Did your sister lie, or did she merely disagree with you? The two are not the same.
What you are doing right now is no different from what your sister did. Think about that.
Let's look at the Lady Hope story. I am not going to use red (or green) ink:
"
Original text[edit]
It was one of those glorious autumn afternoons, that we sometimes enjoy in England, when I was asked to go in and sit with the well known professor, Charles Darwin."
And right off the bat we have a problem. Why would she have been invited to see Darwin? This is a question that needs to be answered.
" He was almost bedridden for some months before he died. I used to feel when I saw him that his fine presence would make a grand picture for our Royal Academy; but never did I think so more strongly than on this particular occasion.
He was sitting up in bed, wearing a soft embroidered dressing gown, of rather a rich purple shade."
One thing that liars do at time is to provide too much information to make their story seem to be more believable. What difference would it have made what he was wearing?
"Propped up by pillows, he was gazing out on a far-stretching scene of woods and cornfields, which glowed in the light of one of those marvellous sunsets which are the beauty of Kent and Surrey. His noble forehead and fine features seem to be lit up with pleasure as I entered the room."
<sigh> more excessive detail.
"He waved his hand toward the window as he pointed out the scene beyond, while in the other hand he held an open Bible, which he was always studying.
"What are you reading now?" I asked as I seated myself beside his bedside. "Hebrews!" he answered – "still Hebrews. 'The Royal Book' I call it. Isn't it grand?"
Then, placing his finger on certain passages, he commented on them.
I made some allusions to the strong opinions expressed by many persons on the history of the creation, its grandeur, and then their treatment of the earlier chapters of the Book of Genesis.
He seemed greatly distressed, his fingers twitched nervously, and a look of agony came over his face as he said: "I was a young man with unformed ideas. I threw out queries, suggestions, wondering all the time over everything, and to my astonishment, the ideas took like wildfire. People made a religion of them."
Then he paused, and after a few more sentences on "the holiness of God" and the "grandeur of this book," looking at the Bible which he was holding tenderly all the time, he suddenly said: "I have a summer house in the garden which holds about thirty people. It is over there," pointing through the open window. "I want you very much to speak there. I know you read the Bible in the villages. To-morrow afternoon I should like the servants on the place, some tenants and a few of the neighbours; to gather there. Will you speak to them?"
"What shall I speak about?" I asked.
"Christ Jesus!" he replied in a clear, emphatic voice, adding in a lower tone, "and his salvation. Is not that the best theme? And then I want you to sing some hymns with them. You lead on your small instrument, do you not?" The wonderful look of brightness and animation on his face as he said this I shall never forget, for he added: "If you take the meeting at three o'clock this window will be open, and you will know that I am joining in with the singing."
How I wished I could have made a picture of the fine old man and his beautiful surroundings on that memorable day!"
Okay, I let the remainder play out, but why would Darwin be distressed? It was already known that parts of Genesis were fallacious at that time. Noah's Ark had already been refuted. It did not make much difference to most Christians. And Darwin's theory had already been validated by improved fossil discoveries in his lifetime. Once again, Lady Hope appears to think that the fact of evolution was a refutation of God. That is not the case.
Back to the article and why we know that her story is almost certainly false:
"Rebuttal by Darwin's children and others[edit]
On 2 November 1915, Rev. A.T. Robertson, who had given a lecture at the Northfield Conference on the same day as Lady Hope,
[16] received a letter about her story from an acquaintance in
Toronto who claimed to have known her back in
London and had little confidence in "her judgement or her imagination".
[17]"
Okay, the first refutation came from a reverend. (though what he was doing in Minnesota I have no clue
Northfield, Minnesota - Wikipedia, maybe he had an interest in Jesse James). He did not seem to think that her story was very reliable at all. If you check the sources of that article you will see that he was a prohibition candidate. Which means that he likely knew Lady Hope personally since that was one of her passions. If someone on your own side says that your story is unlikely that does not look to good.
"Everyone in
Darwin's family denied the validity of the story.
[18] In 1917, Darwin's son
Francis wrote that "Lady Hope's account of my father's views on religion is quite untrue. I have publicly accused her of falsehood, but have not seen any reply. My father's agnostic point of view is given in my
Life and Letters of Charles Darwin, Vol. I., pp. 304–317. You are at liberty to publish the above statement. Indeed, I shall be glad if you will do so."
[19] In 1922, Darwin's daughter,
Henrietta Litchfield, said she did not believe Lady Hope had ever seen her father and that "he never recanted any of his scientific views, either then or earlier. We think the story of his conversion was fabricated in the U.S.A."
[20] Leonard, Darwin's last surviving child, dismissed Lady Hope's account as a "hallucination" (1930) and "purely fictitious" (1934).
[21]"
Earlier AV claimed that it was his first cousins and made no mention of the son and daughter of Darwin. He later denied that. But I did quote his post in its entirety. The people that knew Darwin best denied this. Do we really need any more? We have someone that would have been an ally claiming that it appeared to be false and the people that knew Darwin best claiming that it was false. Right then and there it is refuted since all we have for the Lady Hope side is her rather lame story.
"
Subsequent retellings and investigations[edit]
Lady Hope gave the fullest account of her story in a letter written (circa 1919–20) to S. James Bole, who first published it in 1940.
[22] The story became a popular legend, and Hope's claims were republished as late as October 1955 in the
Reformation Review and in the
Monthly Record of the
Free Church of Scotland in February 1957.'
Another piece of evidence. Lies, just as stories do, grow with the telling. As one repeats it more and more detail is often added. Real life events tend to be the opposite. Our memories are strongest when they happened and we only remember general details as time goes on.
"In 1925,
J. W. C. Fegan, an evangelist and sometime associate of Lady Hope, commented on her character to one S. J. Pratt, who was investigating the story. Fegan said that although Darwin had certainly been an agnostic, he was also "an honourable, courteous, benevolent gentleman." In contrast, Fegan noted that after Hope had been "adjudicated bankrupt," she had asked him for "a commendatory letter to take with her to America, and it was my painful duty to tell her that I did not feel I could do so."
[23]'
Oh no, another Christian that knew Lady Hope and would not support her claims because he did not find her reliable.
"In 1994
Open University lecturer and biographer
James Moore published
The Darwin Legend, in which he suggested that Hope had visited Darwin sometime between 28 September and 2 October 1881, when Francis and Henrietta were absent and Charles' wife
Emma was present, but that Hope had subsequently embellished the story.
[24] Moore argued that the Lady Hope story bore "all the hallmarks of Lady Hope's anecdotal imagination. Years of tract and novel writing had made her a skilled raconteur, able to summon up poignant scenes and conversations, and embroider them with sentimental spirituality. The distinction between fact and fancy in her writings was never well defined. In her dotage now, she was even less likely to be hard-headed about history. Disgraced in England, displaced in America, she had only a short time before her cancer proved fatal. With everything to gain, what better than to trade off her title, ingratiate herself with 'impressionable' Americans, and launch an edifying myth?"
[25]
The Lady Hope story has been promoted by a few modern
creationists, including Kenyan
Boniface Adoyo,
[26] but one of the most influential creationist organisations,
Answers in Genesis, has disputed the legend.
[27]"
And now it seems that even those that believe her can see how she definitely padded the story. I am sorry, but when the people that knew her best that were on her side denied the story and when the family denied the story it becomes a slam dunk that it never happened.
