On Science, Human Nature, and the Nature of Science

[JoeB131]

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.

Phhhh.... phoey. Fossils and DNA.

Political Spice has a 3000 year old book written by barely literate bronze age sheep herders!

 

[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.

Ohhh! Nozzzzzz!

I made Rocks retreat back under his cot!


Come back, Rocks....I won't spank you (as much).

 

[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.

Phhhh.... phoey. Fossils and DNA.

Political Spice has a 3000 year old book written by barely literate bronze age sheep herders!

Hmmmm.......seems you weren't able to deny any of this:

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



....so you attempted to change the subject.

Another victory for me, huh?

 

[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.

Phhhh.... phoey. Fossils and DNA.

Political Spice has a 3000 year old book written by barely literate bronze age sheep herders!

"Phhhh.... phoey. Fossils and DNA."

Phooey.

Not 'phoey.'


Gads.....I have to teach you a never ending array of subjects.....
...science, history, economics, politics,....now spelling.
...did you drop out in the second grade or third?

 

[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

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

I think those intermediary evolutionary stages get competed out, so you end up with no trace of them. For example, in the 1980's there were 20++ different computer architectures and formats on the desktop market. Now there is only the IBM PC format and architecture, and this will be the one going into history to provide enough specimens to fossilize. With that said, most of your points work only if we consider time, including geological time, a linear uninterrupted quantity. There is no proof to this assumption.

 

[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.

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.

Yes, I see this a lot on my teachers, they fiercely compete in their field, and some of them look like would feel better if it wasn't unscientific to cut the other professor's throat.

Interesting is the priest abuse. I know a girl who went through this. There is no way to even mentioning her anything biblical. Satan is allowed to invent a new challenge every time we think we solve one. The worst part of it is the loss. I think Jesus Christ is the only one that has the power to do something about this.

 

[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

I think those intermediary evolutionary stages get competed out, so you end up with no trace of them. For example, in the 1980's there were 20++ different computer architectures and formats on the desktop market. Now there is only the IBM PC format and architecture, and this will be the one going into history to provide enough specimens to fossilize. With that said, most of your points work only if we consider time, including geological time, a linear uninterrupted quantity. There is no proof to this assumption.

1. I included this:

"...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."


2. And, there's this...

The import of the Burgess Shale: how to explain the sudden rise of such extensive diversity during the Cambrian? Note carefully how this question is ignored by the most ardent of fanatics.

Ignoring evidence to the contrary is hardly science.

In fact, it is the very antithesis of science.

a. Steven J. Gould reported: "In any local area, a species does not arise gradually by the steady transformation of its ancestors; it appears all at once and fully formed." (Natural History, 86:12-16)

Now, whose theory would his support, Darwinists, or creationists?


3. ....the evidence of the Burgess Shale spotlights not just the increase in complexity....but the sudden quantum leap in complexity!

Its the fact of radical differences, novel body plans that do not arise from a gradual sequence of intermediates that requires the removal of Darwin's theory to the ash bin!


4. More evidence: Opabinia- 15 articulated body segments, 28 gills, 30 flipper-like swimming lobes, long trunk-like proboscis, intricate nervous system...and five separate eyes!

a. Stephen Gould actually tried to pretend that Opabinia came to exist....get this....by 'unusual evolutionary mechanisms.

"This was one of the primary reasons why Gould in his book on the Burgess Shale, Wonderful Life, considered that Early Cambrian life was much more diverse and "experimental" than any later set of animals and that the Cambrian explosion was a truly dramatic event, possibly driven by unusual evolutionary mechanisms." Opabinia - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


"possibly driven by unusual evolutionary mechanisms."

Doesn't relate to Darwin...does it.

 

[JoeB131]

Hmmmm.......seems you weren't able to deny any of this:

2. If Darwin was correct, ....s.

Naw, it's just when you start reposting your numbered talking points, and not engage in a real conversation, I just kind of skip on to stuff I can make fun of.

Darwin was correct. Sorry. We have fossils. You have a old musty book.

Gads.....I have to teach you a never ending array of subjects.....
...science, history, economics, politics,....now spelling.
...did you drop out in the second grade or third?

Says the woman who believes in Bronze Age Superstitions and thinks Noah's Ark was a real thing.

and that apparently the Age of Reason was a bad thing.

