[CottShop]

[[How does the existence of a handful of hoaxes rebut the TOE?]]

On their own, they don’t- however, they just help strengthen the idea that hypothesis is not as sound as we were falsely lead to bleeive it was- those, coupled with biological, mathematical, natural and chemical impossibilities, makes hte hypothesis a failed one.Metainfo being perhaps the biggest and final nail in the coffin- We had a very indepth and lengthy thread on Metainfo- and I noted that everyone ran from it (after first launching themselves into myriad ad hominem attacks, and myriad generalized claism which they were then unwilling to back up with any scientificalyl valid explanations)

No- on their own, the hoaxes don’t falsify Macroevolution- The actual scientific facts and evidneces do that sufficiently- but the hoaxes simply go to point out how desperate macroevolution adherents were to keep their hypothesis alive. The biological science does the talking just fine on it’s own for undermining the hypothesis

[Boxen]

Except these hoaxes were also exposed by “Macroevolutionists.”

[Citizen Blade]

On their own, they don’t- however, they just help strengthen the idea that hypothesis is not as sound as we were falsely lead to bleeive it was

That's like saying the existence of fake Renoir paintings undermines that artist's actual works of art.

but the hoaxes simply go to point out how desperate macroevolution adherents were to keep their hypothesis alive

AFAIK, none of the hoaxes were perpetrated by scientists trying to buttress the TOE. Archaeraptor, for example, was created by Chinses fossil merchants trying to make a buck.