• 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.

tumbleweed41

tumbleweed41

Resident Liberal Hippie
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
​


​
 
tumbleweed41

tumbleweed41

Resident Liberal Hippie
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
 
N

Nepenthe

Tu Stultus Es
There's so many creationist lies to choose from! It's not simply willful ignorance, it's an active attempt to distort and lie to bolster their literal intepretation of their religious text.

One of the classics that still gets brought up despite being an abject lie is Tom Willis' claim that Dr. Johanson said he found some of Lucy's knee, AL 129-1, about 70 metres lower in the strata and about 1.5 miles away from her fossil. It's simply not true, and any elementary fact checking would reveal that it's a lie. But the creationist heavy hitters like Carl Baugh, Richard LaHaye, and Kent Hovind have all contributed in spreading the lie.
 
3.14

3.14

Well-Known Member
well technically there not lie's, there just delibertly formulating the data in a way thats suits em best, you know kinda like how they interpret the bible
 
MSizer

MSizer

MSizer
3.14 said:
well technically there not lie's, there just delibertly formulating the data in a way thats suits em best, you know kinda like how they interpret the bible
Click to expand...

Yes, just like those people who say "that't totally like, my life" when they read fortune cookies. "I care about loved ones, and I sometimes have conflicts with them, but I still love them. How did they know that about me? I swear, every time I read from a fortune cookie, it's like, totally true about me".
 
M

Man of Faith

Well-Known Member
I don't like dishonesty in creationists arguments but it's a no win situation, if I don't believe in evolution then I am a liar by trait according to some. Also creationists are human like everyone else and make mistakes and stretch the truth to their advantage at times. We have seen out right fraud on the evolutionist side down through the years also.
 
Last edited:
Alceste

Alceste

Vagabond
Man of Faith said:
I don't like dishonesty in creationists arguments but it's a no win situation, if I don't believe in evolution then I am a liar by trait according to some. Also creationists are human like everyone else and make mistakes and stretch the truth to their advantage at times. We have seen out right fraud on the evolutionist side down through the years also.
Click to expand...

Example, please.
 
N

Nepenthe

Tu Stultus Es
Man of Faith said:
I don't like dishonest creationists but it's a no win situation, if I don't believe in evolution then I am a liar by trait according to some.
Click to expand...
No, not a liar, but if you attempt to understand the basic science involved and yet deny the overwhelming evidence supporting evolution you are intentionally choosing ignorance in support of a dogma.
Man of Faith said:
Also creationists are human like everyone else and make mistakes and stretch the truth to their advantage at times.
Click to expand...
Sure they're human, but that doesn't excuse the many examples of them blatantly lying, of which one example and three famous creationists are in my previous post. It has little to do with "to err is human", but everything to do wth propogandistic lies.
Man of Faith said:
We have seen out right fraud on the evolutionist side down through the years also.
Click to expand...
It's up to Tumbleweed41 if he doesn't mind my asking- but do you have any examples? The scientific method is an extremely successful tool for self correction; what examples do you have that show intentional fraud not corrected by further study and other scientists?

eta: Alceste beat me by mere minutes! @&!%@!%!!!!!
 
M

Man of Faith

Well-Known Member
Alceste said:
Example, please.
Click to expand...

Not a non-biased website but some of them have been verified.

Piltdown man: Found in a gravel pit in Sussex England in 1912, this fossil was considered by some sources to be the second most important fossil proving the evolution of man—until it was found to be a complete forgery 41 years later. The skull was found to be of modern age. The fragments had been chemically stained to give the appearance of age, and the teeth had been filed down!

Haekel’s faked embryonic drawings

Fake Dinosaur-bird ancestor

Brontosaurus: One of the best known dinosaurs in books and museums for the past hundred years, brontosaurus never really existed. The dinosaur’s skeleton was found with the head missing. To complete it, a skull found three or four miles away was added. No one knew this for years. The body actually belonged to a species of Diplodocus and the head was from an Apatosaur

Evolution Fraud
 
Jose Fly

Jose Fly

Fisker of men
Nepenthe said:
There's so many creationist lies to choose from! It's not simply willful ignorance, it's an active attempt to distort and lie to bolster their literal intepretation of their religious text.

One of the classics that still gets brought up despite being an abject lie is Tom Willis' claim that Dr. Johanson said he found some of Lucy's knee, AL 129-1, about 70 metres lower in the strata and about 1.5 miles away from her fossil. It's simply not true, and any elementary fact checking would reveal that it's a lie. But the creationist heavy hitters like Carl Baugh, Richard LaHaye, and Kent Hovind have all contributed in spreading the lie.
Click to expand...

I very recently had a "debate" with a creationist at another internet forum, where she repeatedly insisted that Johanson lied and that the Lucy specimen was therefore a fraud. I even linked the original papers describing both the Lucy specimen and the "knee joint" as separate....all to no avail. The creationist continues to insist that Johanson is a liar.

Honestly....some people are just too delusional to bother with.
 
T

themadhair

Well-Known Member
Man of Faith said:
Not a non-biased website but some of them have been verified.

Piltdown man: Found in a gravel pit in Sussex England in 1912, this fossil was considered by some sources to be the second most important fossil proving the evolution of man—until it was found to be a complete forgery 41 years later. The skull was found to be of modern age. The fragments had been chemically stained to give the appearance of age, and the teeth had been filed down!

