The dishonesty of creationists.

[rusra02]

Or if I could quote mine you by way of demonstration.

"He... Is dishonest"

Though, I don't know how you could say such a thing! It's quite rude!

wa:do

Anyone who reads the quote for themselves can determine whether what was quoted was out of context. ToE proponents seem to resort to ridicule and false accusations when confronted with proof that evolution claims "chance and chance alone" is responsible for all life.

 

[tumbleweed41]

Wow, still pushing that quote mine?

Perfect thread for it...

 

[Looncall]

Anyone who reads the quote for themselves can determine whether what was quoted was out of context. ToE proponents seem to resort to ridicule and false accusations when confronted with proof that evolution claims "chance and chance alone" is responsible for all life.

Of course they do. That claim is ridiculous and deserves ridicule.

 

[rusra02]

Of course they do. That claim is ridiculous and deserves ridicule.

Why do you say that?

 

[Looncall]

Why do you say that?

Because that statement (chance and chance alone) is false.

Evolution works by a combination of chance mutation and very-not-chance-based selection. Added to that, what happens is very much constrained by the chemistry and physics of living things.

To say "chance alone" is simply to lie. Those doing so should be ridiculed, especially since they are evidently immune to reason. Maybe they can shamed out of their lieing.

 

[rusra02]

Because that statement (chance and chance alone) is false.

Evolution works by a combination of chance mutation and very-not-chance-based selection. Added to that, what happens is very much constrained by the chemistry and physics of living things.

To say "chance alone" is simply to lie. Those doing so should be ridiculed, especially since they are evidently immune to reason. Maybe they can shamed out of their lieing.

Avowed evolutionist and biochemist Christian de Duve said that. "Chance, and chance alone, did it all, from the primeval soup to man."

 

[Krok]

Avowed evolutionist and biochemist Christian de Duve said that. "Chance, and chance alone, did it all, from the primeval soup to man."

Another example of creationist dishonesty. The full quote, again:

"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." A Guided Tour Of The Living Cell, Volume Two, Page 357
Scientific American Library, 1984.

Even when creationists are shown exactly where they don't tell the truth, they still ignore the facts, they repeat the quote-mines and lie, again!

 

[rusra02]

Another example of creationist dishonesty. The full quote, again:

"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." A Guided Tour Of The Living Cell, Volume Two, Page 357
Scientific American Library, 1984.

Even when creationists are shown exactly where they don't tell the truth, they still ignore the facts, they repeat the quote-mines and lie, again!

According to one definition of quote mining: "The repeated use of quotes out of context in order to skew or contort the meaning of a passage or speech by an author on a controversial subject."
Again, I'll leave it to each reader to decide whether the quote was taken out of context. I think charges of "Quote mining" are being used as a tool by evolutionists, to avoid having evidence presented that is embarrassing to their theory.

 

[Heathen Hammer]

No, it's just that you dishonestly quote-mine

Ohh, the irony runs thick as jam, here

 

[rusra02]

No, it's just that you dishonestly quote-mine

Ohh, the irony runs thick as jam, here

Right. Thanks for proving what I just said.

 

[Heathen Hammer]

Thanks for proving what I just said, again

no backsies

 

[rusra02]

Thanks for proving what I just said, again

no backsies

good one.

 

[Jethro]

The Creation Science Institute tells us in “How Do You Date a Volcano?” by Robert Doolan:
Researchers found similar conflict in Hawaii. A lava flow that is known to have taken place in 1800-1801 — less than 200 years ago — was dated by potassium-argon as being 2,960 million years old. (3) If the real dates had not been reasonably well established by other means, who could have proved that the potassium-argon dates were so wrong?


