• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

The dishonesty of creationists.

K

Krok

Active Member
9Westy9 said:
Wikipedia is down xD
Click to expand...
You could start at APOD: 2004 February 20 - SN1987A's Cosmic Pearls. Basically, SN1987A is a supernova studied very intensively. It's distance from the earth was determined by basic trigonometry and also with the maximum the speed of light in a vacume, independantly (numerous times). This confirmed that the maximum speed of light in a vacume hasn't changed for the last 168 000 years . As expected.

That's not all of it: spectroscopy on it also confirmed that the half-lives of radiometric elements were the same 168 000 years ago were the same as they are now. Neat. Measured.

Of course creationists keep inforrming us that angles were different before "the flood" a few thousand years ago....and that the "flood" around 4000 years ago changed the halve-lives of those radioactive elements on SN1987A differently than on earth, due to " evolutionary assumptions".

It's just so strange that the "assumptions" we use on earth also work very neatly on the light from a a supernova happening 168 000 years ago.

Then creationists also ignore the findings on other Supernovae, from millions and also billions of years ago...apparently "the flood" changed them all somehow.
 
Last edited:
9Westy9

9Westy9

Sceptic, Libertarian, Egalitarian
Premium Member
Krok said:
You could start at APOD: 2004 February 20 - SN1987A's Cosmic Pearls. Basically, SN1987A is a supernova studied very intensively. It's distance from the earth was determined by basic trigonometry and also with the maximum the speed of light in a vacume, independantly (numerous times). This confirmed that the maximum speed of light in a vacume hasn't changed for the last 168 000 years . As expected.

That's not all of it: spectroscopy on it also confirmed that the half-lives of radiometric elements were the same 168 000 years ago were the same as they are now. Neat. Measured.

Of course creationists keep inforrming us that angles were different before "the flood" a few thousand years ago....and that the "flood" around 4000 years ago changed the halve-lives of those radioactive elements on SN1987A differently than on earth, due to " evolutionary assumptions".

It's just so strange that the "assumptions" we use on earth also work very neatly on the light from a a supernova happening 168 000 years ago.

Then creationists also ignore the findings on other Supernovae, from millions and also billions of years ago...apparently "the flood" changed them all somehow.
Click to expand...

sounds convincing xD
 
K

Krok

Active Member
Last edited:
9Westy9

9Westy9

Sceptic, Libertarian, Egalitarian
Premium Member
Krok said:
No, don't listen to me. I'm not a cosmologist or physicist or anything like that at all. I accept the scientific consensus on matters like that. I don't know enough to tell all those experts that they are all wrong. Another source (although old)
Supernovae, Supernova Remnants and Young Earth Creationism FAQ

Another good one SN1987A and the Age of the Universe
Click to expand...

You might be interested in this thread I made after a friend showed me an article http://www.religiousforums.com/forum/science-religion/127107-speed-light-constant.html
 
Dirty Penguin

Dirty Penguin

Master Of Ceremony
Krok said:
Never heard of Christian de Duve or Jaques Monod before. But here it goes. I'll go for the first quote mine

I'll give a proper reference for it!

Read the article. You're telling untruths, again.

He said: "The answer of modern molecular biology to this much-debated question is categorical: chance, and chance alone, did it all, from primeval soup to man, with only natural selection to sift its effects. This affirmation now rests on overwhelming factual evidence." From A Guided Tour Of The Living Cell, Volume Two, Page 357, Scientific American Library, 1984 . Read the rest of the article, too. His words, not mine.

De Duve never said that evolution is random or by chance. He said that it seizes on small random events, keeping the useful ones, and discarding the rest. And, that there's evidence for that - such as transitional forms (facts creationists ignore), and laboratory demonstrations (facts creationists ignore), that the raw materials of life would have been present on the early Earth. You can read it, yourself!

Just stop telling untruths. You don't put your religion into a favourable light with your untruths.

Do you want me to go into your second quote mine? You even told more lies!

Just a thought; why do creationists always lie and don't ever stop telling untruths? Creationists always lie. That's why the only "argument" they think they have, after exposing their lies about scientific facts, is quote mining. They don't even realise that science is not done with quotes, but with data!
Click to expand...

The ones that debate here and other places regurgitate what is written in some JW magazine of yesteryear or off of Ken Ham or Hovin's websites thinking it actually passes as proper science ....or they quote mine so much they have convinced themselves the lie is actually true....not realizing we own or have access to the material they're purposely misquoting....:sad:
 
K

Krok

Active Member
Dirty Penguin said:
The ones that debate here and other places regurgitate what is written in some JW magazine of yesteryear or off of Ken Ham or Hovin's websites thinking it actually passes as proper science ....or they quote mine so much they have convinced themselves the lie is actually true....not realizing we own or have access to the material they're purposely misquoting....
Click to expand...
I just wonder why they can't even do a quick search on the original sources? It's so easy. Everyone can search for actual information and point out their lies (they're probably not intelligent enough to realise that Google is MY friend and could be theirs, too?):D All they need to do is to sort and seperate the diamonds from the coprolites and take the diamonds. I guess that involves an evolved homo sapiens sapiens brain, so it would be difficult for AIG, CMI, ID or Watchtower parrots. They'd rather throw their unfossilised coprolites at us and think nobody notices.
 
