The dishonesty of creationists.

[tumbleweed41]

Creationist Kent Hovind (PhD?) wrote "For instance; they show in the textbooks that the human baby has gill slits. Do you remember being taught that when you went to school? A human baby has gill slits?"

The Truth: Nope - embryos, regardless of whether they are human, have gill arches. These are not the same as actual gill slits. From Encarta: "In a blastocyst less than two weeks old...the microscope reveals the amnion (a sac surrounding the embryo), chorion (a membrane that develops around the amnion and lines the uterine wall), yolk sac, and distinct germ layers...At the beginning of its fourth week the embryo, now about 4 to 5 mm (about 0.16 to 0.2 in) long, has the rudiments of eyes and ears, and each side of the neck shows four gill clefts. A tail is also present."
A yolk sac? A tail? Gill clefts? If god designed adam as an entirely independent, perfectly created creature literally from the ground up, where do humans get off having gill clefts? Why do they have a tail? Why on Earth do we need a yolk sac? These features only make sense within the theory of evolution. They make no sense whatsoever from a creationist point of view.
Nobody ever said the gill clefts are gills, or that the baby ever breathes through them. These are not gills and do not function in humans as gills; however, this same feature - the gill cleft, is precisely what develops to cover the gills in a fish. It is from the same origin, but used for a different purpose. If it is not for the purpose of developing gills, why do fish have it? If it is for the purpose of developing gills, why do humans have it, together with aortic arches and a two-chambered heart at that stage?






Hovind is also fond of saying "Charles Darwin was a racist to the extreme."



Here is a passage from Darwins "Voyage of the Beagle"


"On the 19th of August we finally left the shores of Brazil. I thank God, I shall never again visit a slave-country...Near Rio de Janeiro I lived opposite to an old lady, who kept screws to crush the fingers of her female slaves...I have seen a little boy, six or seven years old, struck thrice with a horse-whip (before I could interfere) on his naked head, for having handed me a glass of water not quite clean;...I was present when a kind-hearted man was on the point of separating forever the men, women, and little children of a large number of families who had long lived together. I will not even allude to the many heart-sickening atrocities which I authentically heard of...It is often attempted to palliate slavery by comparing the state of slaves with our poorer countrymen:...as well might the use of the thumb-screw be defended in one land, by showing that men in another land suffered from some dreadful disease...picture to yourself the chance, ever hanging over you, of your wife and your little children...being torn from you and sold like beasts to the first bidder!...It makes one's blood boil, yet heart tremble, to think that we Englishmen and our American descendants, with their boastful cry of liberty, have been and are so guilty...."



Source

 

[Nepenthe]

Fake Dinosaur-bird ancestor

Alright, I'll bite. I assume you were referring to Archaeoraptor lianoningensis, the fossil discovered in China that became a big controversy in '99?

Archaeoraptor lianoningensis was not a scientific hoax; it was a forgery of two legitimate fossils cleverly combined by a Chinese fossil hunter with the intent to sell it to collectors. The problem with the creationist claim that Archaeoraptor is some kind of embarassment for evolution or scientists in general is that the fossil(s) never appeared in any peer reviewed scientific journals; it popped up in the popular media including National Geographic and even then it was an article written by the magazine's art editor. Science and Nature rejected all of the papers submitted for Archaeoraptor over concerns of illegal smuggling as well as the simple fact it was obviously a doctored fossil. Again, science worked in exposing the forgery and it was never a relevant fossil in the first place.

Forensic palaeontology: The : Archaeoraptor: forgery : Abstract : Nature

 

[Alceste]

Right, so the impression I'm getting is that there have been a few instances of fudged, fabricated, doctored and misrepresented fossils and research that have never been considered a necessary part of the evidence supporting evolution, and that the motive for these has been material self-advancement.

Well, OK then. I'm not aware of any human pursuit that does not have a handful of self-interested charlatans attached to it, scrambling after personal fame and fortune.

Unfortunately for Creationists, these people make up the core of the movement. Luckily for science, these people are the exception to the rule.