This is a paper that the creationists love to cite. And yet the citation is out-of-context. That cited paper on page 4603 tells us:

The matrix rock of the Hualalai nodules was erupted during 1801–1802 [Richter and Murata, 1961] and, indeed, can be said to contain no measurable radiogenic argon within experimental error (Table 2)…
​

What this means is that the lava was, in this particular study, dated to zero age within the margin of error. (This is not surprising since the rate of radioactive decay in potassium-argon method are very slow and the instrumentation was not as good as it is today. Think of using the hour hand of a watch to time a ten-yard dash.)
Thus the creationist have lied about, or did not understand the contents of this paper. The two-hundred year old lava was not what scientists were trying to date. What was being studied were xenoliths (also called inclusions). What these are bits of rock that are embedded within the lava flow. These rocks are older than the lava flow. They were carried up by the magma, but the magma was not hot enough to melt them. Thus one should not be surprised that these bits of rock date older than two centuries old since they are well over two centuries old. Furthermore the study was trying to see in this dating technique is appropriate for xenoliths. They found that it was not. One of the problems which they had was “excess argon.”

Source

You seem to be on a campaign to discredit Creationists, even though you were once a professing "Christian' yourself, but were not really. It is likely that the Creationists you have mentioned have made mistakes in their writings or words, as they like all sons and daughters of Adam are fallible. However, I hope that they did not do it on purpose.

Are evolutionists any better? What about Haeckel's lie about the simmilarity between a human embryo and certain animal embryo's. It was proved to be a fraud, yet evolutionists still use them in their school text books.

 

[Heathen Hammer]

While it has been widely claimed that Haeckel was charged with fraud by five professors and convicted by a university court at Jena, there does not appear to be an independently verifiable source for this claim.[30] Recent analyses (Richardson 1998, Richardson and Keuck 2002) have found that some of the criticisms of Haeckel's embryo drawings were legitimate, but others were unfounded.[31][32] There were multiple versions of the embryo drawings, and Haeckel rejected the claims of fraud. It was later said that "there is evidence of sleight of hand" on both sides of the feud between Haeckel and Wilhelm His.[33] Robert J. Richards, in a paper published in 2008, defends the case for Haeckel, shedding doubt against the fraud accusations with base on the material used for comparison and what Haeckel could access at the time.[34] The controversy involves several different issues (see more details at: recapitulation theory).

Jethro, you can explain to us in your own words, if you like.

 

[tumbleweed41]

You seem to be on a campaign to discredit Creationists, even though you were once a professing "Christian' yourself, but were not really. It is likely that the Creationists you have mentioned have made mistakes in their writings or words, as they like all sons and daughters of Adam are fallible. However, I hope that they did not do it on purpose.

Are evolutionists any better? What about Haeckel's lie about the simmilarity between a human embryo and certain animal embryo's. It was proved to be a fraud, yet evolutionists still use them in their school text books.

1. I am on a campaign to point out the dishonest practices used by those who would use fallacious contextomy, hypostatization and special pleading to promote ignorance of biology.
2. Are you actually attempting to use the "no true Scotsman" fallacy on me?
3. Yes, I, and nearly any advocate of science, freely admit Haeckels embryonic drawings were dishonest and misleading. The fact that they are fully discredited by biologists seems to be lost to many who use the example in a vain attempt to discredit biological evolution.
4. Can you provide one example of Heackels drawings being used to provide evidence of biological evolution in any modern textbook? If not, you have fallen victim to the dishonest tactics used in point (1).

 

[fantome profane]

1. Piltdown Man is a proven fraud and yet still used to prove the science of evolution.

The daily dishonesty from creationists.

 

[TheCup]

Hello all:
I saw the thread and felt all sides have a farley good concept to add over science and creationism; however, if we were to really think about the major aspects of both fields of interest, and truly research the deep sides of both interest I believe one may come to see the two fields of interest do have one major thing in commonality.

Neither field of interest can show absolute (indisputable and infallible) evidence to back their chosen fields up and show indisputable authenticity of their widely proclaimed assumed facts.

Consider The Theory of Human Evolution. The facts there are very clear, true science would really be best defined and perhaps more widely proven to be factual if researchers, in the field of Human Evolution Science could or can perhaps actually produce the primary ape/male, and also the primary ape/female (and/or both sets of monkey-to-human genetic based species) that actually and truly sired the entire human race.

