The dishonesty of creationists.

[shadowsmith]

Are you joking or serious? It's impossible to tell with creationists.

I'm joking and according to my computers spell check creationist isn't a word.

 

[McBell]

I'm joking and according to my computers spell check creationist isn't a word.

then you should update you spell checker...

 

[painted wolf]

I used to be very sympathetic to creationists... but the lies and deliberate deceptions have worn me down to the point that now I can't support them in the slightest. (though I am still a theist so I suppose that is one area we can agree on)

Even their examples of "scientific fraud" are deliberately misleading to the point of being frauds themselves.

Ironically, creationism played a key role in why I'm a biologist today.

wa:do

 

[DeitySlayer]

I know what the theory of evolution is.

Go on then. Sum it up in a sentence or two, and then go ahead and tell us all why it's flawed. And oh, while you're at it, try and find an alternative explanation for:

Protein functional redundancy, DNA functional redundancy, Transposons, Redundant pseudogenes, Endogenous retroviruses, Anatomical parahomology, Molecular parahomology, Anatomical convergence, Molecular convergence, Anatomical suboptimal function, Molecular suboptimal function, Nested hierarchies, Convergence of independent phylogenies

Transitional forms: Reptile-birds, Reptile-mammals, Ape-humans, Legged whales, Legged seacows, Chronology of common ancestors

Anatomical vestiges including: Atavisms, Whales and dolphins with hindlimbs, Humans tails, Molecular vestiges, Ontogeny and developmental biology, Mammalian ear bones, reptilian jaws, Pharyngeal pouches, branchial arches, Snake embryos with legs, Embryonic human tail, Marsupial eggshell and caruncle

Past biogeography of: Marsupials, Horses, Apes and humans

Note that 'I don't know any of that!' is not an adequate answer; it merely displays scientific ignorance or deliberate avoidance of the facts in order to protect the fragility of your worldview. Until you know all of this evidence leading into the elegance of evolutionary theory, you have no right to deem it false.

 

[AxisMundi]

I know what the theory of evolution is.

The question is, young sir, if you understand what "scientific theory" means.

 

[shadowsmith]

Go on then. Sum it up in a sentence or two, and then go ahead and tell us all why it's flawed. And oh, while you're at it, try and find an alternative explanation for:

Protein functional redundancy, DNA functional redundancy, Transposons, Redundant pseudogenes, Endogenous retroviruses, Anatomical parahomology, Molecular parahomology, Anatomical convergence, Molecular convergence, Anatomical suboptimal function, Molecular suboptimal function, Nested hierarchies, Convergence of independent phylogenies

Transitional forms: Reptile-birds, Reptile-mammals, Ape-humans, Legged whales, Legged seacows, Chronology of common ancestors

Anatomical vestiges including: Atavisms, Whales and dolphins with hindlimbs, Humans tails, Molecular vestiges, Ontogeny and developmental biology, Mammalian ear bones, reptilian jaws, Pharyngeal pouches, branchial arches, Snake embryos with legs, Embryonic human tail, Marsupial eggshell and caruncle

Past biogeography of: Marsupials, Horses, Apes and humans

Note that 'I don't know any of that!' is not an adequate answer; it merely displays scientific ignorance or deliberate avoidance of the facts in order to protect the fragility of your world view. Until you know all of this evidence leading into the elegance of evolutionary theory, you have no right to deem it false.

I never said it was false. I came in here in search for facts.

 

[painted wolf]

I never said it was false. I came in here in search for facts.

Perhaps this thread would be helpful then: http://www.religiousforums.com/forum/evolution-vs-creationism/94931-ask-biologist.html

wa:do

 

[Autodidact]

I know what the theory of evolution is.

Oh, I see, you're deliberately dishonest. I'll make a note.

ETA: No, wait, you're joking? As I say, it's impossibly to tell with creationists. You're not actually objecting to ToE, just pretending? I'm confused.

