Here is how evolutionists lie

  • Welcome to Christian Forums, a Christian Forum that recognizes that all Christians are a work in progress.

    You will need to register to be able to join in fellowship with Christians all over the world.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!

Deborah_

Well-Known Member
Jun 7, 2015
901
855
93
Swansea, Wales
Faith
Christian
Country
United Kingdom
These sites make the bald statement that "evolutionists lie". But in order to catch someone in a lie you have to present the truth convincingly. This they do not do. It isn't enough just to declare that evolutionists lie because their opinion conflicts with our interpretation of the Bible or our interpretation of the scientific evidence. They may be wrong or mistaken, but they are not lying.

So I am disappointed with the first link; the 'lies' that they highlight are not lies at all. The scientific evidence really is there for what is being said, and can't be dismissed simply with the word 'lie'. Creationists need to stop harping on about fossils and engage with the genetics - which isn't just about point mutations, incidentally.

There are some very good comments on the second link, highlighting (amongst other things) the difficulties that arise when the two sides of the argument use different definitions.

I don't follow the argument on the third link. I suspect their logic is fallacious.
 

River Jordan

Well-Known Member
Jan 30, 2014
1,856
50
48
Yeah, that first link was bizarre. All they did was quote Matt Ridley describing the state of the science within evolutionary biology and then declare "It's all a lie" without any support, evidence, or counter-facts at all. Just "It's all a lie.....because we say so".

The second at least tries to get specific. It lists "5 lies Evolutionists Tell", but are they really lies? Let's see...

1. "Evolution is a fact"

They say that's a lie because apparently in their world populations evolving new traits (e.g., antibiotic resistance) or even new species isn't "evolution". How odd.

2. "Evolution and the Bible are Compatible"

How can that be a lie if the majority of Christians across the world are "evolutionists", including the largest Christian denomination?

3. "There is no Evidence for Creation"

This alleged lie assumes "evolution = atheism", which the data shows is clearly not the case.

4. Evolution has been Tested and Proven more than Gravity"

This is nothing more than a repeat of #1.

5. “Microevolution over time leads to Macroevolution”

Again this is bizarre, since macroevolution (the evolution of new species) is a repeatedly observed fact.

So in sum, the second creationist website is more a testament to the author either being pretty ignorant of evolutionary biology, or not being honest himself.

The third website is just a creationist commenting on some evolutionary biologists musing on the evolutionary strategy behind lying in humans, so not sure why Stan thinks that's an example of "evolutionists lying".

Looks to me like Stan Googled "evolutionists lie" and just posted the first three hits that came up. Here, see for yourself: CLICK HERE
 

River Jordan

Well-Known Member
Jan 30, 2014
1,856
50
48
So Stan can Google and post whatever links come up in the results.

Um......congratulations? :unsure:
 

River Jordan

Well-Known Member
Jan 30, 2014
1,856
50
48
So let's look at the second link Stan posted (the first one is an absolute joke, and is one Stan should be completely embarrassed to have posted under his name). The first item on its list is...

#1 If the theory of evolution was true, we should have discovered millions upon millions of transitional fossils that show the development of one species into another species. Instead, we have zero.

Before we get into this Stan, I have to ask...do you stand by that statement?
 

StanJ

Lifelong student of God's Word.
May 13, 2014
4,798
111
63
70
Calgary, Alberta, Canada
"there is no way to refute something that has been established as fact."

Just to clarify, this is, again, an admission that evolution, as currently posed, is NOT falsifiable. That is NOT a good thing.

EVERY single day, all the basic laws of physics, from g to G to the arcseconds of mercury predicted by general relativity, are falsifiable. Thus it is awesome that they remain true (as per Popper). It is not true for evolution, because fitness does not have units. It does not pass tests when it is tested. And the head of the NIH doesn't even believe evolution, but a variant called "biologos". Since he is where we spend most of our money (why does religion have to be in harmony with evolution? eh, I guess we'll get to that with the next $100B)... I'd say all of biology currently exists on the premise of an unfalsifiable theory that has been proven false by the missing heritability. Theories including culture do not miss such heritability, and Francis Collins pays lip service to as much... but never dollar service.

Jesus LOVES science! BIOLOGOS! Or at least... if you want an NIH grant, you probably better toe that line. But sure, evolution is established as fact, N1 Scott!

When something "becomes established as fact", but "there is no way to refute" it... we've trapped ourselves in a circular word hole, from which we may never dig out. I'd encourage biologists who are upset to, instead, formalize the theory of evolution, make it falsifiable. Then you can answer this question with a link and pride, instead of a bunch of wiggle words.


Evans Boney
H-bar, LLC, Los Angeles.
Evolutionary Biology, Genetics, Astrochemistry
PhD
 

River Jordan

Well-Known Member
Jan 30, 2014
1,856
50
48
StanJ said:
"there is no way to refute something that has been established as fact."

Just to clarify, this is, again, an admission that evolution, as currently posed, is NOT falsifiable. That is NOT a good thing.
That evolution occurs is an observation. I'm not sure how you falsify an observation. For example, can you falsify erosion?

It is not true for evolution, because fitness does not have units.
Well, this guy just removed himself from the category of people who know what they're talking about.

Measures of Fitness

You'd think someone with Stan's Google skills would have at least checked.
 

ChristianJuggarnaut

New Member
Feb 20, 2012
433
29
0
The fact that scientific naturalism cannot account for the first cell is certainly a problem. I know, I know, wait another ten years. Maybe we really are just a computer simulation. Lol at Neil.
 

River Jordan

Well-Known Member
Jan 30, 2014
1,856
50
48
ChristianJuggarnaut said:
The fact that scientific naturalism cannot account for the first cell is certainly a problem.
You mean it's an unanswered question. But that makes me wonder....why is that a problem? Unanswered questions are why we have science in the first place! I mean, if there were no unanswered questions, there would be no science.

I know, I know, wait another ten years. Maybe we really are just a computer simulation. Lol at Neil.
Ten years for you to finally explain where this alleged "lie" was? I don't think it'll happen that soon. <_<
 

River Jordan

Well-Known Member
Jan 30, 2014
1,856
50
48
So Stan's been reduced to just posting links and ignoring all responses that aren't positive, "pats on the back". Hard to imagine a stronger indication that someone is a little.......never mind. Have fun Stan. :mellow:
 

StanJ

Lifelong student of God's Word.
May 13, 2014
4,798
111
63
70
Calgary, Alberta, Canada
River Jordan said:
So Stan's been reduced to just posting links and ignoring all responses that aren't positive, "pats on the back". Hard to imagine a stronger indication that someone is a little.......never mind.
Actually I've graduated to recognizing that discussing anything with you is a waste of time and therefore I will simply let others who already know, speak on the subject. You're more than welcome to challenge them. The older I get the less willing I am to engage in fruitless discussions with people who are so inculcated they can't see the forest for the trees.
 

ChristianJuggarnaut

New Member
Feb 20, 2012
433
29
0
How convenient for science to be able to arbitrarily decide what is simply "unanswered" even when that unanswered question makes their entire position untenable.

Starting with the supposition that Darwinian theory is objective truth and labeling all dissent as crazy creationists, while using a "Charles in Gaps" approach to abiogenesis just seems intellectually weak to me.
 
  • Like
Reactions: StanJ