On Science, Human Nature, and the Nature of Science

[anotherlife]

Science is a statistical process. So, wouldn't scientific falsifications be just another dead end which every investigative development has naturally?

By defunding science, as usual to do in the 21st century, we simply delay the discovery process but can't change it.

So, science and technological advancement works as if it was independent of human nature and of human capabilities.

 

[PoliticalChic]

Got it. Adolf and Josef were singing a duet in your head.

You came back for another spanking?
Great!


Let's review....
1. You're a Liberal and a Democrat
2. Liberals are an iteration of big government ideology.
3. As are communism and Nazism.
4. It's not a coincidence that the Democrat Party stands for the very same desires as the US Communist Party (CPUSA) did.
5. All to the ideologies mentioned here follow the precepts of Leon Trotsky:
"We must rid ourselves once and for all of the Quaker-Papist babble about the sanctity of human life."

Now....what were you mumbling?


Don't go away...I love smashing these custard pies in your kisser.

 

[PoliticalChic]

Science is a statistical process. So, wouldn't scientific falsifications be just another dead end which every investigative development has naturally?

By defunding science, as usual to do in the 21st century, we simply delay the discovery process but can't change it.

So, science and technological advancement works as if it was independent of human nature and of human capabilities.

Don't be silly.


Let's try reality:


10. Let's start with what is taught as science....but move on to how it also related to political science....

Why is it mandated that schools treat Darwin's theory as sacrosanct when, in over a century and a half, no one has created, or even seen, a new species formed? After all....it's been a century and a half since Darwin posited his notion....and there are more scientists working in these times than in all the time before, combined......yet:

a. "And let us dispose of a common misconception. The complete transmutation of even one animal species into a different species has never been directly observed either in the laboratory or in the field."
Dean H. Kenyon (Professor of Biology, San Francisco State University), affidavit presented to the U.S. Supreme Court, No. 85-1513,Brief of Appellants, prepared under the direction of William J. Guste, Jr., Attorney General of the State of Louisiana, October 1985, p. A-16.

.b. ". . . no human has ever seen a new species form in nature." Steven M. Stanley,The New Evolutionary Timetable(New York: Basic Books, Inc., 1981), p. 73.

Get it?
Politics disguised as science.




11. Now...move on to political 'experiments'...and how truth is handled in a similar manner:

a. How is it that fifty years of trying the same welfare policies, we have the same level of poverty?

b. "How are rules that apply equally to everyone discriminatory and racist?

c. How are rules that only apply to one group of people not discriminatory and racist?

d. Why is it okay to kill unborn children but wrong to kill convicted murderers?

e. How will punishing law-abiding people stop criminals from breaking the law?"

Here Are The Top 10 Questions To Ask A Liberal



f. How is it we select folks who have never run a businesss to set policy on taxation and regulation?


g. In America, political power resides in the people. Any judges who throw out the results of honest elections are no more than fascist dictators....yet we see such, regularly.



Charles Fort passed on in 1932...but left this essential lesson the rest of us: science should be judged as is every other endeavor, and not held up as miraculous.

"... there’s a tendency among bureaucrats, politicians, academics, and other members of the New Class to convince the people to hand over the major decisions of their lives to the “experts.”These experts aren’t all in the government, but they all collude with government to convince people that the experts have all the answers and that the people need to hand the reins over to them. They will tell us what to eat, what to drive,what to think.

It’s an approach that puts politics before economics. Because it is an attempt to politicize peoples’ lives.”
Nazis: Still Socialists, by Jonah Goldberg, National Review

 

[dilloduck]

Got it. Adolf and Josef were singing a duet in your head.

Silly ad homonims ? that's all you got ?

 

[dilloduck]

Science is a statistical process. So, wouldn't scientific falsifications be just another dead end which every investigative development has naturally?

By defunding science, as usual to do in the 21st century, we simply delay the discovery process but can't change it.

So, science and technological advancement works as if it was independent of human nature and of human capabilities.

Science is a human process and they can make the statistics lie.

 

[Old Rocks]

Even Charles FOrt would say you are nuts...

Let's examine your basis for saying that.....
For those keeping records at home.....how many of Fort's tomes have you read?


Seems to be the same basis for most of your posts......rabies.

Well, PC, there are those of us that spend our time reading real science, and hardly care to read the prattlings of charlatans.

 

[anotherlife]

Science is a statistical process. So, wouldn't scientific falsifications be just another dead end which every investigative development has naturally?