 

[tumbleweed41]

Kent Hovind again, explaining the flood and the age of the earth by saying, "The textbooks state that it took billions of years to form the Grand Canyon. That is just not true"

You're right it didn't take _billions_ of years, and for Hovind to portray it as such is truly pathetic. Only an imbecile (with a PhD?) would pull a cheap stunt like that. Creationists are forced to lie about what the textbooks say because if they told the truth, their own lies would be startlingly obvious. The canyon formed in about six million years as far as scientists can determine from the observable evidence. Where is Hovind's observable evidence that shows it was caused by sloshing floodwater?

Source

 

[tumbleweed41]

So, Man-of-Faith,
It is obvious you have bought wholeheartedly into these lies since you brought up some of the famous lies told by creationists yourself.
Your examples of "Evolutionist" lies were merely examples that actually proved that the scientific process works. Yet I have see these examples prominently displayed on creationist websites as "proof" that evolution is false.
Don't you get tired of being mislead by these charlatans?

 

[angellous_evangellous]

Creationist Kent Hovind (PhD?) wrote "For instance; they show in the textbooks that the human baby has gill slits. Do you remember being taught that when you went to school? A human baby has gill slits?"

And speaking of dishonesty...

Since November 2006 Hovind is serving a ten-year prison sentence in the Federal Correctional Institution, Edgefield in Edgefield, South Carolina, after being convicted of 58 federal counts, including twelve tax offenses, one count of obstructing federal agents and forty-five counts of structuring cash transactions.

As for his Poopy hippo diaper -

Hovind was awarded a master's degree and doctorate in Christian Education through correspondence from the non-accredited Patriot University in Colorado Springs, Colorado (now Patriot Bible University in Del Norte, Colorado which no longer offers this program).[7]

Check this out- http://www.noanswersingenesis.org.au/bartelt_dissertation_on_hovind_thesis.htm

 

[tumbleweed41]

As for his Poopy hippo diaper -

Hovind was awarded a master's degree and doctorate in Christian Education through correspondence from the non-accredited Patriot University in Colorado Springs, Colorado (now Patriot Bible University in Del Norte, Colorado which no longer offers this program).[7]

Speaking of which, Next time you see a creation "scientist", ask him where he got his degree.

--"Dr" Richard Bliss, who develops curriculum materials for the Institute for Creation Research, has a doctorate in education from the University of Sarasota in Florida, an unaccredited diploma mill that is located in a hotel.
--"Dr" Kelly Segraves, a co-founder of the Creation Science Research Center, claims to have an MA and DSc degree. The doctorate is supposed to be an honorary degree from "Christian University", but no such place exists in the United States. Segraves dropped the "Dr" from his name in 1981. His Masters is supposed to come from "Sequoia University", but this doesn't exist either. There is a Sequoia College in California, but it has no record of a student named Segraves.
--"Dr" Harold Slusher, a co-founder of the Creation Research Society, claims to have an earned PhD from Columbia Pacific University and an honorary DSc from Indiana Christian University. Indiana Christian is a Bible college, while Columbia Pacific is an unaccredited diploma mill.
--"Dr" Clifford Burdick of the Creation Research Society got his doctorate from the University of Physical Sciences in Arizona, which consists of a post office box at an unaccredited institute in Phoenix.
--"Dr" Carl Baugh, of the Creation Evidences Museum near Glen Rose, Texas, has a PhD in anthropology from the College of Advanced Education, an unaccredited Bible college on the grounds of the Sherwood Park Baptist Church. He has another PhD from the California Graduate School of Theology, an unaccredited college in California.

Source

 

[angellous_evangellous]

Speaking of which, Next time you see a creation "scientist", ask him where he got his degree.

