Do the following fake evidences:
- The Piltdown Man
- Haekel's Embryonic Drawings
disprove that evolution theory?
2007-01-15 13:42:47 · 10 answers · asked by FAUUFDDaa 5 in Society & Culture ➔ Religion & Spirituality
I mean "the"
2007-01-15 13:44:59 · update #1
Why would a couple of examples of fake data invalidate thousands of examples of reliable genuine data? A few years back a scientist claimed to have produced a gene that would cause white hamsters and black hamsters to produce "checkerboard" hamsters, with large black and white square patches of fur. Turns out he produced the checkerboard hamsters by doing skin grafts on normal hamsters. Does this invalidate all genetic research? Or all surgical research? Does it have any effect at all on legitimate research?
And a note to King's Kid - most biologists in fact believe in God, and find no conflict between their relationship with God and the facts of science. Why would there be? Truth cannot conflict with truth. I'm a born again Christian biologist myself. The real problem is those Christians who think they are required to reject reality because it doesn't coincide with their personal interpretations of the Bible. Maybe instead they should be humble enough to say, "gee, what I thought the Bible says contradicts scientific findings supported by mountains of reliable scientific data. Maybe my personal interpretations of the Bible are not infallible after all". Remember, pride cometh before the fall.
.
2007-01-15 15:07:42 · answer #1 · answered by PaulCyp 7 · 2⤊ 0⤋
Not really...
The Haekel drawings were exaggerated, but his findings are still evidence for Evolutionary development (not recapitulation).
The piltdown man was a questionable fossil from the start (it didn't really fit in with the proposed line of descent), but it was eventually uncovered as a hoax, Granted, its not a particularly shining example of Science, but it still demonstrates Science's ability to recognize and weed out error and deceit.
2007-01-15 13:56:12 · answer #2 · answered by eigelhorn 4 · 0⤊ 1⤋
No. They demonstrate the process by which science reinvestigates the data. The fact that frauds are uncovered shows how the process works. Evolution remains robust, and the removal of the erroneous data, makes the fossil record easier, to interpret. Embryology is similarly enhanced.
2007-01-15 16:53:13 · answer #3 · answered by novangelis 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Fake evidence does not disprove anything but it shows the length some people will go to trying to deny God and special creation.
2007-01-15 14:11:24 · answer #4 · answered by Bullfrog21 6 · 1⤊ 0⤋
According to evolutionists, there is not God therefore it is not a matter of religion or spirituality but of science although Creation belongs in religion and spirituality because it speaks of the scientifically and spritually and archealogically proven facts of the Bible and thus the validity of the Creation account as more than reliable and believable instead of a myth and folklore like evolution is. Evolution is simply a deceptive anti-Christ spirit which blasphemes God and His Son Jesus Christ. (does that make it spiritual?)
2007-01-15 14:22:14 · answer #5 · answered by Lovin' Mary's Lamb 4 · 0⤊ 2⤋
Not at all, because the preponderance of the evidence is not fake.
2007-01-15 14:00:02 · answer #6 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 1⤋
Of course not. Are there any portions in the theory that hinge on those being true? No.
2007-01-15 13:48:42 · answer #7 · answered by mullah robertson 4 · 1⤊ 1⤋
Not necessarily, but it does tend to show the great need some people have to force their beliefs on others.....
2007-01-15 13:56:55 · answer #8 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 1⤋
No, why would they? Fake evidences obviously don't disprove anything.
2007-01-15 13:49:15 · answer #9 · answered by atheist jesus 4 · 1⤊ 1⤋
no but a book of secrets and lies somehow proves that adam and steve were real
2007-01-15 13:50:36 · answer #10 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 1⤋