Well, there was
Matchett-PI fabricating a portion of a quote to make it appear as though Wayne Carley likened teaching evolution to teaching religion, when actually he said that teaching Intelligent Design is teaching religion.. When this falsehood was exposed, he made no apologies, and in fact
REPEATED the lie by saying "How embarrassing is it for you blind-faith Darwinists to have the executive director of the National Association of Biology Teachers, no less, admitting that to teach evolution is to teach a religion?".
Then there was hosepipe, earlier in the same discussion. The issue of fossil fakes came up, and
hosepipe asserted -- without evidence -- that "nearly all" fossil fakes were found by "non-evo" scientists. In fact, he actually
reiterated this point later on in the same topic. Of course, when pressed for evidence, he balked and told me to research his claim for him. In other words, he made it up and was lying. When someone else finally joined in badgering him to actually support a claim with evidence, he
outright denied making the claim in the first place. Nevermind that I was able to point to TWO posts of his where he made the claim, he insisted that he'd never actually made a claim that he'd made TWICE. Yet another example of a creationist liar who refused to back down even after his lies were exposed.
And, finally, my personal favourite recent example involves nmh. Earlier this year philosopher Antony Flew announced
that he was no longer an atheist. Even still, he said that he did not accept the Judeo-Christian God, and -- the article specifically stated this -- "He accepts Darwinian evolution" (note that the original article is only excerpted on FR, and the link is to a dead page now, but the full article was available for some time, and the original text is archived on multiple places, including
here).
Known creationist and liar nmh popped in to say
" Those poor atheists. Another one abandons their godless and ridiculous hypothesis of evolution."
Kind of odd given that the article specifically stated that Flew accepts evolution.
I corrected his mistake and nmh responded by telling me to
" Read the article. He rejects it."
So I re-read the article, see the "He accepts Darwinian evolution" line, and
quote the relevant section in my reply. Nmh's response is nothing more than a
snide comment wherein he tells me to read the article once more even though absolutely nothing in the article supported his completely false claim.
But the story doesn't end there. Nmh has proven himself a shamless, brazen liar, and I'm not shy about bringing that up when he tries to discuss issues in the future -- after all, he's demonstrated that he's willing to lie to "prove" a point, so why should anything that he says be trusted? So in response to my bringing up of the story of nmh claiming -- falsely -- that Antony Flew rejected evolution, after saying in direct response to an article about Flew that he had "rejected" the "godless and ridiculous hypothesis of evolution", nmh
denied ever having heard of Flew and said that he'd never posted anything about the man, even though I could directly link to nmh's posts on the matter.
So there you have it. Three creationists wrapped up in their own lies. Their lies exposed, they retreat into a larger web of lies rather than admit a single mistake.