 

[PoliticalChic]

Hmmmm.......seems you weren't able to deny any of this:

2. If Darwin was correct, ....s.

Naw, it's just when you start reposting your numbered talking points, and not engage in a real conversation, I just kind of skip on to stuff I can make fun of.

Darwin was correct. Sorry. We have fossils. You have a old musty book.

Gads.....I have to teach you a never ending array of subjects.....
...science, history, economics, politics,....now spelling.
...did you drop out in the second grade or third?

Says the woman who believes in Bronze Age Superstitions and thinks Noah's Ark was a real thing.

and that apparently the Age of Reason was a bad thing.

"Says the woman who believes in Bronze Age Superstitions and thinks Noah's Ark was a real thing.

and that apparently the Age of Reason was a bad thing."



I notice that you've failed to include any of my posts/quotes that support those claims.

Now....why is that?

Could it be you're lying, to assuage the pain of the spankings I've been forced to administer?

 

[JoeB131]

I notice that you've failed to include any of my posts/quotes that support those claims.

Now....why is that?

Because if you are not going to have a real conversation and are just going to cut and paste stuff from your Manifesto, I don't feel much of an obligation to have one back.

Let me know when you are ready to have a conversation.

 

[PoliticalChic]

I notice that you've failed to include any of my posts/quotes that support those claims.

Now....why is that?

Because if you are not going to have a real conversation and are just going to cut and paste stuff from your Manifesto, I don't feel much of an obligation to have one back.

Let me know when you are ready to have a conversation.

Why?

You're a proven liar....you deserve no 'conversation.'

Be gone.

 

[JoeB131]

I notice that you've failed to include any of my posts/quotes that support those claims.

Now....why is that?

Because if you are not going to have a real conversation and are just going to cut and paste stuff from your Manifesto, I don't feel much of an obligation to have one back.

Let me know when you are ready to have a conversation.

Why?

You're a proven liar....you deserve no 'conversation.'

Be gone.

Thank you for making my point... Again.

 

[Dot Com]

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.

^ that

Sad that no one takes her seriously because of her made-up formatting and laughable sourcing

 

[Dot Com]

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.

that reminds me, The Moonies were doing something in KoRea ystrdy JoeB131

Maybe that is what got polispice to start this knee-slappin' thread

 

[Searcher44]

Even Charles FOrt would say you are nuts...

I wonder how much enjoyment he would get out of gathering up a goodly collection of her posts and pouring over them, astutely selecting the best examples of her bizarre talent for reimagining history into I what I guess Richard Lewontin would also call " fantastical unsubstantiated just-so stories.”

 

[JoeB131]

that reminds me, The Moonies were doing something in KoRea ystrdy JoeB131

Maybe that is what got polispice to start this knee-slappin' thread

I sometimes wonder is PoliSpice is a Moonie. Korean, whacky-crazy anti-Communist even thought the Cold War ended 25 years ago. Probably got sent over here in an arranged marriage.

 

[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

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

I think those intermediary evolutionary stages get competed out, so you end up with no trace of them. For example, in the 1980's there were 20++ different computer architectures and formats on the desktop market. Now there is only the IBM PC format and architecture, and this will be the one going into history to provide enough specimens to fossilize. With that said, most of your points work only if we consider time, including geological time, a linear uninterrupted quantity. There is no proof to this assumption.

1. I included this:

"...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."


2. And, there's this...

The import of the Burgess Shale: how to explain the sudden rise of such extensive diversity during the Cambrian? Note carefully how this question is ignored by the most ardent of fanatics.

Ignoring evidence to the contrary is hardly science.

In fact, it is the very antithesis of science.

a. Steven J. Gould reported: "In any local area, a species does not arise gradually by the steady transformation of its ancestors; it appears all at once and fully formed." (Natural History, 86:12-16)

Now, whose theory would his support, Darwinists, or creationists?


3. ....the evidence of the Burgess Shale spotlights not just the increase in complexity....but the sudden quantum leap in complexity!

Its the fact of radical differences, novel body plans that do not arise from a gradual sequence of intermediates that requires the removal of Darwin's theory to the ash bin!


