Slashdot Mirror
Four-legged Snake Fossil Stuns Scientists, Ignites Controversy
sciencehabit writes: Scientists have described what they say is the first known fossil of a four-legged snake. The limbs of the 120-or-so-million-year-old, 20-centimeter-long creature are remarkably well preserved and end with five slender digits that appear to have been functional (abstract). Thought to have come from Brazil, the fossil would be one of the earliest snakes found, suggesting that the group evolved from terrestrial precursors in Gondwana, the southern remnant of the supercontinent Pangaea. But although the creature's overall body plan—and indeed, many of its individual anatomical features—is snakelike, some researchers aren't so sure that it is a part of the snake family tree.
Heroism takes many forms.
McCain was the son of a high ranking Admiral, and a potentially valuable political pawn for the North Vietnamese. They offered him all sorts of inducements, nice treatment, etc, if he'd make statements for them. He refused, and they tortured him instead, to the point that he can't even raise his arms above his shoulders today.
They offered to release him early, ahead of his fellow prisoners, and he refused, insisting that all previous prisoners be released first (according to military rules), even though that meant he'd be enduring more of that hellhole.
Heroism isn't just about standing up with a machine gun on each arm and shooting up the enemy single-handedly.
Concur. Can't fucking stand the guy's politics, but I respect the guy's strength here. Yes, others in his position of less status might have been outright killed, and maybe we wouldn't have known about their bravery, but heroism isn't about putting some men above others - it's about seeing the evidenced behaviour of some men and using that behaviour as an example to follow.
That's how forgone conclusions work. Once you have committed to a conclusion, everything you see is skewed in that direction. Anything that is even suggestive of agreement appears to be "more proof" while any counter-evidence, no matter how confuting, is seen as "probably mistaken" if even there at all.
To answer the OP's question....
One walks the science path to find good reasons for their beliefs, rather than making a completely random guess as to which holy book already has it right. I am sure plenty of Muslims would use the same argument you did, in exactly the same way, to defend belief in the Quoran, and it does work just as well. Some of us would rather investigate reality than bet on superstition.
Religion is nothing but the easy way out.
The opposite of "knowing" is not "not knowing". That can easily be remedied. If you do not know, you ask someone who does know, and then you know too. The opposite of knowing is believing. And believing is far more comfortable and convenient, and far less taxing than knowing.
If I want to believe something, that's easily done. All it takes is a unilateral declaration of intent. Jesus the only son of God and my saviour? I believe. There, done. There is no huge investment of time and intellect necessary. A teapot in the middle of Jupiter? Sure, I believe. And done. I neither need someone showing me the ropes, nor do I need to spend any time or energy to do it.
Knowing is far more taxing. To know something, you not only have to find someone who does already know to teach you, you also have to invest time and energy to understand. Understanding is one hugely important, critical prerequisite for knowing. And that takes time. And effort. And depending on your mental capabilities or prerequisite fundamental knowledge that effort may even prove futile.
Believing is far more convenient. It only depends on you wanting. Knowing something also requires you to be able to and the investment of time.
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.