This kind of scientific method has never ever been applied to the theory itself neither has such a method been achieved in our home world, to date. So far, as it stands, The Theory of Human Evolution has absolutely nothing but mounds of old deformed reconstructed bones to support and/or back up the idea or the "Theory," and absolutely nothing else is there; therefore, one must come to believe, the entire concept of human's coming from apes and/or monkeys is merely nothing more than a huge complex unfinished “THEORY,” and also a mere theory yet to be proven unto the eyes of the world.

Creation Science (or Creationism) there are no distinct differences between these two areas of human concern, I mean...! Creationism is really nothing any better and nothing any worse than The Theory of Human Evolutionism; in that: Very much the same as The Human Evolution Theory, Creationism (Creation Science) is totally and completely empty of any evidence God is real, especially when it comes down to actually producing any form of solid or tangible, absolute indisputable evidence the Most High God is actually a very real Being, and also, absolutely no Christian follower on earth today can put to rest the mystery of God's existence or that God is (in fact) the actual primary "Birthing Cradle" of the entire human race.

So, to sum up the actual long overlooked facts at this time, the actual facts boldly speak out and say, both unfinished fields of human interest do have at least one major thing in common, neither of the two have any kind of visible proof or any kind of clear evidence to back up their own ideas.

Can proof of God be discovered in the ancient sands of Biblical times...?
Can the origin of mankind also be discovered within the ancient sands of days gone by...?

I personally have a good idea here some of these high tech driven folks are perhaps not using, I feel they are not using the right kind of tools to measure, compute, assess, evaluate, appraise, and/or also best determine how to discover what our world truly needs most...have any of us ever wondered what that special tool could be, the one to best settle the mystery of human life and the existence of God, altogether...?

Perhaps if Science and Religion changes research methods around a bit, and attempts to show why human’s are here and/or even why God choose to create all of human life, maybe we seekers of truth will one day come to discover the infallible answers we all have sought so long to find…? Who is to say, otherwise…?

Just a thought.........

BLESSINGS AND KIND REGARDS FROM:
THE CUP

 

[painted wolf]

Hello all:
I saw the thread and felt all sides have a farley good concept to add over science and creationism; however, if we were to really think about the major aspects of both fields of interest, and truly research the deep sides of both interest I believe one may come to see the two fields of interest do have one major thing in commonality.

Neither field of interest can show absolute (indisputable and infallible) evidence to back their chosen fields up and show indisputable authenticity of their widely proclaimed assumed facts.

Consider TheTheory of Human Evolution. The facts there are very clear, true science would really be best defined and perhaps more widely proven to be factual if researchers, in the field of Human Evolution Science could or can perhaps actually produce the primary ape/male, and also the primary ape/female (and/or both sets of monkey-to-human genetic based species) that actually and truly sired the entire human race.

This kind of scientific method has never ever been applied to the theory itself neither has such a method been achieved in our home world, to date. So far, as it stands, The Theory of Human Evolution has absolutely nothing but mounds of old deformed reconstructed bones to support and/or back up the idea or the "Theory," and absolutely nothing else is there; therefore, one must come to believe, the entire concept of human's coming from apes and/or monkeys is merely nothing more than a huge complex unfinished “THEORY,” and also a mere theory yet to be proven unto the eyes of the world.

Creation Science (or Creationism) there are no distinct differences between these two areas of human concern, I mean...! Creationism is really nothing any better and nothing any worse than The Theory of Human Evolutionism; in that:Very much the same as The Human Evolution Theory, Creationism (Creation Science) is totally and completely empty of any evidence God is real, especially when it comes down to actually producing any form of solid or tangible, absolute indisputable evidence the Most High God is actually a very real Being, and also, absolutely no Christian follower on earth today can put to rest the mystery of God's existence or that God is (in fact) the actual primary "Birthing Cradle" of the entire human race.

So, to sum up the actual long overlooked facts at this time, the actual facts boldly speak out and say, both unfinished fields of human interest do have at least one major thing in common, neither of the two have any kind of visible proof or any kind of clear evidence to back up their own ideas.

Can proof of God be discovered in the ancient sands of Biblical times...?
Can the origin of mankind also be discovered within the ancient sands of days gone by...?

