ok, 1 Freeper....I'll give you 1
posted on 11/10/2005 11:10:25 AM PST
I try to refrain from labelling a creationist "liar" until I can identify a point where it is clear that they are making a statement that they should know is false by virtue of having had the truth of the matter explained to them in previous discussions. For example, when a creationist claims that evolution includes the origin of life even though I can find a previous discussion where it was clearly explained that evolution does not, in fact, address that topic, then it's rather obvious that the creationist in question is simply lying. Or, for more blatant examples, when a creationist claims that Antony Flew has rejected the theory of evolution when replying in a discussion about an article that explicitly states that Flew accepts the theory of evolution. Or when the same creationist later denies making any comment at all about Antony Flew in a direct response to a post that links to their previous comment on the man. Or when a creationist claims that all fossil fakes were exposed by "non-evo" scientists and, when asked to support the claim, denies ever making it. Or when a creationist presents a fabricated quote from a biologist, then defends it after the fabrication is exposed.
But it seems that very few creationists think that any of the above is actually "lying". Apparently most creationists don't believe that knowingly making a false statement is actually "lying".
posted on 11/10/2005 11:15:38 AM PST
(http://angryflower.com/bobsqu.gif <-- required reading before you use your next apostrophe!)
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson