Why do some creationists lie?

[Arikay]

Open: then to repeat myself, you should have no trouble giving evidence for creationism and showing us our errors in its falsification.
However, by the way you used "theory" and "proof" I get the suspicion that your science classes need to go over the basics of how science works, what a theory is and what a proof is again.
Always remember proof only exists in math and alcohol.


Also, to add to my other post, you pretty much can't fool a breathalyzer, especially not with pennies or mints.

 

[openup4christ]

well if i dont have enough knowlege to be in this debate im sorry but i am still entitled to my opinpion as u are to yours. But if you spend your life trying to put down creation how are u going to find any truth in it if your are not looking for it so how can u say its not ture when you havent giving it a chance to defend its self because u never want to know if its ture.

 

[Arikay]

Well, most people have given creationism (different than just creation BTW) a chance, many here have read creationist literature from mutiple sources, and some were even creationists at one point. There are many many threads asking for creationists to provide evidence or to educate us more and most of them go unanswered. I would hardly say we haven't given it a chance.

But to get back on topic, as many of us have read through creationist literature we found more and more half truths and outright lies. Following with those lies are claims of moral correctness, and truth.

 

[Hydra009]

What does this say about their religious beliefs? Belief in something other than young earth creationism doesn't seem to be a sin, but lying is referenced in the ten commandments (and what about greed being sinful while we're at it?). Do the ends justify the means?

Well, certain biblical passages are (how do I put this?)...overlooked... when they are not convient. It's all for the greater glory of God, so it's permissible.

Do they really accept young earth creationism or are they frauds? Are they really Christians or are they just in it for the money?

A little of both. I think some really, genuinely believe in YEC and simply lie to prop up their belief. It's entirely possible that being around so many yes-men in creationist circles has caused groupthink so that the speakers honestly believe what they say. Many, I think, are charlatans who are simply exploiting the faith of others for their own personal gain. It's hard for me to tell which one is which.

I wasn't specifically asking you, Irish, to answer those questions (unless you feel like speculating)

You know I do.

but was hoping creationists would respond and try to see their justifications for these actions (that is, if they aren't in denial of examples like those in the OP).

Good luck. I don't think you'll find many who will be able to admit error on the part of their leaders in the first place.

 

[Data]

It's all summed up in three words: COLD, HARD CASH. Some people are willing to jettison intellectual integrity for it.

In all honesty, this really is the answer.

 

[LewisWildermuth]

There is the cash; a month passing the hat on a creationist lecture circuit will earn you more than a year at a real job.



There is the need for recognition, most of the scientists that become creationists are second rate in their fields, attaching their names to others work, but by becoming a creationist they get fame that they don't have to earn.



For most of the non-professional creationists, like I was once, I think it is a few things...



The need to fit in and be a rebel at the same time, the creationist groups gave this to me when I was a young Christian.



The need to feel better than others, creationism makes you feel smarter than those who actually worked for their knowledge, it also allows one to look down on animals and God's other creations and lie to yourself that you are somehow better than them just by birthright.



Group-think, creationism has its own radio shows and books, you are encouraged to read and listen to only these people, that somehow everyone else is a pawn. It's hard to realize that you are actually the pawn in their games.

 

[Remnant]

There’s definable error in the way that creationists present their opinions. Like scientists, we make mistakes, and like scientists, some do present fiction as facts; but not so much for money but for fame and ego.

And even a scientist can make honest mistake in their field of expertise, and will be accepted as fact for years; and later will make amends for the mistakes they make by admittance. And a person of God should do the same; and many do.

‘Hard science’ has only been in existence for 500 years? Plus or minus a few…

What most of us creationist/philosophers believe, however, is that science is not exact in its explanation of the universe. What you regard as evidence and an absolute we see as a probability and relativism. What a scientist believes is that things have always been the same in terms of a ‘closed’ universe: laws that govern the universe have always been the same and always remain the same. There are uncertainty principles in science that never reveal the true nature of the universe in the past and you can never prove that ‘fact’ has always been that way without change. What a creationist believes is that nothing is absolute in the universe and there have always been change in everything, even in the ‘absolutes’ of science: such as the speed of light, age of stars, dawn of life on earth, and the creation of the universe.

I had posted a ‘scientific test’ to see how people would react to it by using faulty mathematics and a theory that could easily be disproved. Folks who read these threads are by no means stupid, and picked up on it quite easily and proved one truth: That the facts that we have at our disposal today, might be the truth of yesterday…and maybe not because you and I were not living here a million years ago to correlate data from that age.

Life and existence is not an absolute, and when you try to put science or religion in that category, perhaps you will be proven wrong sometime in the future.

