1> We have every reason to look for intelligence as being an agent in the orgins of ife, because we see evidence for it. When you can explain how improbable random events can produce the level of design complexity in the universe, you may be taken remotely seriously.
2> You seem to have no understanding of the periods of time over which these hoaxes lasted, or the damage done to the scientific community.
Professor Reiner Protsch von Zieten was a professor of anthropology at Frankfurt University for 30 years before he was forced to resign after falsifying dates on fossils that he falsely claimed linked humans and Neanderthals. And how was this fraud exposed? When he tried to sell a complete chimpanzee skull collection to the United States.
As of 2000, there were at least 50 biology texts that stilll use Haeckel’s discredited embryo drawings.
“A five million-year-old piece of bone that was thought to be a collarbone of a humanlike creature is actually part of a dolphin rib…The problem with a lot of anthropologists is that they want so much to find a hominid that any scrap of bone becomes a hominid bone.” - Dr. Tim White (anthropologist, University of California, Berkeley). As quoted by Ian Anderson “Hominoid collarbone exposed as dolphin’s rib”, in New Scientist, 28 April 1983, p. 199
I could go on and on, but the point is made. It matters not WHO exposes this dishonesty, it is that there is demonstrablle deceit, and the widespread use of bias and ‘psuedo-science’ in support of evolutionary claims.
Actually, it’s more simple than that. Evolution poses no threat to the notion of an intelligent agent behind creation. Many theists hold such a view, its called theistic evolution.
I happen to have some doubts, simply on the basis of lack of evidence. I don’t need to point to lizards spontaneously sprouting wings because I havn’t claimed they did. A believer in macro evolution, on the other hand, has to not only demonstrate how that coould have happened but also evidence it.
“Atheism is the lack of belief in a deity, which implies that nothing exists but natural phenomena (matter), that thought is a property or function of matter, and that death irreversibly and totally terminates individual organic units. This definition means that there are no forces, phenomena, or entities which exist outside of or apart from physical nature, or which transcend nature, or are “super” natural, nor can there be. Humankind is on its own.”
Note: “there are no forces, phenomena, or entities which exist outside of or apart from physical nature,”
Once again, you don’t know what you’re talking about. There is nothing random about it.
You seem to be under the impression that the scientific community was ever fooled by them, or that their exposure does any damage at all to evolutionary theory. Scientific rigor and peer review is SUPPOSED to weed out fraud. That’s what it’s for. You don’t know what you’re talking about. You’re just spouting creationsits claptrap. None of this rebuts the hard evdience that proves evolution. Educate yourself vefore you spout.
1> We begin by seeing evidneec for design. We look for a source of that design. We consider the competing claims of a purely naturalistic explanation vs. that of an intelligent agent. The intelligent agent is more plausible.
2> The scientific community was indeed fooled by them. In same cases for decades. Scientific rigour may get there eventually, however I consider 80 odd years (in the case of Haeckel’s fraud) to be a it long for comfort.
I think it’s appropriate that you actidentally quoted this in such a way that you appeared to be responding to yourself. I will tell you again that you don’t know what the word “macroevolution” means, and that you have misused it. You seem to believe that it refers to a taxonomic change in a single step. It does not. Macroevolution never refers to a single step. It refers to the end results, speciations and higher taxonomic changes over a period of many incremental (i.e. “microevolutionary”) changes. Enough micro ends in macro, but macro is never a single mutation or adaptation.
An analogy is the way languages change over time. Latin turned slowly into Italian, French an Spanish, but there was never a point at which people were speaking ne langage and it suddenly flipped over to another. The changes are so gradual that no one ever notices, but eventually you end up with completely mew languages. With eough time, you even end up with completely new language families. We are using a language that thousands of years ago was Indo-European, but no incremental change in between was ever a perceptable switch in languages to the people speaking them. It just gradually drifts and drifts and drifts and here we are.
this actually supports me, not you. Your redaing comprehension is for shit. Notice that definition does not include a claim that atheism amounts to a positive claim that gods do not exist, only that it denotes a lack of positive belief that they [i[do*/ Also note that the American Atheists do not speak for all atheists. Atheists do not do religious authority.
Please give a single example of this evidence. So far you’ve offered nothing. We look for a source of that design. We consider the competing claims of a purely naturalistic explanation vs. that of an intelligent agent. The intelligent agent is more plausible.
No, the scientific community exposed them. Yopu are misinformed. You also have a completely erroneous impression that these hoaxes somehow invalidate the mountains of evidence proving evolution and common descent beyond any reasonable refutation. To deny evolution shows either ignorance of the facts or dishonesty.
1> The scientific community was fooled for DECADES in some cases.
2> Of course scientists expose most of these frauds…who else is studying the material?