what the questions had to do with, David, mein freund, is they were examples of science error and fraud, that unlike AIG’s upfront announcement of artistic license, were slowly revealed only after considerable delay, whether 40-50 years (moths) or over a hundred(embryos). I gave those examples knowing full and well how this community would respond, defensively and vociferously. I knew there would be explaining away, justifications, and, sadly, downright endorsement. I guess it’s okay if they are on “your side”. AIG, which committed no fraud or error, but announced what it was doing, is, of course, condemned. I guess it’s not okay if they aren’t “on your side”. Just pointing out a slight double standard, which with a simple admission could have ended the conversation there. I never held out much hope, but miracles do happen. (as you can see, I am not a materialist). But it does go to show why there will never be any productive conversation between the two camps. And that is sad. There are brilliant men and women in all the various schools on origins. It’s too bad poor philosophy crowds out good science, and I aim that statement at all camps.