By defunding science, as usual to do in the 21st century, we simply delay the discovery process but can't change it.

So, science and technological advancement works as if it was independent of human nature and of human capabilities.

Don't be silly.


Let's try reality:


10. Let's start with what is taught as science....but move on to how it also related to political science....

Why is it mandated that schools treat Darwin's theory as sacrosanct when, in over a century and a half, no one has created, or even seen, a new species formed? After all....it's been a century and a half since Darwin posited his notion....and there are more scientists working in these times than in all the time before, combined......yet:

a. "And let us dispose of a common misconception. The complete transmutation of even one animal species into a different species has never been directly observed either in the laboratory or in the field."
Dean H. Kenyon (Professor of Biology, San Francisco State University), affidavit presented to the U.S. Supreme Court, No. 85-1513,Brief of Appellants, prepared under the direction of William J. Guste, Jr., Attorney General of the State of Louisiana, October 1985, p. A-16.

.b. ". . . no human has ever seen a new species form in nature." Steven M. Stanley,The New Evolutionary Timetable(New York: Basic Books, Inc., 1981), p. 73.

Get it?
Politics disguised as science.




11. Now...move on to political 'experiments'...and how truth is handled in a similar manner:

a. How is it that fifty years of trying the same welfare policies, we have the same level of poverty?

b. "How are rules that apply equally to everyone discriminatory and racist?

c. How are rules that only apply to one group of people not discriminatory and racist?

d. Why is it okay to kill unborn children but wrong to kill convicted murderers?

e. How will punishing law-abiding people stop criminals from breaking the law?"

Here Are The Top 10 Questions To Ask A Liberal



f. How is it we select folks who have never run a businesss to set policy on taxation and regulation?


g. In America, political power resides in the people. Any judges who throw out the results of honest elections are no more than fascist dictators....yet we see such, regularly.



Charles Fort passed on in 1932...but left this essential lesson the rest of us: science should be judged as is every other endeavor, and not held up as miraculous.

"... there’s a tendency among bureaucrats, politicians, academics, and other members of the New Class to convince the people to hand over the major decisions of their lives to the “experts.”These experts aren’t all in the government, but they all collude with government to convince people that the experts have all the answers and that the people need to hand the reins over to them. They will tell us what to eat, what to drive,what to think.

It’s an approach that puts politics before economics. Because it is an attempt to politicize peoples’ lives.”
Nazis: Still Socialists, by Jonah Goldberg, National Review

I think this is all true, maybe with the exception of the abortion comment. Charles Fort was like a genius. It must have been a huge and complex task to go through all those subject matters and review them in this light.

It was those "experts" who drew even the most obvious modern things such as the map of Europe. That is why we have e.g. a Czech Republic but no Moravia, a Ukraine but no Rutenia, had a Yugoslavia but no Dalmatia, and so on. I think their most spectacular work is the documents in Washington in which they argue why converting the dollar into a fiat is a good idea. Their argument is simply this, "... because it [supporting assets] is REALLY NOT necessary". If I write at school something like this then I would get an f. So yes, I agree that there is this power center called various "experts", and they capitalize on a key feature of human nature, programmability.

By the way, you can't disprove Darwin by saying you don't see his theory in action. We live in a mass extinction period, so new species are not likely. With that

 

[anotherlife]

Science is a statistical process. So, wouldn't scientific falsifications be just another dead end which every investigative development has naturally?

By defunding science, as usual to do in the 21st century, we simply delay the discovery process but can't change it.

So, science and technological advancement works as if it was independent of human nature and of human capabilities.

Science is a human process and they can make the statistics lie.

Maybe you mean that science is the program that runs on the humans as its individual executive workstations.

 

[JoeB131]

Even Charles FOrt would say you are nuts...

Let's examine your basis for saying that.....
For those keeping records at home.....how many of Fort's tomes have you read?


Seems to be the same basis for most of your posts......rabies.

Actually, I have read a couple of his books, including Lo and Behold, when I had that teenage fascination with the paranormal.

Now, much like Bigfoot, UFO's, and the Loch Ness Monster, you realize that the most mysterious thing out there is the human imagination, and how it wants to attribute the fantastic to things that have sensible explanations.

Here's a truly excellent takedown of Fort from The Center for Skeptical Inquiry.

Charles Fort: Purveyor of the Unprobed - CSI

Here's the thing. EVERYTHING has a scientific explanation.

