read the whole thing here.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Feathered_dinosaurs
There are numerous sources, reports, and if ur lucky, u can watch one on tv on the science channel.
The realization that dinosaurs are closely related to birds raised the obvious possibility of feathered dinosaurs. Fossils of Archaeopteryx include well-preserved feathers, but it was not until the early 1990s that clearly nonavian dinosaur fossils were discovered with preserved feathers.
Shortly after the 1859 publication of Charles Darwin's The Origin of Species, British biologist and evolution-defender Thomas Henry Huxley proposed that birds were descendants of dinosaurs. He cited skeletal similarities, particularly among some saurischian dinosaurs, fossils of the 'first bird' Archaeopteryx and modern birds. In 1868 he published On the Animals which are Most Nearly Intermediate between Birds and Reptiles, making the case. The leading dinosaur expert of the time, Richard Owen, disagreed, claiming Archaeopteryx as the first bird outside dinosaur lineage.
2 people, 2 experts, but both under the name of science disagreeing with each other. Here's my favorite part.
For the next century, claims that birds were dinosaur descendants faded, with more popular bird-ancestry hypotheses including 'crocodylomorph' and 'thecodont' ancestors, rather than dinosaurs or other archosaurs.
There is a possibility that from what we were taught years ago in highschool, is now outdated. In fact, my school never mentioned feathered dinosaurs. Thus i assumed, there was only one theory, one reasonable and 100 percent accepted by the community theory. Why would i doubt, when nothing was presented to me to doubt?
Evidence, in all its glory, requires interpretation tho. Unless your well educated in all those fields, your just working on good practical faith of what other people are saying.
Yes. But i take this back. Evidence, in all its glory, requires interpretation though, for all people. Meaning we all have faith in a cause or force... muahaha. Heres the quote, among many other quotes, why i say evidence(Is evidence data thats already been determined to be useful for something? I mean data), requires interpretation.
In 1964, John Ostrom described Deinonychus antirrhopus, a theropod whose skeletal resemblance to birds seemed unmistakable. Ostrom has since become a leading proponent of the theory that birds are direct descendants of dinosaurs.
It seemed unmistakable. lawl. It seemed? What happened to is? Big claim for something to be unmistakable in my opinion. Lets see if others
view his findings the same way.
By the 1990s, most paleontologists considered birds to be surviving dinosaurs and referred to 'non-avian dinosaurs' (those that went extinct), to distinguish them from birds (aves or avian dinosaurs). Direct evidence to support the theory was missing, however. Some mainstream ornithologists, including Smithsonian Institution curator Storrs L. Olson, disputed the links, citing the lack of fossil evidence for feathered dinosaurs.
Wait. Direct evidence was missing? What happened to 'seemed unmistakable'?
After a century of hypotheses without hard evidence..
Wait wait wait. Even if it 'seemed unmistakable' why doesnt it seem unmistakable now? What a happened to Mr. Ostrom? It says he still leads his ideas. It was like, that statement, "After a century of hypotheses without hard evidence" ignored Ostrom's claims.
The Archaeoraptor fake
After a century of hypotheses without hard evidence, particularly well-preserved (and legitimate) fossils of feathered dinosaurs were discovered during the 1990s and 2000s...Norell et al (2007) reported quill knobs from an ulna of Velociraptor, and these are strongly correlated with large and well - developed secondary feathers.[3]
Heres some fossil evidence. This is recent, and it takes time for finds to become main stream. Thats why anybody over 7 years old, probably weren't taught in highschool the now dominant view that there were feathers on some dinosaurs. Heck, most importantly, that 8 year old isnt even in highschool yet. (:
Science is a nice thing, but history shows it changes all the time. You can't put feelings or patriotism or a cause with science. It is humans who use science, feelings and patriotisms wont affect computers or tools, but it can, and historically does, affect humans. For humans, as swiftspeare says, need more than just facts to survive, and they pick something that seems reasonable. Doesn't science seem most reasonable to some?
I just want to hear, in the very least, that the dinosaur science/history changes, that the truths about dinosaurs changes. That one man thought the evidence was clear, but it took 30 to 40 years for that to be accepted because to others it wasn't clear, and that an old world wide accepted idea is fading out...and this all happened in the modern, not the ancient or pre modern era, age.
Thats all i want. Look at other sources, i just used wiki cuz its easy, i honestly saw it first on the science channel, before i looked it at other sources. If you dont see it, then theres nothing I can do with this topic, other than my last trump card. And it goes back to the apple.
I apologize for this being so long. The next one will be short.
)