Haekel’s faked embryonic drawings

Fake Dinosaur-bird ancestor

Brontosaurus: One of the best known dinosaurs in books and museums for the past hundred years, brontosaurus never really existed. The dinosaur’s skeleton was found with the head missing. To complete it, a skull found three or four miles away was added. No one knew this for years. The body actually belonged to a species of Diplodocus and the head was from an Apatosaur

Evolution Fraud
Click to expand...
We use photographs these days for embyo's so that is irrelevant, the brontosaurus claim is total ****** and why are people still talking about Piltdown man when we have dozens of genuine hominid species in fossil form??
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Alceste

Alceste

Vagabond
Man of Faith said:
Not a non-biased website but some of them have been verified.

Piltdown man: Found in a gravel pit in Sussex England in 1912, this fossil was considered by some sources to be the second most important fossil proving the evolution of man—until it was found to be a complete forgery 41 years later. The skull was found to be of modern age. The fragments had been chemically stained to give the appearance of age, and the teeth had been filed down!

Haekel’s faked embryonic drawings

Fake Dinosaur-bird ancestor

Brontosaurus: One of the best known dinosaurs in books and museums for the past hundred years, brontosaurus never really existed. The dinosaur’s skeleton was found with the head missing. To complete it, a skull found three or four miles away was added. No one knew this for years. The body actually belonged to a species of Diplodocus and the head was from an Apatosaur

Evolution Fraud
Click to expand...

Sorry, MF - same problem. Your source is not credible. I can't even be bothered to investigate your claims because every single creationist claim I have ever attempted to examine by comparing it to objective, non-biased evidence has proven to be false.

When I ask for a source, I mean a REAL source. Verifiable. Non-partisan. One which does not require one to believe unquestioningly in a number of religious ideas before it can even begin to seem credible.

Here's a tip: real evidence can be recognized as such by intelligent people of any faith, or none. If you don't think your source would be convincing to a Buddhist, a Hindu, a Jain, a Satanist, an atheist, or the Pope himself, you should reconsider why you think it is "credible".
 
A

angellous_evangellous

Guest
Creationism is a biblical interpretation. It doesn't have anything to do with science until creationists try to interpret science through their interpretation / theology.

The sciences are simply the square peg that creationists try to fit into the round hole of their biblical interpretation.
 
N

Nepenthe

Tu Stultus Es
This is likely a waste of time but it's my time and work is boring. I'll just tackle a few here since Jose Fly, Alceste, Themadhair, Gunfingers and AE have already gone over much of this.
Man of Faith said:
Piltdown man: Found in a gravel pit in Sussex England in 1912, this fossil was considered by some sources to be the second most important fossil proving the evolution of man—until it was found to be a complete forgery 41 years later. The skull was found to be of modern age. The fragments had been chemically stained to give the appearance of age, and the teeth had been filed down!
Click to expand...

Well, not exactly. The initial reaction in 1912 to the mandible and skull fragment were actually skeptical- the Brits were enthusiastic (here were pleistocene hominid fossils found in Britain!) while the French and American scientists were unconvinced, and many were immediately dismissive and questioned the legitimacy of the find(s) right off the bat. Some even suggested, accurately it turns out, that the jawbone and skull piece were from two different specimens. By 1930 the Piltdown specimen was marginilized and was not even considered relevant to hominid evolution whatsoever- it was simply an anomaly and not the "second most important fossil proving the evolution of man". Odd that the "second most important fossil proving the evolution of man" didn't even have one doctoral dissertation written about it (another creationist lie is that up to 500 of such were written on the Piltdown man).

By 1950 Piltdown was pretty much ignored, and by 1953 the fraud was revealed. How you ask? By scientists, scientists using the fluorine absorption test. You know, a dating method creationists dismiss unless it's the Piltdown hoax they're talking about. The debunking of the Piltdown fraud is a testament to how science is self correcting and that scientific inquiry is subject to such scrutiny deceptions are bound to be exposed. Less than 40 years from discovery to a complete 180 degree turnaround in declaring the Piltdown fossils a fraud- that's a demonstration of the success of science.

There's tons of books on the Piltdown hoax so I'll just list one anthopology link which includes links to the Nature articles and others: PHYSICAL ANTHROPOLOGY UPDATE


Man of Faith said:
Haekel’s faked embryonic drawings
Click to expand...

Haeckel was wrong, he did embellish if not outright fake some of his drawings and massaged the data to support his claims. The problem with the creationist claim is that it's simply irrelevant to evolution. We have photographic empirical evidence today; Haeckel's embellished plates are no longer an issue. But embryonic similarities have been obvious for quite some time, and Haeckel's exaggerated comparisons do as much damage to this fact as Mendel's massaging his data does to genetics- that is, absolutely no damage at all. All vertebrates do develop a notochord, visceral neck pouches, tails, etc. Haeckel was disputed as far back as 1894 when Adam Sedgewick created an extensive list disputing his proposal of recapitulation. The scientific community was never dependant on Haeckel's drawings to substantiate evolution whatsoever.

The other point- the most important one that I'll harp on yet again- science is self correcting. Once Haeckel's deception was exposed the scientific community didn't hide their heads in the sand, they actively began correcting the scientific literature and began to scrutinize Haeckel's work with a fine toothed comb.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top