Why Lie? (Re: Evolution frauds and hoaxes)

There is a huge difference. But, this argument was not an attempt to pass them off as the same thing: it was showing you the source of the error. Pig teeth are similar to human teeth, so it's fairly easy to get them confused. There is also a very big difference between mistakenly thinking something is a human tooth for understandable reasons and "trying to pass it off as a human tooth." The first is not a lie; the second is. This quote above sounds very much like an attempt at slandering (libeling?) evolutionists as dishonest conspirators. The people who did it honestly thought it was a "common ancestor," they were not "trying to pass it off" as one.Being wrong is not lying.Edited by Bluejay, : I left out the word "not."

---

Darwin loves you.

Actually, it does work both ways. That is, it does, if would if you had said it like this: However, since you actually said it like this: I agree with anglagard.Religion does not subject itself to the scrutiny that science subjects itself to, nor does it ever question its tenets. The entire point of science is to question things, because questioning is the only way to make it stronger.So, if one biased scientist wants to forge something, the first group of people he has to convince may be the media, but he'll eventually have to face up to his scientist colleagues. As soon as he publishes his work, he submits himself and his academic reputation to his colleagues, many of whom consider it their duty and privilege to assail any new, paradigm-changing idea that comes along the pike. He no longer has control over what happens to his study.Have you read about Homo floresiensis, the "hobbit" fossil found in Indonesia? Somebody found a dwarf hominid that survived until something like 15,000 years ago on Flores Island, which they described as a new species derived from H. erectus. There are several scientists who believe it's just a pathological human, and they have attacked it with a rash of papers over the last couple years about possible alternative explanations for the fossils.As far as I know, the species is still accepted by the scientific community at large, and the original description still stands. But, if it had been a fake (or even if they researchers had just been mistaken), do you think it would have survived this kind of pounding? Here is a link to a search window on Fox News's website that talks about a large handful of the studies that have come out about H. floresiensis. Feel free to peruse them and see what the critics (these critics are scientists) are saying about the fossil.Also know that, whenever something important and high-profile comes out in science, scientist critics pop up all over the world to challenge it, just like they did to Homo floresiensis.So, no it doesn't work the same way between science and religion.

---

Darwin loves you.

I'll admit that I had to look up "phylotypic stage."However, from what I read (in the article you provided), the phylotypic stage is not the same thing as the Biogenetic Law.The Biogenetic Law said that each developing (e.g.) mammalian embryo started as a wormlike thing, then developed into a fish, then into an amphibian, then into a reptile, then into a mammal.The phylotypic stage suggested that all vertebrate embryos looked the same at a specific stage in their development. You are accusing evolutionists of holding on to fraudulent data, when, in fact, the data they are holding on to is not fraudulant. From the very first line in the abstract of your source:

quote:

---

Embryos of different species of vertebrate
share a common organisation and often look similar.

---

This is not controversial. And this is what evolutionists are holding on to. Some people take it too far and call it a "phylotypic stage," while others have argued against it. But, once again, the "phylotypic stage" argument is not the same as Haeckel's Biogenetic Law. Can you see how the Biogenetic Law could be wrong, but the phylotypic stage could still be right?I admit that, in light of the source you've provided, it looks like a lot of scientists held on to an exaggeratedly tidy "phylotypic stage" beyond the allowance of the data. But, I object to your insistence that this was fraudulant and a blatant attempt to conspiratorially promote evolutionary theory. And, remember, once again, it was evolutionary scientists who found, exposed and corrected this error (even though it was admittedly slow in coming).I said this earlier to Dont Be a Flea:Being wrong is not lying!

---

Darwin loves you.