LIIA
Well-Known Member
How did I miss that last phrase. No, scientists hate forgeries. They never lead to the truth. There are only two that I know of. Piltdown man, which was accepted by mostly British scientists since they made the mistake of letting ego get to them. And a little bit by American scientists. It was not well accepted elsewhere and what acceptance that it got hindered the theory of evolution . You appear to be trying to change your claim about archaeoraptor after the fact. That was a forgery that was discovered almost immediately by experts in the field. The finding did not go through peer review and shows why peer review is so important to the sciences. Experts in the field immediately saw through it. But, as I said it still added to scientific knowledge singe part of it was a transitional species.
How about Orce Man & Nebraska Man? It may not be an intended forgery, but it explains the urge that those scientists have to immediately jump to conclusions based on some nonsense. How can you build that much inference based on a single tooth or a small bone fragment? To me, It’s almost equal to an intended forgery. See #1252.
Darwin's Illusion | Page 63 | Religious Forums
But heck, almost all species can be shown to be transitional today. If one finds a new fossil it is almost a given that it is transitional. Today what would be interesting to find is a fossil that is not transitional.
The problem is that the interpretation is typically based on morphological features yet ignores the essential need for a chronologically ordered series of fossils showing a lineage of ancestors and descendants, which is a must if evolution is true. The descendants cannot exist before the alleged ancestors.
Evidence of a coherent evolutionary developmental line of chronologically ordered gradual transitional variants was never established. Never. That’s way the typical word used is relative not an ancestor to imply some sort of unknown relationship.
When it comes to Christianity there have been all sorts of fraud perpetrated in the name of Christianity. Serious Christians hate those. They detract from the true knowledge. I do not know if there is the same sort of problem in Islam. Are their various "relics of Mohammad"? Relics are quite often fake. Would you rely on a fake relic of Mohammad? i am betting that you would not. The same goes for the sciences.
It’s important not to confuse the role of religion and science. Generally, each has its domain. There is no contradiction. In fact, the Islamic Civilization was the first Civilization where its citizens were religiously obligated to learn to read, write and disseminate knowledge which led to the Islamic scientific achievement of the “Islamic Golden Age”. Islam was the driving force that established the basis of the new scientific method. Are you even aware that the numbers that you are using are Arabic numbers? Can you Imagine how would our world today look like without it? See # 332.
Fibonacci’s work made the Arabic numerals known in Europe. European trade, books, and colonialism helped popularize the adoption of Arabic numerals around the world. See the link
Arabic numerals - Wikipedia
Robert Briffault in his book “The Making of Humanity” wrote “What we call science arose in Europe as a result of a new spirit of inquiry, of new methods of investigation, of the method of experiment, observation, measurement, of the development of mathematics in a form unknown to the Greeks. That spirit and those methods were introduced into the European world by the Arabs.”
https://ia600905.us.archive.org/5/items/makingofhumanity00brifrich/makingofhumanity00brifrich.pdf
The making of humanity (archive.org)
Scientists hate frauds. If they find them they tend to expose them immediately. Piltdown man was a rather good forgery for that time period. But as technology improved it was the scientists that exposed it
Yes, I agree that generally Scientists hate frauds. But don’t underestimate the impact of false axioms, bias, dogmatic control, and urge to make an achievement/discovery in addition to possible intentional forgery in some cases.
I can’t claim all transitional fossils to be products of forgery, not at all, it's not true, but I do claim that the interpretation of the fossils is mostly the product of bias/false axiom as explained in #1864 item 5.
Darwin's Illusion | Page 94 | Religious Forums
Creationists have never had a hand in exposing a fraud.
You imply that a creationist cannot be a scientist, which is not true.