Why Lie? (Re: Evolution frauds and hoaxes)

Any time you want to start a thread comparing the accuracy and veracity of science vs. creationists, please feel free.

Things like this are all creationists have to go on.Otherwise they wouldn't keep harping on dead issues like this.

Your understanding of the way "theory" is used in science needs to be improved.A theory is an explanation for facts and laws, it needs to account for all facts, it needs to have been tested, and it needs to successfully have made predictions.Theories are not proved; the theory is the highest level of understanding.Here are a couple of definitions I have put together that may help:

Using these definitions, which apply throughout science, the theory of evolution is one of the strongest theories in science. It has withstood both discoveries and challenges for 150 years.

---

Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.

It is a non-issue, everywhere but the creationist websites.But I'm still waiting for evidence of the five forged fossils I asked for back in post 10 of this thread.Given the lack of response to the challenge, I think it is safe to assume that there are not five such forgeries known, and the original claim was vastly overstated.The whole point of this thread was how many lies there are supporting evolution. I sure see little evidence presented of all the "frauds and hoaxes" -- hmmmmmmm.

---

Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.

The issue has become clear: there aren't five forged fossils. All folks can do after Piltdown and Archaeoraptor is pick on generally old, and generally minor, issues -- issues, not forgeries.The claim over improper reconstruction of KNM-ER 1470 involves the angle of the face; if I remember correctly it is attached only at the nasals so there is leeway in the angle, and the original reconstruction was not supported by subsequent analysis.In other words, science straightened out an error. This has been dishonestly magnified by creationists into a huge blow to the theory of evolution.(If you got no data supporting your case you gotta do something to keep all of the creationists' disbelief in the theory of evolution going.)

---

Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.

And can you specify the mechanism that prevents that variation from growing through time until the subsequent species is different from the parent species?If there is such a mechanism I have yet to have a creationist specify it in detail -- they just claim that such variation has a limit and hope nobody will call them on it.

---

Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.

When all of your scientific research is done on sites like AnswersInGenesis, you naturally get a distorted view of the evidence supporting the theory of evolution.And you might even get to believing that what AIG writes is accurate.That only prepares one for a rude awakening on encountering the real world and all the evidence there actually is.

---

Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.

My post said websites like Answers in Genesis. The information content of your posts echoes creationist literature and websites; which ones is not an important issue.You do not have a valid argument for a lot of reasons; many of these have been pointed by posters on this thread. In fact, I suspect all of your claims have been rebutted by now.And on some subjects, "that I said so" should count for something as I have actually studied the subject in some depth. I did six years of grad school, with about half of it spend studying evolution, fossil man, osteology, human races, anatomy, primates, and other related subjects. I actually handled and studied most of the important fossils (as casts) that were discovered prior to about 1979.You, on the other hand, have made extravagant claims which you have not been able to back up.I am still waiting for the five forged fossils, and you have not been able to come up with even one additional sample beyond the two I spotted you.I think you should instead come up with an apology for your blatant over-exaggeration and libel of thousands of hard-working scientists worldwide.

---

Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.