4. More evidence: Opabinia- 15 articulated body segments, 28 gills, 30 flipper-like swimming lobes, long trunk-like proboscis, intricate nervous system...and five separate eyes!

a. Stephen Gould actually tried to pretend that Opabinia came to exist....get this....by 'unusual evolutionary mechanisms.

"This was one of the primary reasons why Gould in his book on the Burgess Shale, Wonderful Life, considered that Early Cambrian life was much more diverse and "experimental" than any later set of animals and that the Cambrian explosion was a truly dramatic event, possibly driven by unusual evolutionary mechanisms." Opabinia - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


"possibly driven by unusual evolutionary mechanisms."

Doesn't relate to Darwin...does it.

On both scientific and theological basis, I find no contradiction between evolutionary theories and God as creator. Politically however the contradiction is total. It is possible that the theory of evolution and its fossil artifacts are all a window to how God progresses creation, measured using geological time.

 

[PoliticalChic]

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

I think those intermediary evolutionary stages get competed out, so you end up with no trace of them. For example, in the 1980's there were 20++ different computer architectures and formats on the desktop market. Now there is only the IBM PC format and architecture, and this will be the one going into history to provide enough specimens to fossilize. With that said, most of your points work only if we consider time, including geological time, a linear uninterrupted quantity. There is no proof to this assumption.

1. I included this:

"...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."


2. And, there's this...

The import of the Burgess Shale: how to explain the sudden rise of such extensive diversity during the Cambrian? Note carefully how this question is ignored by the most ardent of fanatics.

Ignoring evidence to the contrary is hardly science.

In fact, it is the very antithesis of science.

a. Steven J. Gould reported: "In any local area, a species does not arise gradually by the steady transformation of its ancestors; it appears all at once and fully formed." (Natural History, 86:12-16)

Now, whose theory would his support, Darwinists, or creationists?


3. ....the evidence of the Burgess Shale spotlights not just the increase in complexity....but the sudden quantum leap in complexity!

Its the fact of radical differences, novel body plans that do not arise from a gradual sequence of intermediates that requires the removal of Darwin's theory to the ash bin!


4. More evidence: Opabinia- 15 articulated body segments, 28 gills, 30 flipper-like swimming lobes, long trunk-like proboscis, intricate nervous system...and five separate eyes!

a. Stephen Gould actually tried to pretend that Opabinia came to exist....get this....by 'unusual evolutionary mechanisms.

"This was one of the primary reasons why Gould in his book on the Burgess Shale, Wonderful Life, considered that Early Cambrian life was much more diverse and "experimental" than any later set of animals and that the Cambrian explosion was a truly dramatic event, possibly driven by unusual evolutionary mechanisms." Opabinia - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


"possibly driven by unusual evolutionary mechanisms."

Doesn't relate to Darwin...does it.

On both scientific and theological basis, I find no contradiction between evolutionary theories and God as creator. Politically however the contradiction is total. It is possible that the theory of evolution and its fossil artifacts are all a window to how God progresses creation, measured using geological time.

It appears a clarification is necessary here.
I thought I was precise....but perhaps not.
No one is claiming that there is not or is not evolution...

There are a number of theories of evolution. My posts always specify discrepancies with Darwin's thesis.

It is incorrect.

Yet, it is accepted as fact and law...you can see that in posts such as those of Rocks, earlier in the thread.

And....you put you finger on the reason when you say 'politically.'

 

[PoliticalChic]

Even Charles FOrt would say you are nuts...

I wonder how much enjoyment he would get out of gathering up a goodly collection of her posts and pouring over them, astutely selecting the best examples of her bizarre talent for reimagining history into I what I guess Richard Lewontin would also call " fantastical unsubstantiated just-so stories.”

Unfortunately for you, Lewontin was speaking specifically about the current state of science.
And, he was verifying exactly the point I made.

Leaves you looking like a dunce, doesn't it.

 

[JoeB131]

And....you put you finger on the reason when you say 'politically.'

Quite right. You can believe in evolution and a higher power.

But the notion of evolution means there was no Adam and Eve.

no Adam and Eve, no Original sin.

No original sin, no reason for God to become his own father and become Zombie Jesus on a Stick.

Politically, it fucks up the whole of Christianity as a cosmology.

Now, Jesus was just a nice guy who told us to be good to each other and not be greedy assholes, that's not a Jesus people like PoliSpice can get behind. That's a Commie Jesus.