Could you please show where Kettlewell et al referred to the photos as some kind of "proof of a theory" or "evidence"?
>>Could you please show where Kettlewell et al referred to the photos as some kind of "proof of a theory" or "evidence"?
Nope, not gonna do your research for ya. He used them as part of the presentation, whether or not he said “These are accurate” is irrelevant.
Wow, if I fought this hard against evolution, you’d a call me a fanatic. Oh wait…
Can you show where Dan Rather said these documents are 100% accurate in his first airing of them? No, well, he didn’t lie then.
Can you show where Bill Clinton said “I never got a BJ form Monica Lewinski”? No? Well he didn’t lie then.
Give it up already, your obsession with the “No one who is for evolution would ever lie” line shows you for what you are, a believer, not a scientist. (Not that being a believer is bad, if you are willing to admit it.)
Proving a negative is really hard for example; prove that god does not exist:
1. God might be anywhere in the universe and he might be moving around, so you would have to be every where at once to prove he was not there. (That’s omnipresent)
2. He might be hiding somewhere you haven’t thought of so you would have to know everything, and have thought of everywhere he might be, and every form he might take. (That’s omniscient)
3. He might go some where you can’t go or be doing something you can’t do, so you would have to be able to do everything, preferably at once (that’s omnipotent)
In order to prove god does not exist, you would have to be God.