--"Dr" Richard Bliss, who develops curriculum materials for the Institute for Creation Research, has a doctorate in education from the University of Sarasota in Florida, an unaccredited diploma mill that is located in a hotel.
--"Dr" Kelly Segraves, a co-founder of the Creation Science Research Center, claims to have an MA and DSc degree. The doctorate is supposed to be an honorary degree from "Christian University", but no such place exists in the United States. Segraves dropped the "Dr" from his name in 1981. His Masters is supposed to come from "Sequoia University", but this doesn't exist either. There is a Sequoia College in California, but it has no record of a student named Segraves.
--"Dr" Harold Slusher, a co-founder of the Creation Research Society, claims to have an earned PhD from Columbia Pacific University and an honorary DSc from Indiana Christian University. Indiana Christian is a Bible college, while Columbia Pacific is an unaccredited diploma mill.
--"Dr" Clifford Burdick of the Creation Research Society got his doctorate from the University of Physical Sciences in Arizona, which consists of a post office box at an unaccredited institute in Phoenix.
--"Dr" Carl Baugh, of the Creation Evidences Museum near Glen Rose, Texas, has a PhD in anthropology from the College of Advanced Education, an unaccredited Bible college on the grounds of the Sherwood Park Baptist Church. He has another PhD from the California Graduate School of Theology, an unaccredited college in California.

Source

Just for ***** and giggles.

 

[tumbleweed41]

In the January 1996 issue of Acts and Facts, the ICR's monthly newsletter, the following small article appeared:

"TULSA ZOO REMOVES EVOLUTION EXHIBIT"

Tulsa architect Dan Hicks, supported by a petition signed by 2000 area residents, plus a scientifically conducted poll showing that over 2/3 of the city's population believed the zoo should not promote evolution, was able recently to persuade city officials to remove exhibits depicting horse evolution and human evolution from display at the zoo. Hicks and his co-workers credited the influence of ICR materials with playing a significant part in this action and also suggested that citizens in other communities could undertake similar projects."
​

Inquiries to the zoo about the IRC claims resulted in this Memo. It reads:

"RECOLLECTION FROM THE 1995 ORIGINS ENCOUNTER:

Early in 1995, a private citizen (and member of Tulsa Zoo Friends) by the name of Dan Hicks approached the Zoo staff with requests that some Zoo signage be modified. He stated that he was offended by some text, and confounded by that fact that said text contradicted beliefs that he had instilled in his child at home. He specified (a) graphic reference to a common ancestor for chimps and man; (b) 'straight-line evolution' as represented by Equus models in one of our displays; (c) another display's reference to the age of the Cosmos. He offered to replace some of the signage at his own expense, as well to provide a 'disclaimer' attesting to the 'non-factual' nature of evolutionary 'theories'. He was thanked for his interest and input, assured that some thought woul dbe given to his comments about horse evolution, and told that his offer to provide new signage at his own expense would not be necessary.
During the next six months, Dan frequently wrote to me and others with the same basic requests. He appealed to ZooFriends' Executive Director and President, the Director of the Parks and Recreation Department, the Chairman of the Park Board, City Council persons, and the Mayor of Tulsa. Many letters of protest were received from private citizens; most of these were based on a form letter, and many seemed to be affiliated with fundamentalist churches in our area. Letters were written to the editors of local newspapers as well. Petitions were submitted with up to 2,000 signatures; to my knoweldge, these were not prepared or conducted by an independent agency. Our City's population is about 380,000; the metropolitan area is 745,000, and I am unaware of a 'scientifically conducted poll' representing two-thirds of either population number.
In September, City and PArk officials met with Dan Hicks and his associate to discuss their concerns. Although we did not feel it was appropriate to honor all of his requests, we did agree to the following: (a) to place a sign at the Zoo's entry which states, 'There are many views on the origin of biological species and their behaviors. The information that accompanies our displays is based on compelling evidence of the natural sciences. Because scientific knowledge is subject to change, these displays may be revised as new informatin becomes available.' (b) to reword one line of signage from our chimp exhibit from 'Scientific blood tests show that chimpanzees are man's closest biological relative, branching off from a common ancestor about 6 million years ago' to 'Scientific blood tests, including DNA analysis, show a biological similarity between chimps and people'. (c) to modify the exhibit on Equus ancestry to more completely reflect current sicentiifc thought, using the writings of Dr. Bruce McFadden.
Although Mr Hicks volunteered to work with us on copy for the latter modification, we declined his offer. The general tone of our meeting expressed a need for sensitivity to the beliefs of different groups, but confirmed that established scientific principles could not be ignored or watered-down."

