Evolutionist lies

[EnemyPartyII]

Someone in a different thread made the claim that both creationists and evolutionists support their theories through willful use of lies. I'd be very interested to examine this some more, particularly in reference to evolutionist lies.

While a couple of hoaxes spring to mind, piltdown man and the Chinese bird/raptor intermediate fossil, I don't think they count because once they were discredited, evolutionists apeared to drop them like hot rocks.

What I'm interested in are examples where the person making the statement KNOWS that the statement is untrue, but makes it anyway.

Anyone got any stories?

 

[vossler]

Someone in a different thread made the claim that both creationists and evolutionists support their theories through willful use of lies. I'd be very interested to examine this some more, particularly in reference to evolutionist lies.

First of all I'd like you not to misrepresent what I said. I never said anything about "willful use of lies" or even used the word lie at all. It's posts like these that do nothing to facilitate discussion.

What was said was that "in our zeal for answers, when we don't see the complete picture we get very creative in filling in the blanks"

 

[Mallon]

While a couple of hoaxes spring to mind, piltdown man and the Chinese bird/raptor intermediate fossil, I don't think they count because once they were discredited, evolutionists apeared to drop them like hot rocks.

I think it's equally important to point out that evolutionists are the ones who discredit the frauds as well. We see very little of the same peer-criticism in the creationist camp. (At least, not until scientific entrenchment has set in regarding, say, the validity of Archaeopteryx, for example).

 

[EnemyPartyII]

Vossler, I apologise, my intent was not to missrepresent what you said, but to widen the scope of this potential discussion.

Partially why I didn't quote you or name you

 

[Late_Cretaceous]

I just googled "creationist lies" and came up with this webpage

• Different parts of the Vollosovitch Mammoth dated 29,500 and 44,000 years respectively.
• Human lysozyme is closest to chicken lysozyme.
• The Lewis Overthrust is not folded.
• There is too little dust on the Moon for it to be billions of years old.
• The Earth’s rotation is slowing down too fast for it to be billions of years old.
• Dubois hid Wadjak Man for 30 years.
• Museum paleontologists say there are no transitional fossils.
• George Gaylord Simpson said there are no transitional fossils.
• Stephen Jay Gould says there are no transitional fossils.
• Invariant cytochrome c sequences disprove evolution.
• Equidistant proteins disprove evolution.
• Archaeoraptor was used to brainwash school children for many years.
• Tom Kemp said that the mammal-like reptiles are not transitions between mammals and reptiles.
• George Romanes was a creationist.
• “Dawn horse” is a Hyrax.
• “Dawn horse” is a good “ancestor” for rhinos discredits horse evolution.
• Simpson rejected the transformation from “Dawn Horse” to modern horse.
• There are too few supernova remnants for an old universe.
• There are too few people for evolution to be true.
• Textbooks continue to use Nebraska Man.
• Hydrogen-guzzling stars shows that all stars are young.
• There is a fifteen percent disagreement in the 238U decay constant.
• Two hundred year old lava dated 2.96 billion years old.
• Ar-Ar dating assumes there is no excess argon.
• The closest cytochrome c to a rattlesnake is a human.
• Niles Eldredge says that the geologic column is circular reasoning.
• Woodmorappe proved Noah could have carried all those animals.
• Evolutionists claim that the platypus links birds and mammals.
• Etheridge and Fleischmann are famous contemporary biologists opposed to evolution.
• Ambulocetus has no pelvis and is largely incomplete.
• D.M.S. Watson admitted Evolutionists Dogmatically Rejected Creation.

That's hilarious. It didn't even mention such verified lies as "evolution violates the laws of thermodynamics"
Palaxy tracks
Ica Stones
"Lucy is a hoax"
petrified boots and miner's tools

But they are probably listed here in the "Buddika's 300 creationist lies index"

 

[Late_Cretaceous]

I googled "evoutionist lies" and came up with more lies from creationists! Like "evolution says that the universe came from nothing"
The thoery of evolution is restricted to biological phenomenon to explain the diversity and history of life on earth. "Where it all came from" is irrelavent to evolutionary theory.

 

[EnemyPartyII]

wow... out of that whole list there were only 4 that I would consider as legitimate attempts by anyone to explain ANYTHING!

most of its silly, and hard to see ANY of it as willful lying

except to say that evolutionists claim that the platypus links birds and mamals, I think someone might be lying when they said that!

I mean hoinestly, who would say such a silly thing, from EITHER side of the discussion???

 

[Numenor]

evilutionists say a rok can evolve into a chair!!1!

 

[laptoppop]

I think it is wise to be careful of our rhetoric -- even if others are not. For example, lets say I have a solid (maybe even heated )discussion about some point with someone. I consider my points irrefutable, and they consider their points the same way. I have not been convinced, and neither have they. Is it a "lie" for each side to continue to use these arguments? No.

Another source for "lies" can be zealous proponents of various viewpoints who are repeating information from others. Sometimes the source is incomplete, sometimes the transmission is incomplete, sometimes, people see or hear what they want to see or hear because it supports their position. Again, is this a lie? No.