 

[Arikay]

Lewis:
I think you hit the nail on the head about non prof creationists wanting to prove people wrong. Scientists are often portrayed (especially by creationist groups) as egotistical atheist people that see themselves as better than the normals. So the ability to take them down a peg and prove them wrong is appealing to many. And a quick fix society has taught them that listening to a seminar can make them smarter than scientists.


Remnant:
The interesting thing is that although many creationist groups claim to be against the closed universe idea (as you put it). They make arguments that go against that claim such as the universe is so perfect and if one thing was changed even slightly everyone would die, to get it this perfect there must be a God and many young earth arguments are based on the idea of uniformity.

It seems that it has less to do with a different method of science and more to do with a "We can't be wrong" attitude that many creationist groups have, which is what gets them into their lies.

 

[AirPo]

I've only scanned the thread, so this may have already been pointed, but I think in all honesty, you must make some distinctions here.

The Con Men lie for money, very simple.
The Conned don't really know any better, so are they really lying?
The same can be said for the uneducated.
Finally, there's the willfully ignorant. I think that what is going on there is a struggle between what is obvious and what they want to believe in their hearts. In that case, I'd say they are lying to themselves.

 

[Split Rock]

There’s definable error in the way that creationists present their opinions. Like scientists, we make mistakes, and like scientists, some do present fiction as facts; but not so much for money but for fame and ego.

And even a scientist can make honest mistake in their field of expertise, and will be accepted as fact for years; and later will make amends for the mistakes they make by admittance. And a person of God should do the same; and many do.

‘Hard science’ has only been in existence for 500 years? Plus or minus a few…

What most of us creationist/philosophers believe, however, is that science is not exact in its explanation of the universe. What you regard as evidence and an absolute we see as a probability and relativism. What a scientist believes is that things have always been the same in terms of a ‘closed’ universe: laws that govern the universe have always been the same and always remain the same. There are uncertainty principles in science that never reveal the true nature of the universe in the past and you can never prove that ‘fact’ has always been that way without change. What a creationist believes is that nothing is absolute in the universe and there have always been change in everything, even in the ‘absolutes’ of science: such as the speed of light, age of stars, dawn of life on earth, and the creation of the universe.

I had posted a ‘scientific test’ to see how people would react to it by using faulty mathematics and a theory that could easily be disproved. Folks who read these threads are by no means stupid, and picked up on it quite easily and proved one truth: That the facts that we have at our disposal today, might be the truth of yesterday…and maybe not because you and I were not living here a million years ago to correlate data from that age.

Life and existence is not an absolute, and when you try to put science or religion in that category, perhaps you will be proven wrong sometime in the future.

The question is, is it OK to knowing deceive people in order to push the creationist agenda. The OP is not talking about differences of opinion, mistakes, or different philosophical views.

 

[Tomk80]

Indeed. Specifically guys like Andrew Schnelling, who know that their samples will create wrong dates and know that no other scientist in their field would ever take a sample this way. Those are not honest mistakes but ways of deliberately providing false data. There is a difference here.

 

[Nathan David]

i am still entitled to my opinpion as u are to yours.

We are entitled to our own opinions, but not our own facts.

But if you spend your life trying to put down creation how are u going to find any truth in it if your are not looking for it so how can u say its not true when you havent giving it a chance to defend its self because u never want to know if its true.

Oh, we've given it a chance. Check out some of the threads in this forum. Some of them practically beg for scientific evidence for young earth creationism. So far, no one has provided any.

 

[Mechanical Bliss]

There’s definable error in the way that creationists present their opinions. Like scientists, we make mistakes, and like scientists, some do present fiction as facts; but not so much for money but for fame and ego.

And even a scientist can make honest mistake in their field of expertise, and will be accepted as fact for years; and later will make amends for the mistakes they make by admittance.

This is not about honest mistakes and claims made by many creationists like those in the OP are not honest mistakes. If they were honest mistakes, these people must be incredibly stupid and stubborn to the point of never admitting any faults at all. It seems obvious that they are deliberate deceptions.

And a person of God should do the same; and many do.

However, generally speaking, this is not the case among creationists. Even Answers in Genesis attacked Kent Hovind's blatantly false information on his website and he refused to admit error.

The problem is that if creationists were forced to retract ideas like those exemplified in the OP, their position would crumble. Hovind would have to concede plate tectonics, Brown would have to concede his magnetic field argument is fatally flawed and the earth is actually old, Snelling would have to admit that radiometric dating is extremely reliable when used properly, and Austin would have to admit that geology is more complex than he tries to present it to the layman.

What a creationist believes is that nothing is absolute in the universe and there have always been change in everything, even in the ‘absolutes’ of science: such as the speed of light, age of stars, dawn of life on earth, and the creation of the universe.

However we already know that such changes did not occur because there would be consequences for changing inherent properties of the universe. But this is not the topic of the thread...

