Why do evolutionist lie?

[Sender]

I really don't understand why evolutionist lie, short of trying to keep their bogus theory alive. How can anyone belive in evolution(macro)? Please enlighten me.

[Sender]

2. Energy producing energy, and we came fro a rock are still in thousands of textbooks today. So why are you guys not willing to answer these questions. Are they to silly, and you hate to admit you're at an impasse? It seems all of you want to skip the beginning, and get right in to all this wonderful info you have. Me too!!! But not at the expense of truth. Let's deal with this, then we can move on. I am pretty creative, but I am running out of ways to ask the same question over and over. Start another thread and answer it if that is your only hang up.

At the risk of sounding pedantic, we like to keep the discussions of topics on topic so we don't get bogged down in too many ideas in one thread. Your original question does not cover "energy producing energy" and "we came from a rock". It's not that we don't want to answer these questions, it's that we don't want to answer them in this particular thread.

Your original question about "lies" also does not cover these topics because "lie" implies a structured attempt to fool people, whereas the theories surrounding these topics are in no way meant to fool people -- they are instead the best explanations for the evidence we now have. "lie" implies that the people propounding them know/ignore the real truth and are misleading us for their own gain. A better word for your purposes would be "mistaken" if you wish to discredit various anecdotes being taught in textbooks.

On the flip side, since you wanted this thread to be a counterpoint to the Creationist Lies thread, it has been demonstrated that many Creationists have lied and continue to lie. I don't know enough about Lubenow to make that claim, but there are Creationists who continue to use, for example, Darwin's own statements and opinions as proof against the theory despite the fact that the science has dramatically changed since then. By contrast, scientific inquiry has allowed Creationists to alter their stories to fit scientific facts in order to come to conclusions about the various theories: Hugh Ross's pre-Adamite theories, for example, fit with the evolutionary timetable (more or less) despite the fact that other Creationist stories do not. However, Ross's theories do not constitute proof against other Creationist stories -- even though people like Lamarck and Hoyle are brought up as evidence against evolution. From this side of the stained-glass window, it appears as if Creationists use the charge of "lies" because that is the tactic they are most familiar with.

"...millions of years the torrential rains poured down upon the earth, and the oceans became a swirling broth of complex chemicals. The process from a chemical soup to a living organism is very slow". WTF? It's slow alright, never happened. source Holt Earth Science 1994 pg 281 Still being taught TODAY!

Creationist lieing should stay in the other thread to remain consistant.

[The Happy Humanist]

Though infallible,

Gosh, I sure hope you meant NOT infallible...

[Lotan]

Quote me..."it is in the textbooks today"!

OK...exactly WHAT is in textbooks today? WHAT does it say about the peppered moth in Allyn and Bacon General Science 1989 pg 5? You have already shown yourself to be an inaccurate source on the subject.

[The Happy Humanist]

Addendum: If we evolved from apes, why are apes still here?

If Protestants evolved from Catholics, why are Catholics still here?

Wow! That's sad. Is that your arguement?

You'll have to forgive Jose. He's seen this question over and over and over on this board, as have many of us, and it's probably easier to provide an allegory than to give the entire explanation over and over and over...you'll find it in several places on this forum if you look. I'm sure he'll come back and give you a more cogent answer (he's a very patient man), so I won't go into detail, but suffice it to say that your question betrays an honest ignorance of the process, a misconception held by many that an entire population of one species morphs into a new species, with no remainders. That is not how it works. The mutations that, if beneficial, eventually give rise to new species, happen to isolated individuals, not entire populations. But if the parent species remains unstressed by the environment and is otherwise successful reproductively, they continue.

What is sad is that you have been subjected to the lies of creationist websites, and continue to propagate their mythology, in what you probably feel is an honest attempt to educate others. You need to expand your horizons a bit, and see for yourself that we've "been there, done that." We've heard just about all of this before (except for the "energy from energy" thing and the "we came from a rock" thing; those are new to me). Read Talk/Origins. Follow the links. Then come back and let us know if you still think "Evolutionists" lie anywhere near as much as Creationists. Oh, I would also recommend Answers in Genesis' "Do Not Use" page, their graveyard for discarded Creationist arguments. I do believe you'll find one or two of your favorites...

[Sender]

Though infallible,

Gosh, I sure hope you meant NOT infallible...

I caught that too. I took it as he meant fallable.

Why am I an inacurate source? Where did I "prove" that?

[Sender]

Addendum: If we evolved from apes, why are apes still here?

If Protestants evolved from Catholics, why are Catholics still here?

Wow! That's sad. Is that your arguement?