Last edited:
painted wolf

painted wolf

Grey Muzzle
It was when I started looking at the actual sources that I was convinced that creationism/ID was bunk. Before that, I was a pretty content with creationism.

I'm reasonably certain that to preserve their faith in creationism they will studiously ignore checking the sources. It's easier to have faith that your leaders aren't lying to you than to check it out for yourself.

wa:do
 
Dirty Penguin

Dirty Penguin

Master Of Ceremony
Krok said:
I just wonder why they can't even do a quick search on the original sources?
Click to expand...


They believe these organizations actually care about them, care about the truth....so when they (creationist) go to their publications or websites it's all laid out there for them...in a neat little apologetic straw-man argument. You and I may go to the direct source but others may be too lazy to.....
 
Heathen Hammer

Heathen Hammer

Nope, you're still wrong
Krok said:
What can you do with people who don't want to learn anything about the basics?
Click to expand...
Soylent-Green-lg.gif
 
tumbleweed41

tumbleweed41

Resident Liberal Hippie
rusra02 said:
"Chance, and chance alone, did it all, from the primeval soup to man." Christian de Duve

"Pure chance, absolutely free but blind, [is] at the very root of the studpendous edidice of evolution. Man knows at last that he is alone in the universe's unfeeling immensity, out of which he emerged only by chance." - Jacques L. Monod

Just a thought. You might want to be careful that you not become what you accuse others to be.
Click to expand...

Krok said:
Never heard of Christian de Duve or Jaques Monod before. But here it goes. I'll go for the first quote mine

I'll give a proper reference for it!

Read the article. You're telling untruths, again.

He said: "The answer of modern molecular biology to this much-debated question is categorical: chance, and chance alone, did it all, from primeval soup to man, with only natural selection to sift its effects. This affirmation now rests on overwhelming factual evidence." From A Guided Tour Of The Living Cell, Volume Two, Page 357, Scientific American Library, 1984 . Read the rest of the article, too. His words, not mine.

De Duve never said that evolution is random or by chance. He said that it seizes on small random events, keeping the useful ones, and discarding the rest. And, that there's evidence for that - such as transitional forms (facts creationists ignore), and laboratory demonstrations (facts creationists ignore), that the raw materials of life would have been present on the early Earth. You can read it, yourself!

Just stop telling untruths. You don't put your religion into a favourable light with your untruths.

Do you want me to go into your second quote mine? You even told more lies!

Just a thought; why do creationists always lie and don't ever stop telling untruths? Creationists always lie. That's why the only "argument" they think they have, after exposing their lies about scientific facts, is quote mining. They don't even realise that science is not done with quotes, but with data!
Click to expand...
Thanks to rusra02 for providing a fine example of quote mining in support of the OP.
 
K

Krok

Active Member
tumbleweed41 said:
Thanks to rusra02 for providing a fine example of quote mining in support of the OP.
Click to expand...
The only question is: does Rusra02 understand why his or her quote-mine is not true? Does he or she understand that repeating that quote-mine is also telling an untruth?
 
rusra02

rusra02

Well-Known Member
Premium Member
Dirty Penguin said:
The ones that debate here and other places regurgitate what is written in some JW magazine of yesteryear or off of Ken Ham or Hovin's websites thinking it actually passes as proper science ....or they quote mine so much they have convinced themselves the lie is actually true....not realizing we own or have access to the material they're purposely misquoting....:sad:
Click to expand...

Despite the efforts of ToE apologists to explain away the facts, the quotes cited speak for themselves. Saying black is white and white is black doesn't make it so.
 
Looncall

Looncall

Well-Known Member
rusra02 said:
Despite the efforts of ToE apologists to explain away the facts, the quotes cited speak for themselves. Saying black is white and white is black doesn't make it so.
Click to expand...

He quite evidently has no idea that quote mining is dishonest.
 
TC Mike

TC Mike

Member
What I find dishonest is the branding of a whole group of people based on a few people who use dishonesty. There are bad apples in any group of people, this is how stereotypes get started. If I find information to be incorrect that I used to think was right, I change my thinking about it and don't use that incorrect information to support my case, whatever my case may be.
 
Dirty Penguin

Dirty Penguin

Master Of Ceremony
TC Mike said:
What I find dishonest is the branding of a whole group of people based on a few people who use dishonesty. There are bad apples in any group of people, this is how stereotypes get started. If I find information to be incorrect that I used to think was right, I change my thinking about it and don't use that incorrect information to support my case, whatever my case may be.
Click to expand...

Don't worry. We try our hardest around here not to generalize and stereotype. When we say "creationist" we may be referring to the ones who think like rusra02 and a few other here at RF.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top