[presently no screen name]

Yes. Creationists have lied. Such events are documented.

You are misrepresenting the reason that creationists are called liars



What have I lied about? What have I misrepresented? I showed you what was said and you say I am misrepresenting something? If I cut to the chase and you don't like it - don't twist it to I'm misrepresenting anything.

From where/Who/what do you get your beliefs? You got a more truthful book than the Bible and a better teacher than God?

[Dimensio]

What have I lied about?

I didn't actually call you a liar. I've seen a number of clearly false statements from you, but thus far I've seen no clear evidence that you actually know them to be false.

What have I misrepresented?

I don't call creationists liars simply for professing creationism, and I know no one else who does. I call creationists liars when they lie. And when I say "lie", I mean make statements that are false even to someone who does not accept evolution. For example, Kent Hovind has claimed that two samples taken from one wooly mammoth specimen produced two different dates. In reality, the samples were taken from two different specimens. Kent Hovind is lying. In the case that triggered this discussion, nmh made a demonstratably false claim about philosopher Antony Flew (demonstratably false as in it was in direct contradiction to the statement of the article, and nmh repeated the false claim even when the relevant part of the article was quoted) and then later nmh denied saying anything at all about Antony Flew, even though nmh's previous posting on the matter was directly linked.

I showed you what was said and you say I am misrepresenting something?

Yes. You are misrepresenting the reason that creationists are called liars.

If I cut to the chase and you don't like it - don't twist it to I'm misrepresenting anything.

It has nothing to do with whether or not I like it. It has to do with the fact that your representation of why creationists are called liars does not reflect reality.