 

[JoeB131]

1. Now....outside of your bigotry, why would you bring up an infinitesimal item like that, when you atheists have slain over 100 million in the last century alone?

Well, no. They didn't.

People in Russia and China were not killed because of "Atheism". Or "Socialism". They were killed because of the main reason why human beings have been killing each other since Oog the Caveman picked up a rock and smashed in his neighbor's head to steal his mammoth meat.

They were killed for "I want your stuff-ism"

What makes your Religious assholes so bad is that you kill each other over something that doesn't exist. You kill each other over weather the wafers really become Jesus or whether or not Mohammed or Joseph Smith were really talking to God.

 

[PoliticalChic]

Science is a statistical process. So, wouldn't scientific falsifications be just another dead end which every investigative development has naturally?

By defunding science, as usual to do in the 21st century, we simply delay the discovery process but can't change it.

So, science and technological advancement works as if it was independent of human nature and of human capabilities.

Don't be silly.


Let's try reality:


10. Let's start with what is taught as science....but move on to how it also related to political science....

Why is it mandated that schools treat Darwin's theory as sacrosanct when, in over a century and a half, no one has created, or even seen, a new species formed? After all....it's been a century and a half since Darwin posited his notion....and there are more scientists working in these times than in all the time before, combined......yet:

a. "And let us dispose of a common misconception. The complete transmutation of even one animal species into a different species has never been directly observed either in the laboratory or in the field."
Dean H. Kenyon (Professor of Biology, San Francisco State University), affidavit presented to the U.S. Supreme Court, No. 85-1513,Brief of Appellants, prepared under the direction of William J. Guste, Jr., Attorney General of the State of Louisiana, October 1985, p. A-16.

.b. ". . . no human has ever seen a new species form in nature." Steven M. Stanley,The New Evolutionary Timetable(New York: Basic Books, Inc., 1981), p. 73.

Get it?
Politics disguised as science.




11. Now...move on to political 'experiments'...and how truth is handled in a similar manner:

a. How is it that fifty years of trying the same welfare policies, we have the same level of poverty?

b. "How are rules that apply equally to everyone discriminatory and racist?

c. How are rules that only apply to one group of people not discriminatory and racist?

d. Why is it okay to kill unborn children but wrong to kill convicted murderers?

e. How will punishing law-abiding people stop criminals from breaking the law?"

Here Are The Top 10 Questions To Ask A Liberal



f. How is it we select folks who have never run a businesss to set policy on taxation and regulation?


g. In America, political power resides in the people. Any judges who throw out the results of honest elections are no more than fascist dictators....yet we see such, regularly.



Charles Fort passed on in 1932...but left this essential lesson the rest of us: science should be judged as is every other endeavor, and not held up as miraculous.

"... there’s a tendency among bureaucrats, politicians, academics, and other members of the New Class to convince the people to hand over the major decisions of their lives to the “experts.”These experts aren’t all in the government, but they all collude with government to convince people that the experts have all the answers and that the people need to hand the reins over to them. They will tell us what to eat, what to drive,what to think.

It’s an approach that puts politics before economics. Because it is an attempt to politicize peoples’ lives.”
Nazis: Still Socialists, by Jonah Goldberg, National Review

I think this is all true, maybe with the exception of the abortion comment. Charles Fort was like a genius. It must have been a huge and complex task to go through all those subject matters and review them in this light.

It was those "experts" who drew even the most obvious modern things such as the map of Europe. That is why we have e.g. a Czech Republic but no Moravia, a Ukraine but no Rutenia, had a Yugoslavia but no Dalmatia, and so on. I think their most spectacular work is the documents in Washington in which they argue why converting the dollar into a fiat is a good idea. Their argument is simply this, "... because it [supporting assets] is REALLY NOT necessary". If I write at school something like this then I would get an f. So yes, I agree that there is this power center called various "experts", and they capitalize on a key feature of human nature, programmability.

By the way, you can't disprove Darwin by saying you don't see his theory in action. We live in a mass extinction period, so new species are not likely. With that

1. BTW....I can disprove it in several ways, including the fact that he posited simple organisms that evolved into numerous more complex one.


2. If Darwin was correct, the geological stockpile should provide examples of organisms with a partial accumulation of said new traits and features, but not complete enough to have quite made it into the menagerie of life. Although they didn't produce new lines of living things, these'attempts' would be, should be, preserved as fossils.