Someone can be mistaken without lying. Someone can disagree with me repeatedly without lying. It becomes a lie when someone absolutely knows and agrees that something is not true, but presents it as truth. It is not a lie to continue to hold and support a position that others think is untrue, as long as you still think it is true.

A little extra care in how we communicate our differences can go a long ways toward greater respect and love within our communities, especially including this one. I can understand the passion that is often used in various circles regarding some of these issues -- I can also take care to hold my positions with passion, but also with humility and mutual respect.

 

[Smidlee]

I've read once that one scientist admitted that scientists will quickly lie (even as a group) if in their eyes it is for the common good. (this happen recently with human cloning) So scientist (evolutionist) will lie just like any preacher, politican, car saleman, lawyer, etc. as they too find ways to justify themselves. Thus the scripture warns repeatedly not to be deceived. For you can even deceive yourself in believing your own lies.

 

[EnemyPartyII]

Smidlee, but do you have any examples?

Laptoppop is quite right, being mistaken is not the same as lying, but thats why I ask in the OP for examples of willful lying, that can't be considered anything else. The accusation is thrown around enough, if there is any basis to it it should be easy to find...

 

[EnemyPartyII]

evilutionists say a rok can evolve into a chair!!1!

Is English a second language for you?

 

[Mallon]

So scientist (evolutionist) will lie just like any preacher, politican, car saleman, lawyer, etc. as they too find ways to justify themselves.

Do you suppose a Christian is capable of doing the same in order to justify their beliefs?

 

[theFijian]

I think this thread was looking for examples of some lies which have been told. I don't think it's any great revelation that humans have been known to tell lies.

 

[shernren]

Is English a second language for you?

And teh stupid sceintists told us Pluto was a planet, now they say that its not and u expect them to tell u teh truth?

(it's a parody.)

 

[Late_Cretaceous]

I've read once that one scientist admitted that scientists will quickly lie (even as a group) if in their eyes it is for the common good.

Smidlee, didn't I just censure you in this thread for making unsupported allegations? Oh, yes, I see that I did - and I also notice that you didn't cite your references there either. Even though I asked you more then once.

I guess you just do not learn. If you are going to make a claim you need to back it up, otherwise you are not being very honest in your debating tactics.

Would you please provide some references for this allegation.

(this happen recently with human cloning)

Are you refering to the Korean researcher who "lied about the source of the eggs donated to protect the privacy of his female researchers, and that he was not aware of the Declaration of Helsinki, which clearly enumerates his actions as a breach of ethical conduct." (quoted from the Wikipedia article linked to above). If that is the case, then maybe you should indicate it as such.

So scientist (evolutionist) will lie just like any preacher, politican, car saleman, lawyer, etc. as they too find ways to justify themselves. Thus the scripture warns repeatedly not to be deceived. For you can even deceive yourself in believing your own lies.

While it is true that all individuals lie from time to time, this cannot be taken to mean that there is systemic and institutionalized lying going on in regards to the science of evolution. Hyundai once claimed that it's vehicles had more horsepower then they really do. They lied, but that does not make every Hyundai vehicle out there a fraud. (notice how I provided references for my claims?)

 

[sfs]

I've read once that one scientist admitted that scientists will quickly lie (even as a group) if in their eyes it is for the common good.

Interesting. I read once that one creationist admitted that creationists like to eat babies, as long as they're tastefully prepared.

 

[rmwilliamsll]

Interesting. I read once that one creationist admitted that creationists like to eat babies, as long as they're tastefully prepared.

(Someone asked Fields: "How do you like children?")
(He responded "Parboiled!"
(Quoted in numerous books). (Variations included, "Fried!" and "well done.")
(Also
"They are very good with mustard."
(**** page 163)

http://www.louisville.edu/~kprayb01/WCQuote.html#A10a

so now i have only to prove that W.C.Fields was a creationist. *grin*
it also answers the question of what is "tastefully prepared".

 

[Late_Cretaceous]

Have you ever seen this list of things that (young earth) creationists hate?

One of the things on the list:

The Holy Bible That old Book persists in saying things that the creationists, who claim to take it as literal truth, have to admit are metaphorical (like the "doors" in the firmament that let the rain through). That means, of course, that they have to arbitrarily decide which parts are literally literal, and which are only metaphorically literal (and can't they twist the English language!). I've never yet read a justification for who gets to make that determination and how, so I'll summarize it thus: Everything is literal except things that even we creationists can't stomach.
Even worse, the "scientifically accurate" Bible reveals not a single fact about nature that wasn't commonly known at the time. If only it had revealed the atomic structure of matter, or the inverse square law, or the existence of bacteria--or even the heliocentric solar system!
Still doubt that creationists hate the Bible? Ask several if they've ever read it--all the way through, cover-to-cover. 97% of the time the answer will be no. They're sure every word is literally true, and the divine message of God, but somehow they've never quite found the time to actually read the thing. Is this irony thick enough yet?

 

[Robert the Pilegrim]

Laptoppop is quite right, being mistaken is not the same as lying, but thats why I ask in the OP for examples of willful lying, that can't be considered anything else.

Ultimately I don't think there is such a thing, as Aslan points out a number of times, people are very good at not seeing what they don't want to.