Creationists are ‘liars’?

CMI ^ | Tas Walker, Ph.D.

[GodGunsGuts]

Creationists are ‘liars' (?): Geologist Donald Prothero doesn’t like the fact that we don’t agree with his ideas on evolution.

I love the attitude some evolutionists have toward professional, scientific debate. Because creationist scientists do not agree with their biased, subjective and unsubstantiated ideas they spit the dummy and call us liars.

The latest tirade from geologist Donald Prothero is in an opinion piece in NewScientist entitled ‘Evolution: What missing link?’¹ I like that title.

His article was picked up by the Telegraph newspaper in the UK which reported, ‘Creationists “peddle lies about the fossil record”.’²

Lies? Are creationists really lying?

No!

It’s just that Prothero does not like the fact that we don’t agree with his ideas. It upsets him so much that he describes creationists in this way: ...

[tacticalogic]

Actaully, that is a standard tactic among evos...

There is the accusation of projection I was expecting.

[count-your-change]

An interesting feature of the cladogram in the article is that it depicts organisms splitting into just two lines, the original disappearing. But why would an ancestor of humans and apes for example, not split into humans, apes, and a dozen other creatures instead of just two?

[allmendream]

God speaks in parables. That is how he instructs, for a parable has variable meaning and almost unlimited applicability. There need not have actually been one ‘good Samaritan’ who did those things for Jesus to instruct us with the parable of the good Samaritan.

Just as with the description of the ‘Molten Sea’. God could have said that the thing was 10 cubits across exactly, 30 cubits exactly, and exactly round all about. But that would be incorrect. Instead he just said it was 10 cubits across, round all about and 30 cubits across. Those that try to derive Pi from such will be left disappointed. I think there is much to be seen in that fact alone. God could not have said more directly “THIS IS NOT A MATH BOOK”, and yet people want to depend upon it for their models of Geology, Biology, and Geocentricity.

But glad to hear a voice of reason on the YEC side. Salvation is never said in the Bible to be dependent upon your beliefs about how the physical world came to be.

[GodGunsGuts]

It’s quite demonstrable. If you doubt it, just google “creationist liars.” And if you want a real eye opener, type in “evolutionist liars” and see what comes up!

[tacticalogic]

It’s quite demonstrable. If you doubt it, just google “creationist liars.” And if you want a real eye opener, type in “evolutionist liars” and see what comes up!

And while I'm off doing that, my original question will remain unanswered. I know the drill.

[Misterioso]

I’m a young-earth creationist, but I understand that people can look at the same data and come to different, reasonable conclusions.

So, for you, truth is just a matter of opinion?

[doc1019]

Oops!

[Tax-chick]

No, the truth is what is true. However, that doesn’t mean that people who reach erroneous conclusions from data are stupid, insane, liars, or evil. It just means their conclusions are erroneous.

[allmendream]

A cladogram depicts a branch point as a speciation event, where two populations diverged. A speciation event is where a subpopulation branches off, or a species becomes divided and starts to diverge, thus two branches.

And the Ape clade went six different directions at different times and places (six that survived as independent breeding populations); humans, chimps and bonobo-chimps, gorillas, orangutans and gibbons.

[GodGunsGuts]

Good question. I think the evos would crack that up to “purifying selection” or some such.

[Misterioso]

An “erroneous” conclusion can also be reasonable? How so?

[Tax-chick]

Most opinions or beliefs are based on information that is incomplete. Otherwise, they’d be axe-through-the-skull certainties. When information is incomplete, there is often more than one reasonable way to interpret the information. In many cases, only one interpretation is correct, but the available information itself does not compel a particular interpretation and render others irrational.

This is college-freshman stuff, whether you’re taking Philosophy 101, Basic Logic, or Intro to Communications.

[metmom]

Depends on who you ask.

According to just about every evo on this forum who’s posted an opinion, yes.

[Misterioso]

What information do “evos” lack that leads to their errors?

[metmom]

Hey, what are you doing on this thread being reasonable?

[metmom]

I’m tired of people’s calling other people “liars,” when they mean, “I disagree with their opinion,” or when they mean, “I think they have their facts wrong.”

It's really the same mentality as calling people *haters* just because they disagree with you or something you believe in, or they point out errors or inconsistencies in the same.

These days nobody wants to hear any correction. We have to sooth their poor little feelings and tell them what they want to hear.

[metmom]

Unlike evos who are liars who perpetrate frauds in order to bolster their sagging theory, I suppose.

[celmak]

And I expect you to be able to rationalize anything that disagrees with your religious beliefs as being a lie.

Excellent, this bit of logic on your part expressed an attachment to the irrational and the belief in the origin of spontaneous existence from nothing.

I also expect to be accused of "projection" before the end of this thread.

You have already inferred that with me by your latest comment of expectations; to be able to rationalize anything that disagrees with my "religious" beliefs as being a lie. You also have your "religious" beliefs. In fact, you believe in the man who founded the theory of Evolution; a man who was not a scientist but a "theologian" himself!

[metmom]

And I expect you to be able to rationalize anything that disagrees with your religious beliefs as being a lie.

Just like evos do. Someone disagrees with evolution and posts information that they believe supports their point of view and they get slammed with pejoratives like *Liar for the Lord* and *Liars for Jesus*, at least until the mods smack them down and threaten banning if it continues.

That's essentially the only reason the evos stopped that one.

[Gordon Greene]

It’s alright... I know the moderators are fair-minded individuals who will deal even handedly with all offenders. It ain’t an easy job, but somebody’s gotta do it.

ON the other hand... if you’re expecting folks who have no respect for Jim Robinson, freerepublic.com, God or faith in general to be honest and forthright, well... I wouldn’t hold my breath (though they may, if they wish).