To save time and effort, although input from every perspective is desired, this discussion requires an understanding of terms such as Cambrian Explosion, fauna, and perhaps taxonomy. Here, see what I mean.....


3. "The Chengjiang fauna makes the Cambrian explosion more difficult to reconcile with the Darwinian view for yet another reason. The Chengjiang discoveries intensify the top-down pattern of appearances in which individual representatives of the higher taxonomic categories (phyla, subphyla, and classes) appear and only later diversify into the lower taxonomic categories (families, genera, and species).
Meyer, "Darwin's Doubt," p.74

The sudden appearance of complex organism.....followed by simpler.




So...you see,if Darwin were correct, the opposite would be true...and we'd find in Chengjiang, and in sites such as the Burgess Shale in Britain, simpler categories early and the more developed, later.

This is not the case.


a. " The Lower Cambrian sediments near Chengjiang have preserved fossils of such
excellent quality that soft tissues and organs, such as eyes, intestines, stomachs, digestive
glands, sensory organs, epidermis, bristles, mouths and nerves can be observed in detail.
Even fossilized embryos of sponges are present in the Precambrian strata near Chengjiang."
J.Y. Chen, C.W. Li, Paul Chien, G.Q. Zhou and Feng Gao, “Weng’an Biota—A Light Casting on the Precambrian World,” presented to: The Origin of Animal Body Plans and Their Fossil Records conference (Kunming, China, June 20-26, 1999). Sponsored by the Early Life Research Center and The Chinese Academy of Sciences.


4. Not only does the evidence of the Burgess Shale, and of the Chengjiang deposits, run counter to Darwin's views, but it is in the Chinese Communist party paper, "The People's Daily," that we find Chinese paleontologists stating that these discoveries challenge a Darwinian view of the history of life.



a." Marine biologist Paul Chien at the University of San Francisco was one scientist who followed the news closely. What drew his attention were a couple of articles that were published in the People's daily, the official newspaper from the Communist Party in China. The article stated the Chinese fossils drew the attention of scientists worldwide and this fossil find actually challenges the theory of Darwin's evolution.



b. ... December 4, 1995,Time Magazinepublished a cover story entitled Evolution's Big Bang. The story included great detail about the Chinese fossils. Since 1996 Paul Chien has made several trips to conduct his own investigation in China of the fossil site.... the Cambrian explosion absolutely challenges the idea of the traditional view of evolution. The problem is that all of the various fossils and animal species found have clearly appeared in a very brief period of time. This is very difficult to explain from the evolutionary point of view.



c.Paleontologists have determined that the Chinese fossils were older than those excavated in the Burgess Shale in previous years. Yet, anatomically they were often even more complex. "
The Devil Is In the Detail: January 2013

 

[JoeB131]

How about you back up the suggestion.....the basis of your bigotry....

Still throwing around those bullshit numbers, are we? I'm curious how Stalin and Lenin could have killed nearly 50 Russians on top of the people that Russia lost in two World Wars and the Spanish Flu, and there could still be any Russians left. those Russian Ladies must have been pumping them out like rabbits, to hear you tell it.

"Come on, I've got a Quota to meet!"

 

[PoliticalChic]

Science is a statistical process. So, wouldn't scientific falsifications be just another dead end which every investigative development has naturally?

By defunding science, as usual to do in the 21st century, we simply delay the discovery process but can't change it.

So, science and technological advancement works as if it was independent of human nature and of human capabilities.

Science is a human process and they can make the statistics lie.

Maybe you mean that science is the program that runs on the humans as its individual executive workstations.

I believe he means that science is under the auspices of human beings....many of whom lie and cheat to achieve their individual goals.




There is the 2015 film 'Spotlight,' ...

... "The film followsThe Boston Globe's "Spotlight" team, the oldest continuously operating newspaper investigative unit in the United States,[6]and its investigation into cases of widespread and systemic child sex abuse in the Boston area by numerous Roman Catholic priests."
Spotlight (film) - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


....about the Boston Globe campaign to reveal the subculture of pedophilia in the Catholic Church.

Ghastly.

Priests abusing children, and their deeds being hidden by the Church leaders.
The result of the scandal was the widespread .....every priest being looked at askance....the entire priesthood smeared as a result.



But more than once the film gave the percentage of priests involved in this behavior.
Six percent.
In my reading, I've seen the figure as five percent...but close enough.
"...child sex abuse in the Boston area by numerous Roman Catholic priests."

