Before I start, a couple of things: (1) this is not to be a discussion of WHETHER creationists lie because it's already established that they regularly and shamelessly do and brief examples will be provided, (2) this is not to be a discussion about things creationists don't seem to understand like archaeoraptor or Nebraska Man in an attempt to distract the discussion in a tu quoque sort of way.
Certainly not all creationists are liars; many, if not most, are just simply ignorant of the topics in biology, geology, astronomy, physics, et cetera and end up propagating lies manufactured by those who create quote mining sources and creationist organizations.
Since providing examples of lies told by creationists on this forum would be against the rules, I'll stick with a few examples of the more prominent creationists caught in lies:
1. Kent Hovind
There are seemingly infinite numbers of his claims that are bad science and/or outright lies, but one that has always stood out to me was his assertion that geologists deliberately shrunk the African continent on paleogeographic maps simply because they wanted the concept of Pangea (I guess he forgot about Rodinia) to exist. Whether he actually has looked at paleogeographic maps or not, it's still a lie (as I have explained in several other threads in the past) because YECism would be decimated by plate tectonics. So he invents a conspiracy among paleomagnetists.
2. Andrew Snelling
Along with folks like Steve Austin, he's notorious for misrepresenting radiometric dating to the point that he knowingly takes contaminated rocks, such as young rocks with inclusions of older rocks (an obvious source of excess radiogenic Ar), uses a dating method outside of its known limitations, then claims that radiometric dating is false to his readers even though this is exactly what one should expect when testing contaminated samples. Either he doesn't know anything about xenoliths or radiometric dating, or he is lying.
3. Steve Austin
He compares Mt. St. Helens to features like varves and the Grand Canyon despite having an education in geology. He erroneously claims that geologists merely "assume" that varves are millions of years old while ignoring the composition of varves when comparing them with layers of ash and mud from Mt. St. Helens. He also ignores features like fossils, igneous intrusions, trace fossils, limestones, et cetera in his comparison to the Grand Canyon. He knowingly avoids anything beyond the superficial (which is not easily understandable to the layman and thus can't get through to his uneducated audience) in order to make a comparison at which any geologist would laugh heartily.
4. Walt Brown
A good example is although he has been confronted with evidence of polarity reverals of the earth's magnetic field, he still denies that such reversals ever happened because they would decimate his young earth argument that relies on the decay of earth's magnetic field.
5. John Baumgardner
Here is an interesting example of a creationist who supposedly believes the earth is ridiculously young and a global flood occurred. His claim to fame in creationist circles is catastrophic plate tectonics (which even he admits is practically useless). He does not publish any of his young earth work in scientific journals, but seemingly has no qualms about attaching his name to papers that deal with a millions-of-years timescale. Why publish something a young earth creationist should not believe to be valid? He's lying, that's why.
Now these are neither the only lying creationists nor the only examples of lies told by the ones above.
So my point is this: WHY LIE?
What purpose does it serve to lie about science to uneducated readers? Does the supposed effect of strengthening the faith of creationist readers justify lying to them? Do you really think this lack of credibility and integrity is convincing and a worthwhile tactic?
Any other related questions as to why creationists lie or examples of lies told by creationists are welcome.
Certainly not all creationists are liars; many, if not most, are just simply ignorant of the topics in biology, geology, astronomy, physics, et cetera and end up propagating lies manufactured by those who create quote mining sources and creationist organizations.
Since providing examples of lies told by creationists on this forum would be against the rules, I'll stick with a few examples of the more prominent creationists caught in lies:
1. Kent Hovind
There are seemingly infinite numbers of his claims that are bad science and/or outright lies, but one that has always stood out to me was his assertion that geologists deliberately shrunk the African continent on paleogeographic maps simply because they wanted the concept of Pangea (I guess he forgot about Rodinia) to exist. Whether he actually has looked at paleogeographic maps or not, it's still a lie (as I have explained in several other threads in the past) because YECism would be decimated by plate tectonics. So he invents a conspiracy among paleomagnetists.
2. Andrew Snelling
Along with folks like Steve Austin, he's notorious for misrepresenting radiometric dating to the point that he knowingly takes contaminated rocks, such as young rocks with inclusions of older rocks (an obvious source of excess radiogenic Ar), uses a dating method outside of its known limitations, then claims that radiometric dating is false to his readers even though this is exactly what one should expect when testing contaminated samples. Either he doesn't know anything about xenoliths or radiometric dating, or he is lying.
3. Steve Austin
He compares Mt. St. Helens to features like varves and the Grand Canyon despite having an education in geology. He erroneously claims that geologists merely "assume" that varves are millions of years old while ignoring the composition of varves when comparing them with layers of ash and mud from Mt. St. Helens. He also ignores features like fossils, igneous intrusions, trace fossils, limestones, et cetera in his comparison to the Grand Canyon. He knowingly avoids anything beyond the superficial (which is not easily understandable to the layman and thus can't get through to his uneducated audience) in order to make a comparison at which any geologist would laugh heartily.
4. Walt Brown
A good example is although he has been confronted with evidence of polarity reverals of the earth's magnetic field, he still denies that such reversals ever happened because they would decimate his young earth argument that relies on the decay of earth's magnetic field.
5. John Baumgardner
Here is an interesting example of a creationist who supposedly believes the earth is ridiculously young and a global flood occurred. His claim to fame in creationist circles is catastrophic plate tectonics (which even he admits is practically useless). He does not publish any of his young earth work in scientific journals, but seemingly has no qualms about attaching his name to papers that deal with a millions-of-years timescale. Why publish something a young earth creationist should not believe to be valid? He's lying, that's why.
Now these are neither the only lying creationists nor the only examples of lies told by the ones above.
So my point is this: WHY LIE?
What purpose does it serve to lie about science to uneducated readers? Does the supposed effect of strengthening the faith of creationist readers justify lying to them? Do you really think this lack of credibility and integrity is convincing and a worthwhile tactic?
Any other related questions as to why creationists lie or examples of lies told by creationists are welcome.