 

[Autodidact]

I never said it was false. I came in here in search for facts.

Well you've got us all confused. Your question makes so little sense that we don't know whether you're joking, ignorant, dishonest, or just confused. It's kind of like saying, "If the earth is round, where is the quimbolo?" Say what?

 

[shadowsmith]

Sorry if I confused you. I was ignorant and confused about ToE. But I've done some deep studying over the past couple of days and now I'm not confused anymore. Again I'm sorry for confusing you.

 

[Wotan]

Sorry if I confused you. I was ignorant and confused about ToE. But I've done some deep studying over the past couple of days and now I'm not confused anymore. Again I'm sorry for confusing you.

"Couple of days?" You re a quick study.:sarcastic

 

[tumbleweed41]

Science - AllAboutScience.org

This site hides behind the cloak of "Actual Science" while distorting evolutionary biology to fit into the Creationist model.

Wonder why they have to hide their agenda?

Their opening page....

Science

Science is the human endeavor to discover truths about the world around us. Scientists seek out answers through observation and experimentation. As we discover more and more, we are able to apply what we've learned to develop new technologies and to improve everyday life. But perhaps more importantly, as we gain knowledge through science, we are able to begin satisfying our deep-felt need to know more about ourselves.

And their dishonesty...

Darwin's Theory of Evolution is a theory in crisis in light of the tremendous advances we've made in molecular biology, biochemistry and genetics over the past fifty years. We now know that there are in fact tens of thousands of irreducibly complex systems on the cellular level. Specified complexity pervades the microscopic biological world. Molecular biologist Michael Denton wrote, "Although the tiniest bacterial cells are incredibly small, weighing less than 10-12 grams, each is in effect a veritable micro-miniaturized factory containing thousands of exquisitely designed pieces of intricate molecular machinery, made up altogether of one hundred thousand million atoms, far more complicated than any machinery built by man and absolutely without parallel in the non-living world."


A so called "Science" site, (with top billings in Google and Yahoo search engines) stressing the overwhelmingly debunked "irreducibility complexity"?


(The site is owned by Creationist and Christian motivational speaker Randall Niles.)

 

[AxisMundi]

Irreducibly complex systems, gotta love it since it's an AutoFail every time.

 

[rusra02]

[/size][/font][/size][/font]

That's so interesting, but what does it have to do with the Theory of Evolution? Did someone here, or anywhere, claim that ToE is true because of this fly?

Nice try at misdirecting... You asked for examples of scientific fraud and now you change the subject. That fly was used to claim the ToE is true. The lie of the fly was used to support the lie of macro evolution.

 

[tumbleweed41]

Nice try at misdirecting... You asked for examples of scientific fraud and now you change the subject. That fly was used to claim the ToE is true. The lie of the fly was used to support the lie of macro evolution.

Speaking of misdirecting....

The 'Amber Fly" was thought to be an example of a species that had remained unchanged for 38 million years. Not an example of macro-evolution. But rather a fallacious example of millions of years of stability in a species.

Fannia scalaris, fake fossil fly in amber - Animals, Insects and Arachnids at The Natural History Museum, London

 

[tomato1236]

Most Creationists rely on the reveled revelations of the Bible, and a literal interpretation of the OT in particular. As a former Christian I was also taught the inerrancy of the Bible.

I was also taught as a Christian not to bear false witness, that is, to lie, use deceit, or mislead is wrong.
However, the instances where leading Creations do deceive are numerous, and show the dishonesty many Creationists will stoop to in order to persuade those ignorant of science that Evolution and the ToE are wrong.​

Kent Hovind claimed of the Vollosovitch mammoth findings, "One part of a mammoth was carbon-dated at 29,000 years old. Another part is 44,000 years old. Here’s two parts of the same animal. That’s from USGS Professional Paper #862."​