Numerous....but not the vast majority. Yet, it cast a pall over the entire priesthood by the low lives who behaved in this way.
Six percent.


And the reason is that priests were looked at as above other people...better than.....other people.
But they are not saints...they are human beings, and as such bear the same faults as other human beings.



And the same applies to some other human beings that we tend to raise in our estimation: scientists.

They work for 'science'...but they also work for money, status, and fame. And so we should expect there to be an element due to human nature... as in the Church, an element who will lie, cheat and behave immorally.

 

[PoliticalChic]

Even Charles FOrt would say you are nuts...

Let's examine your basis for saying that.....
For those keeping records at home.....how many of Fort's tomes have you read?


Seems to be the same basis for most of your posts......rabies.

Actually, I have read a couple of his books, including Lo and Behold, when I had that teenage fascination with the paranormal.

Now, much like Bigfoot, UFO's, and the Loch Ness Monster, you realize that the most mysterious thing out there is the human imagination, and how it wants to attribute the fantastic to things that have sensible explanations.

Here's a truly excellent takedown of Fort from The Center for Skeptical Inquiry.

Charles Fort: Purveyor of the Unprobed - CSI

Here's the thing. EVERYTHING has a scientific explanation.

"Here's the thing. EVERYTHING has a scientific explanation."

Of course that's false.


1. Mathematician Amir Aczel, in an interview with Nobel laureate physicist Steven Weinberg, in 2010, was asked, for a Scientific American article (November 20101), "How was the Big Bang caused, and what happened before it?"

Physicist Steven Weinberg: "This we don't know, and have no way of knowing.." Aczel: This convinces me that science cannot disprove a 'creator.'
Amir Aczel, "Why Science Does Not Disprove God"

2. Which brings to mind this, from Arthur Conan Doyle: ‘Napoleon's question to the atheistic professors on the starry night as he voyaged to Egypt: "Who was it, gentlemen, who made these stars?" has never been answered. To say that the Universe was made by immutable laws only put the question one degree further back as to who made the laws. I did not, of course, believe in an anthropomorphic God, but I believed then, as I believe now, in an intelligent Force behind all the operations of Nature--a force so infinitely complex and great that my finite brain could get no further than its existence.” The New Revelation, by Arthur Conan Doyle; Chapter I: The Search Page 1


3. . Similarly, the Big Bang origin of the universe required energy. And Newton stated that mass and energy are interchangeable, but that energy can neither be created nor destroyed. But something must have created the energy, at what we might call ‘the beginning.’

Now, before one attempts to explain away the obvious problem by inserting the term ‘infinity,’ let’s agree that infinity does not exist in the real world. So, without ‘infinity,’ it follows that everything in the universe is finite, therefore had a beginning….and, an end.

 

[PoliticalChic]

1. Now....outside of your bigotry, why would you bring up an infinitesimal item like that, when you atheists have slain over 100 million in the last century alone?

Well, no. They didn't.

People in Russia and China were not killed because of "Atheism". Or "Socialism". They were killed because of the main reason why human beings have been killing each other since Oog the Caveman picked up a rock and smashed in his neighbor's head to steal his mammoth meat.

They were killed for "I want your stuff-ism"

What makes your Religious assholes so bad is that you kill each other over something that doesn't exist. You kill each other over weather the wafers really become Jesus or whether or not Mohammed or Joseph Smith were really talking to God.

False.

1. "There is no God:
This concept is an essential element of Marxism. As Lenin stated: "Atheism is a natural and inseparable portion of Marxism, of the theory and practice of Scientific Socialism." If God exists and is in supreme command of the universe, He possesses discretionary power, and His actions cannot always be calculated accurately in advance. The whole edifice of Marxism collapses.

When Marx and the Communists deny the existence of God, they simultaneously deny the authority of the Ten Commandments, the existence of absolute standards of right and wrong, of good and evil; and man is left on the playing fields of the universe without a referee, without a book of rules. The winning side in any conflict can decide on what rules of conduct to apply. Morality is the creation of the victor. "The Schwarz Report | Essays

2. "We must rid ourselves once and for all of the Quaker-Papist babble about the sanctity of human life." Leon Trotsky


And, as Hegel and Marx are the political forebears of Liberalism and Progresssivism....it explains your antipathy to religion and liberty.

 

[Old Rocks]

Whee, PC once again has diarrhea of the keyboard.

Evolution is regarded as proven by the scientific community. We have the fossils, DNA, and observations of the changing of the alleles in existent species. And we are engineering species with that knowledge.