That the facts that we have at our disposal today, might be the truth of yesterday…and maybe not because you and I were not living here a million years ago to correlate data from that age.

The earth was there and that is what matters. We already know that the earth is much older than 6000 years.

Now back to the regularly scheduled thread.

 

[Remnant]

The question is, is it OK to knowing deceive people in order to push the creationist agenda. The OP is not talking about differences of opinion, mistakes, or different philosophical views.

Of course its not right to knowingly deceive…but the point I had tried to make is that views are radically different: perceptions of what is truth are in conflict and its not only creationists who lie to make a point.

There could also be an OP stating ‘why do atheists lie?’ and there would be a scream heard throughout this forum shouting that creationists are intolerable, narrow-minded and ‘uninformed’ of the great truths of science.

Sorry, but you and like-minded folks do not have a monopoly on absolute truth, and that is where creationists look at the natural sciences, as Arikay states, ‘we can’t be wrong’ attitude and which is just as prevalent in the scientific community.

 

[Mechanical Bliss]

Of course its not right to knowingly deceive…but the point I had tried to make is that views are radically different: perceptions of what is truth are in conflict and its not only creationists who lie to make a point.

There could also be an OP stating ‘why do atheists lie?’ and there would be a scream heard throughout this forum shouting that creationists are intolerable, narrow-minded and ‘uninformed’ of the great truths of science.

1. In the OP I specifically stated that this discussion was not started to go into the realm of the tu quoque style of argumentation. All it is is a distraction from having to actually address the point of the OP by simply saying, "well, they do it too!"

2. It is well established that there are creationists, particularly those who run organizations like AiG and ICR, regularly deceive their audience. This is not the case with real science. Such errors would be exposed by the peer review process (another thing pseudoscience like creationism lacks).

3. This thread is about regular and pervasive deception by some young earth creationists. This is not about issues like atheism vs. theism or implications that creationism is equal to Christianity. Furthermore, starting a thread about atheists that way would not be accurate or on the same scale as on this thread considering it is so established that many young earth creationists regularly lie.

Sorry, but you and like-minded folks do not have a monopoly on absolute truth, and that is where creationists look at the natural sciences, as Arikay states, ‘we can’t be wrong’ attitude and which is just as prevalent in the scientific community.

No one here is claiming a monopoly on absolute truth, except young earth creationists, of course who claim that their interpretation of the Bible entitles them to that truth and thus must shoehorn reality to fit it. Science does not have a "can't be wrong" attitude as creationism does. If it were true, science would not be self correcting, would not accept criticism, and would not be open to new ideas.

Most importantly is young earth creationism PRESUMES truth via a fixed conclusion and science does not. In science, evidence dictates the conclusion rather than the other way around. There is a definite difference.

Now how about we actually get back to the OP. If you want to change the subject, start a new thread. This thread is to get YECists to actually address the regular, pervasive deception used to further the concept, not for it to be skirted around.

 

[Split Rock]

Of course its not right to knowingly deceive…but the point I had tried to make is that views are radically different: perceptions of what is truth are in conflict and its not only creationists who lie to make a point.

The Mechanical Bliss mentioned specific creationists who are utilizing deceitful means to convince others.

There could also be an OP stating ‘why do atheists lie?’ and there would be a scream heard throughout this forum shouting that creationists are intolerable, narrow-minded and ‘uninformed’ of the great truths of science.

The OP is not directed to Christians but to certain Creation Scientists specifically. Not all creationists lie. The real hypocricy here is that these same people talk about God and the bible, and yet they do not follow the teachings of either. BTW: If atheists lie, isn't that to be expected, since they reject God?

Sorry, but you and like-minded folks do not have a monopoly on absolute truth, and that is where creationists look at the natural sciences, as Arikay states, ‘we can’t be wrong’ attitude and which is just as prevalent in the scientific community.

Science says nothing about absolute truth. It is creationists who talk about such things.

 

[spiced]

As lying is the topic here:why do evolutionists bring it up? the term lie should not feature in the evolutionary scheme of things as it is jusy an emotion of a percieved wrong , which is just an emotion of a percieved wrong, which is just an emotion and so on and so forth......Where does morality come into evolution as it negates survival of the fittest.

 

[Project2501]

As lying is the topic here:why do evolutionists bring it up? the term lie should not feature in the evolutionary scheme of things as it is jusy an emotion of a percieved wrong , which is just an emotion of a percieved wrong, which is just an emotion and so on and so forth......Where does morality come into evolution as it negates survival of the fittest.

interesting question, why not answer the answer to the questions in this thread and then start a new thread of your own?

 

[Blackmarch]

We are entitled to our own opinions, but not our own facts.

The problem with facts is that they don't always end up being facts...

 

[spiced]

Mech Bliss
Re: Snelling and Austin:
when is volcanic rock not contaminated?