When in fact the truth is,

"Hovind makes a big-time misrepresentation here. I looked at the data in USGS Professional Paper 862. It is a 1975 paper by Troy Pewe entitled “Quaternary Stratigraphic Nomenclature in Unglaciated Central Alaska”. It is a description of stratigraphic units in Alaska, but does contain more than 150 radiocarbon dates. Many of these dates are from the 1950’s and 60’s. There are three references to mammoths: hair from a mammoth skull (found by Geist in 1951 in frozen silt); “flesh from lower leg, Mammuthus primigenius” (found by Osborne in 1940, 26 m below the surface); and the “skin and flesh of Mammuthus primigenius[”] [baby mammoth] (found by Geist in 1948 “with a beaver dam”). The dates given are, respectively, 32,700; 15,380; and 21,300 years BP BUT the last is thought to be an invalid date because the hide was soaked in glycerin.

NOWHERE IN THE PAPER DOES IT SAY, OR EVEN IMPLY, THAT THESE SPECIMENS ARE PARTS OF THE SAME ANIMAL. They were found in different places, at different times, by different people. One is even termed “baby”, and the other is not. To construct this Fractured Fairy Tale, Hovind must have hoped that no one listening would check and see what his reference really said." Karen E. Bartelt​

Jonathan Sarfati of Answers in Genesis tells us that, "Human lysozyme is closer to chicken lysozyme than to that of any other mammal."
Duane Gish who has a doctorate in biochemistry has said the same thing​

While the truth is, it is not true nor is it even close to being true. Human lysozyme is identical to chimpanzee lysozyme thus elementary logic tells us it not possible for another lysozyme to be closer. In reality, chicken lysozyme differs from human lysozyme in 51 out of 130 positions.​

These are leading men in the Creationist debate, yet they rely on lies and half truths to try to "prove" Creationism.​

Is this dishonesty approved by other Christians?​

Info​

​

​

Yeah! Being an idiot rocks!

 

[rusra02]

Speaking of misdirecting....

The 'Amber Fly" was thought to be an example of a species that had remained unchanged for 38 million years. Not an example of macro-evolution. But rather a fallacious example of millions of years of stability in a species.

Fannia scalaris, fake fossil fly in amber - Animals, Insects and Arachnids at The Natural History Museum, London

To say nothing of the lie that the fly was 38 million years old... More misdirection..

 

[painted wolf]

To say nothing of the lie that the fly was 38 million years old... More misdirection..

Cleared up by Science!
Like many other Creationist forgeries.

wa:do

 

[AxisMundi]

To say nothing of the lie that the fly was 38 million years old... More misdirection..

Flys were around during the Triassic era, app 250 to 200 million years ago.

While the "Pilton Fly" was indeed a fraud (also a common fraud today - artificially inserting insects and other materials into amber and sealing them in with resins. Buyers beware on Ebay), the insect family of Diptera is indeed very old.

And that's part of the beauty of science, it is self correcting.

 

[tumbleweed41]

Click the link provided and you will see a laundry list of Creationist dishonesty and misdirection.

Evolution has died many deaths only to be resuscitated by the constant invention of new and more convoluted theories.

Terms such as convergent evolution, allopatric speciation, peripatric speciation, paratactic speciation, sympatric speciation, genetic drift, homoplasy and much more, are all created as some sort of links to a resuscitation machine to breathe life into the dead to give some artificial colour and resemblance of life.

Here is an article that does a fair job of outlining the death of TOE. The writer calls the evolutionary theoretical science of TOE, Zombie Science, an apt descriptor.

Debunking Evolution - problems, errors, and lies of evolution exposed as false and wrong

"Violation of Second Law of Thermodynamics" arguments.
"Irreducible Complexity" arguments.
"Scientific Dissent from Darwinism" paper.
Blatant quote mining.
Conflating Biological Evolution with Abiogenesis.

Etc, etc, etc...

Sometimes I fall back into my old Christian way of thinking and wonder if Satan, the Father of Lies, is behind these Creationist lies.