David G. Zucconi, Director
Tulsa Zoo and Living Museum
Source





Now why would the ICR lie about such a thing? I wonder....

​

 

[tumbleweed41]

The supposed "Scientific Theory" of Creationism.
Notice that there is nothing "Scientific" in this supposed theory. Yet IDers want this taught in Science classes. More dishonesty.

4000 B.C. Creation Week: (Laws of science suspended)

Day 1 - Space, light & dark, earth materials.
Day 2 - Waters above and waters below.
Day 3 - Earth's crust and plants.
Day 4 - Sun, moon, and stars in place.
Day 5 - Atmosphere + animals of the waters.
Day 6 - Land animals + Adam & Eve.
Day 7 - Day of rest.

1,500 years. Pre-Flood "Geology." (Laws of science invalid.)

(2) Adam and Eve, talking snakes, etc.
(3) World's waters are in great Venus-like atmosphere or in ground
water. No rain, no ocean basins.
(4) Radiometric dating invalid; speed of light changed.
(5) Humans, dinosaurs, mammals, the "works," all live together in
peace. Both lions and Tyrannosaurus Rex are vegetarians in Eden before
the "fall."
(6) Human life spans up to 900 years.
Source

 

[ragordon168]

Hovind is also fond of saying "Charles Darwin was a racist to the extreme."



Here is a passage from Darwins "Voyage of the Beagle"


"On the 19th of August we finally left the shores of Brazil. I thank God, I shall never again visit a slave-country...Near Rio de Janeiro I lived opposite to an old lady, who kept screws to crush the fingers of her female slaves...I have seen a little boy, six or seven years old, struck thrice with a horse-whip (before I could interfere) on his naked head, for having handed me a glass of water not quite clean;...I was present when a kind-hearted man was on the point of separating forever the men, women, and little children of a large number of families who had long lived together. I will not even allude to the many heart-sickening atrocities which I authentically heard of...It is often attempted to palliate slavery by comparing the state of slaves with our poorer countrymen:...as well might the use of the thumb-screw be defended in one land, by showing that men in another land suffered from some dreadful disease...picture to yourself the chance, ever hanging over you, of your wife and your little children...being torn from you and sold like beasts to the first bidder!...It makes one's blood boil, yet heart tremble, to think that we Englishmen and our American descendants, with their boastful cry of liberty, have been and are so guilty...."



Source

how can that ever be used to say Darwin is racist? all he mentions is the atrocity of slavery from what he has observed. i didn't see a single racist remark in there. can anyone point them out?

 

[tumbleweed41]

how can that ever be used to say Darwin is racist? all he mentions is the atrocity of slavery from what he has observed. i didn't see a single racist remark in there. can anyone point them out?

The passage from the book is used to prove that Hovind is wrong in his assertion that Darwin was a racist.
Hovind himself has probably never read 'Voyage of the Beagle'

 

[Alceste]

how can that ever be used to say Darwin is racist? all he mentions is the atrocity of slavery from what he has observed. i didn't see a single racist remark in there. can anyone point them out?

I think you misunderstood - the quote is posted as counter-evidence to the dishonest claim by creationists that Darwin was a racist.

Edit: ah! Beaten by tumbleweed!

 

[Gunfingers]

To be fair, having a distaste for slavery doesn't preclude racism. Given the era in which he lived he probably was racist. It was just the nature of people at the time. President Lincoln was an extreme racist too. It simply happens to not matter to the scientific theory. Mengele was an awful person, but he really did discover techniques that advanced medical science.

 

[tumbleweed41]

To be fair, having a distaste for slavery doesn't preclude racism. Given the era in which he lived he probably was racist. It was just the nature of people at the time. President Lincoln was an extreme racist too. It simply happens to not matter to the scientific theory. Mengele was an awful person, but he really did discover techniques that advanced medical science.