I personally have a good idea here some of these high tech driven folks are perhaps not using, I feel they are not using the right kind of tools to measure, compute, assess, evaluate, appraise, and/or also best determine how to discover what our world truly needs most...have any of us ever wondered what that special tool could be, the one to best settle the mystery of human life and the existence of God, altogether...?

Perhaps if Science and Religion changes research methods around a bit, and attempts to show why human’s are here and/or even why God choose to create all of human life, maybe we seekers of truth will one day come to discover the infallible answers we all have sought so long to find…? Who is to say, otherwise…?

Just a thought.........

BLESSINGS AND KIND REGARDS FROM:
THE CUP

Very interesting... however you seem to misunderstand the scientific use of the word theory and how it differs from the common slang use of the word.

In science Theory is as high as you can get. Theories untie several laws and facts into a functional testable model of the way the world works. It's not guesswork or unproven maybes (those are called hypotheses).

For example the Theory of Gravitation unites the laws of motion by Newton and Einsteins relativity.
The Germ Theory of Disease unites several aspects of medicine into a functional model that explains why we get sick when we drink dirty water among other things.

These "Theories" are not "unproven to the world".... because that isn't how theory works in science.

Hope this helps.

wa:do

 

[TheCup]

Very interesting... however you seem to misunderstand the scientific use of the word theory and how it differs from the common slang use of the word.

In science Theory is as high as you can get. Theories untie several laws and facts into a functional testable model of the way the world works. It's not guesswork or unproven maybes (those are called hypotheses).

For example the Theory of Gravitation unites the laws of motion by Newton and Einsteins relativity.
The Germ Theory of Disease unites several aspects of medicine into a functional model that explains why we get sick when we drink dirty water among other things.

These "Theories" are not "unproven to the world".... because that isn't how theory works in science.

Hope this helps.

wa:do

----------------------------------------------------------------

wa:do.....!

Hello, Painted Wolf:

I am going to take a wild guess here, and say..........you are....(wait…don’t tell me...!), you’re Native American.....right...? Just joking……………. I think the name may have worked to give it way…

It’s good to meet you, Painted Wolf:

Yes, I would be the first one to admit, word usage and often unclear seldom best definable word and terms always, always differ, with and among some 7 billions + people, scattered all about around our home world; but, that is also according to the momentary personal needs most people seem to want to use, in order to personally express any given personal belief or any given personal idea and/or Theory issue.

However, after a number of years personally researching, studying, and closely investigating into the many different fields associated with the general sense of The Theory of Human Evolution, and also deeply researching into The Theory itself according to the wide fields associated with acclaimed genetic values, and further coming to discover, after some 17 long boring years, all of today generalized basic fields of science's and scientific research today, the biggest majority of the world of science really does not subscribe to the basic ideas associated with The Theory of Human Evolution not within itself.

Frankly speaking, a very huge majority of most all other scientists are now beginning to tell people there is absolutely no logical evidence for which to fully support the Theory itself.

Thereafter, I’ve decided to continue to use that same term (Theory) as it was given for may years, according to how the term itself was first allotted by all other fields of science, and the word theory was also given to The Human Evolution concept as particular kind of so-called scientific research and personal belief that is yet far from completed, which suites the field perfectly----such as using the term Theory.

Actually, it really doesn’t matter how anyone defines or uses the general term “Theory” or how anyone may call the term Theory, the real fact here is simple, any term concerning the term “theory” is actually a very, very poor substitute for replacing the word “Facts,” with the word “Theories; no Theory has qualified to be called a factual term.

Theories are beliefs and ideas that has not (as of yet) evolved into or crystallized into an accepted fact; therefore, a theory is still in the workings to mature into a fact (indisputable…!).

Hope this helps…?

KIND REGARDS FROM:

THE CUP

 

[mycorrhiza]

the biggest majority of the world of science really does not subscribe to the basic ideas associated with The Theory of Human Evolution not within itself.

Frankly speaking, a very huge majority of most all other scientists are now beginning to tell people there is absolutely no logical evidence for which to fully support the Theory itself.

Correct me if I misintepret what you say, but are you suggesting that a huge majority of all scientists don't believe in human evolution or at least don't believe that there is any evidence for it?