People like PC are entirely irrelevant, the science and march of knowledge will continue without any silly input from such people.

 

[PoliticalChic]

Whee, PC once again has diarrhea of the keyboard.

Evolution is regarded as proven by the scientific community. We have the fossils, DNA, and observations of the changing of the alleles in existent species. And we are engineering species with that knowledge.

People like PC are entirely irrelevant, the science and march of knowledge will continue without any silly input from such people.

"Evolution is regarded as proven by the scientific community."

Just not Darwin's theory.

 

[Old Rocks]

Darwin's theory is a major part of modern evolutionary theory, and was seminal to it's development. Again, given you lack of knowledge in such matters, all your prattle is irrelevant.

 

[PoliticalChic]

Darwin's theory is a major part of modern evolutionary theory, and was seminal to it's development. Again, given you lack of knowledge in such matters, all your prattle is irrelevant.

"Darwin's theory is a major part of modern evolutionary theory, and was seminal to it's development."

Wow...I really got under your skin, huh?
Truth seems to do that to brain-dead Leftist drones.

But...you may have some proof you'd like to offer....
....in that case you should be prepared to shred post #31....this:



1. BTW....I can disprove it in several ways, including the fact that he posited simple organisms that evolved into numerous more complex one.


2. If Darwin was correct, the geological stockpile should provide examples of organisms with a partial accumulation of said new traits and features, but not complete enough to have quite made it into the menagerie of life. Although they didn't produce new lines of living things, these'attempts' would be, should be, preserved as fossils.


To save time and effort, although input from every perspective is desired, this discussion requires an understanding of terms such as Cambrian Explosion, fauna, and perhaps taxonomy. Here, see what I mean.....


3. "The Chengjiang fauna makes the Cambrian explosion more difficult to reconcile with the Darwinian view for yet another reason. The Chengjiang discoveries intensify the top-down pattern of appearances in which individual representatives of the higher taxonomic categories (phyla, subphyla, and classes) appear and only later diversify into the lower taxonomic categories (families, genera, and species).
Meyer, "Darwin's Doubt," p.74

The sudden appearance of complex organism.....followed by simpler.




So...you see,if Darwin were correct, the opposite would be true...and we'd find in Chengjiang, and in sites such as the Burgess Shale in Britain, simpler categories early and the more developed, later.

This is not the case.


a. " The Lower Cambrian sediments near Chengjiang have preserved fossils of such
excellent quality that soft tissues and organs, such as eyes, intestines, stomachs, digestive
glands, sensory organs, epidermis, bristles, mouths and nerves can be observed in detail.
Even fossilized embryos of sponges are present in the Precambrian strata near Chengjiang."
J.Y. Chen, C.W. Li, Paul Chien, G.Q. Zhou and Feng Gao, “Weng’an Biota—A Light Casting on the Precambrian World,” presented to: The Origin of Animal Body Plans and Their Fossil Records conference (Kunming, China, June 20-26, 1999). Sponsored by the Early Life Research Center and The Chinese Academy of Sciences.


4. Not only does the evidence of the Burgess Shale, and of the Chengjiang deposits, run counter to Darwin's views, but it is in the Chinese Communist party paper, "The People's Daily," that we find Chinese paleontologists stating that these discoveries challenge a Darwinian view of the history of life.



a." Marine biologist Paul Chien at the University of San Francisco was one scientist who followed the news closely. What drew his attention were a couple of articles that were published in the People's daily, the official newspaper from the Communist Party in China. The article stated the Chinese fossils drew the attention of scientists worldwide and this fossil find actually challenges the theory of Darwin's evolution.



b. ... December 4, 1995,Time Magazinepublished a cover story entitled Evolution's Big Bang. The story included great detail about the Chinese fossils. Since 1996 Paul Chien has made several trips to conduct his own investigation in China of the fossil site.... the Cambrian explosion absolutely challenges the idea of the traditional view of evolution. The problem is that all of the various fossils and animal species found have clearly appeared in a very brief period of time. This is very difficult to explain from the evolutionary point of view.



c.Paleontologists have determined that the Chinese fossils were older than those excavated in the Burgess Shale in previous years. Yet, anatomically they were often even more complex. "
The Devil Is In the Detail: January 2013



How's that for my 'showing knowledge of such matters'?

 

[JoeB131]

False.

why do you think repeating mantras is a substitute for rational thought?