You'll have to forgive Jose. He's seen this question over and over and over on this board, as have many of us, and it's probably easier to provide an allegory than to give the entire explanation over and over and over...you'll find it in several places on this forum if you look. I'm sure he'll come back and give you a more cogent answer (he's a very patient man), so I won't go into detail, but suffice it to say that your question betrays an honest ignorance of the process, a misconception held by many that an entire population of one species morphs into a new species, with no remainders. That is not how it works. The mutations that, if beneficial, eventually give rise to new species, happen to isolated individuals, not entire populations. But if the parent species remains unstressed by the environment and is otherwise successful reproductively, they continue.

What is sad is that you have been subjected to the lies of creationist websites, and continue to propagate their mythology, in what you probably feel is an honest attempt to educate others. You need to expand your horizons a bit, and see for yourself that we've "been there, done that." We've heard just about all of this before (except for the "energy from energy" thing and the "we came from a rock" thing; those are new to me). Read Talk/Origins. Follow the links. Then come back and let us know if you still think "Evolutionists" lie anywhere near as much as Creationists. Oh, I would also recommend Answers in Genesis' "Do Not Use" page, their graveyard for discarded Creationist arguments. I do believe you'll find one or two of your favorites...

So talking down to me as if you have all the answers is how you debate this? Hmmm, well ok! As for you guys having gone over this many a time with others, well, we can end this right now. No sweat off my balls. I thought if some were tired of this subject, they simply would by-pass it. I also thought if newbies just joined, as I stated in my other thread, we could hash it over. Far from it for me to ad to your boredom.

[The Happy Humanist]

So talking down to me as if you have all the answers is how you debate this? Hmmm, well ok! As for you guys having gone over this many a time with others, well, we can end this right now. No sweat off my balls. I thought if some were tired of this subject, they simply would by-pass it. I also thought if newbies just joined, as I stated in my other thread, we could hash it over. Far from it for me to ad to your boredom

I was not talking down to you. Far from it. In fact I respect your approach, and your willingness to dialogue, recognizing the fact that you're outnumbered - Daniel in the Lion's Den, so to speak. I simply wanted to give you some perspective. So many come here thinking they are going to dazzle us with brand new insights, only to be shot down. Sometimes they get abusive. Sometimes they get a little petulant. Mostly they go away. We don't want you to go away.

Just remember, in any dialog on any subject, one person will always have more information than the other. There are many life scientists here. They have the advantage of a lifetime of study of evolution, and as a self-defense measure, a healthy command of creationist arguments as well. It is only natural that most creationists who come here only have the information provided by their side. It is, after all, a religious belief, and the holders of religious beliefs tend to think that they have Truth on their side, so no more study is necessary. Many of them think they are getting all they need to know about the other side's arguments by reading Kent Hovind. In any case, they have just about all been lied to. Yes, evolutionists are not immune to lying...the difference is that our side tends to be a lot more self-correcting, whereas Creationist lies are seldom corrected (AiG's praiseworthy "Do Not Use" page being a glaring exception).

Please forgive me if I came off as condescending. That was not my intent. Stick around? You'll have fun, I promise.

[Sender]

It is, after all, a religious belief, and the holders of religious beliefs tend to think that they have Truth on their side, so no more study is necessary. Many of them think they are getting all they need to know about the other side's arguments by reading Kent Hovind. In any case, they have just about all been lied to.

Dam! You're still condescending, but hey, far be it for me to teach you table manners. You mention Kent Hovind. I think he has some good info. I also don't like his politics. He seems to me that he hates the govorment, and as a former Marine, that's a no no. So don't assume I am a clone of his.

[QED]

One thing that's rarely discussed in these topics is the sketchy nature of the fossil record. The fossilization process is such that precious few animals become preserved in the first place. This is further confounded by the inordinate number of hiding places available to these rare artifacts in the ground. Important information can be gleaned from those few remains that are unearthed, but it is simply asking too much to expect a wealth of transitional evidence. In this case, absence of evidence is most certainly not evidence of absence.

[Sender]

One thing that's rarely discussed in these topics is the sketchy nature of the fossil record. The fossilization process is such that precious few animals become preserved in the first place. This is further confounded by the inordinate number of hiding places available to these rare artifacts in the ground. Important information can be gleaned from those few remains that are unearthed, but it is simply asking too much to expect a wealth of transitional evidence. In this case, absence of evidence is most certainly not evidence of absence.

Try that in a court of law as your closing arguement, and your client will end up in the chair. Circular reasoning runs rampant here, doesn't it? But you are correct, there are no intermediate fossils.

Hey, I want to add a quote to my signature. How?