Probabilities do not equal actualities. Mr Hovinds claims have no factual backings and are therefore outright lies.
He did not say,"like others of his time, Darwin was probably a racist," he claimed Darwin was in fact extremely racist.

 

[angellous_evangellous]

Probabilities do not equal actualities. Mr Hovinds claims have no factual backings and are therefore outright lies.
He did not say,"like others of his time, Darwin was probably a racist," he claimed Darwin was in fact extremely racist.

It doesn't matter what Hovinds says. He's on the outer frindges of YEC, and the great majority of creationists don't agree with him anyway... being engaged in other fantacies.

Creationism as a science is intellectually dishonest, but it doesn't mean that its proponents are outright liars. It seems to me like they want their expression of faith - a fundamentalist Christianity - to interpret the most basic of scientific data, and so they are misinterpreting "science." Many of these Christians are simpletons who can't interepret the Bible or scientific data.

I personally know a few medical doctors, dentists, and nurses who refuse to "believe in evolution" and it baffles me.

 

[tumbleweed41]

Duane Gish, Vice-president of the Institute for Creation Research, has made the following false claims in his booklet, "Have You Been Brainwashed?"

• Claims of human and dinosaur footprints together at the Paluxy River site. False

• Claims that the Precambrian is void of fossils. False

• Claims that Biology textbooks use Piltdown or Nebraska man to build a case for human evolution. False

• "not a single indisputable multicellular fossil has been found anywhere in the world in a rock supposedly older than Cambrian rocks." False

• "billions of highly complex animals... just suddenly appear, with no signs of gradual development from lower forms." False

Now who is he trying to brainwash?

 

[tumbleweed41]

.

Creationism as a science is intellectually dishonest, but it doesn't mean that its proponents are outright liars. It seems to me like they want their expression of faith - a fundamentalist Christianity - to interpret the most basic of scientific data, and so they are misinterpreting "science." Many of these Christians are simpletons who can't interepret the Bible or scientific data.

Unfortunately, many of the leaders in the Creationist debate use the ignorance of their followers to misrepresent and falsify science. This intellectual dishonesty not only hurts Christianity as a whole, but produces an large group of misinformed people.

How many times have we heard, "Evolution is just a theory", from people who have absolutely no understanding of what a scientific model is?

Or the misnomer "transitional fossils"?

Or the absolutely complete misuse of, "The Second Law of Thermodynamics."

It is those on the forefront of Creationism that tell these falsehoods. If they know the correct facts, they are liars. If not, then they are not at all qualified to speak of such matters, and are dishonest in their supposed qualifications.

 

[tumbleweed41]

[FONT=Times New Roman, Times]"From 1972-85 Dr. Duane Gish deliberately selected, published and perpetrated a doctored quotation, plagiarised from [Patrick] O'Connell (1969). He then attributed it to [Marcellin] Boule (1937), ...well aware...that it misrepresented the meaning and intention of Boule's text."
[/FONT][FONT=Times New Roman, Times]Alex Ritchie (1991)

[/FONT][FONT=Times New Roman, Times]Gish used a source by a creationist and Roman Catholic priest, Patrick O'Connell, to support his argument that "Peking" Man, a Homo erectus hominid found in China, was likely a monkey or ape (1969). O'Connell believed that the remains of Homo erectus were those of two different creatures, one an ape, and the other fully human. O'Connell misquoted Marcellin Boule, the French anthropologist, as saying that Peking Man had "monkey-like skulls," thereby projecting his own belief as part of Boule's views. Gish copied the misquotation word for word, (1979: pp. 134; see also 1978 edition: pp. 129; 1973 edition: pp. 99) but instead of citing O'Connell, he cited Boule's original work (1937), which he apparently did not consult. Ritchie points out in his article that Gish must have been aware of Boule's actual views on Homo erectus. Boule's book Fossil Men (1957) was used by Gish as a source and it contradicts what Gish claims are Boule's views. Boule actually concluded that Homo erectus was not an ape, but a transitional form between humans and apes.

Source
[/FONT]

 

[themadhair]

Don't forget quote mining Darwin on the eye. That is a particularly nasty piece of dishonesty.