The lies of creationists:

Originally posted by Wulebgr
Scientific Creationism and Error
by Robert Schadewald
Copyright © 1986
Reprinted from Creation/Evolution (v. 6, n. 1, pp. 1-9)
with permission from the author.

Science is wedded, at least in principle, to the evidence. Creationism is unabashedly wedded to doctrine, as evidenced by the statements of belief required by various creationist organizations ...[text shortened]... led the tale of two proteins.

read the rest at http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/cre-error.html

Most of this is just running down creationist for being creationist, where are the lies that all
of them share? I admitted up front that I believe God created the universe and all that is in
it, so am I lying when I say that?

Originally posted by Wulebgr
We do not agree.

Reread my post that you quoted. You missed a key word in the sentence that you repeated.

You don't think both sides can error now? I read it again, you'll have to make it clearer.
If you want to suggest one side can learn from errors and other cannot, I'd disagree.
If you want to suggest creationist will not bend on the same story, I'd agree. Why should
they if what they believe is the truth, it isn't like the truth changes only our views of it.

Originally posted by Wulebgr
I do not consume sugared drinks.

Do you have diabetes?

Originally posted by Wulebgr
Scientific Creationism and Error
by Robert Schadewald
Copyright © 1986
Reprinted from Creation/Evolution (v. 6, n. 1, pp. 1-9)
with permission from the author.

Science is wedded, at least in principle, to the evidence. Creationism is unabashedly wedded to doctrine, as evidenced by the statements of belief required by various creationist organizations ...[text shortened]... led the tale of two proteins.

read the rest at http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/cre-error.html

There are a lot more lies from evolutionists and atheists than that. 😏

Originally posted by sonhouse
Well, we ALL knew that. We also know there is no holy spirit, no bible father and probably never was a person called Jesus.

We have historical evidence tha proves there was a person that we call Jesus now. In fact, there is as much, if not more, evidence for Jesus than any other person of that time period. Don't forget we also have the Shroud of Turin and the Sudarium of Oviedo as well as His empty tomb that visitors are still visiting today.

Originally posted by RJHinds
We have historical evidence tha proves there was a person that we call Jesus now. In fact, there is as much, if not more, evidence for Jesus than any other person of that time period. Don't forget we also have the Shroud of Turin and the Sudarium of Oviedo as well as His empty tomb that visitors are still visiting today.

And his DNA? What about his wife?

Originally posted by KellyJay
You don't think both sides can error now? I read it again, you'll have to make it clearer.
If you want to suggest one side can learn from errors and other cannot, I'd disagree.
If you want to suggest creationist will not bend on the same story, I'd agree. Why should
they if what they believe is the truth, it isn't like the truth changes only our views of it.

Lets put this in chess terms since this is a chess site. All players make errors. When a Grandmaster blunders, he or she concedes an important square. When a strong class player blunders, it is usually a pawn. Weaker players give away pieces.

Scientists are like GMs. They make small errors because they are human.

Creationists do not know how the horsey moves. They think they are playing checkers.

Both sides can err, but they are not equally prone to error, nor are their errors within the same order of magnitude.

When I was a Creationist, the Second Law of Thermodynamics was an important argument deployed against any semblance of order arising by chance mutations. When a real scientist explained to me that I had a truncated understanding of this law, my argument went down the sink with his demonstration. We were cleaning his apartment after his roommate's party. As he poured a bottle of stale beer into the sink, he had me observe the pockets of order (air bubbles) within the system of disorder (the beer going out of the bottle).

I could have clung to Duane Gish's explanation in the face of better understanding, but that would be as dishonest as Gish continuing to deploy arguments that have been shredded. Gish is dishonest. I am not.

Originally posted by RJHinds
Don't forget we also have the Shroud of Turin ...

There is strong evidence that the cloth dates to the thirteenth or fourteenth century, but this evidence is disputed by partisans. Nothing is clear about the shroud.

In the fourteenth century, many devoted Christians possessed relics from the original cross. It has been estimated that the total number of such relics comprised enough wood to build Noah's Ark.

Originally posted by Wulebgr
Lets put this in chess terms since this is a chess site. All players make errors. When a Grandmaster blunders, he or she concedes an important square. When a strong class player blunders, it is usually a pawn. Weaker players give away pieces.

Scientists are like GMs. They make small errors because they are human.

Creationists do not know how the horsey ...[text shortened]... est as Gish continuing to deploy arguments that have been shredded. Gish is dishonest. I am not.

No I will not give you that, a GM can make an error just like anyone else.
Also the higher up the food chain you go typically the more grandiose the error can be.

You should not put anyone in such a place they are beyond human error or typical human
errors. Errors are not the issue I had anyway, I dislike being called dishonest because I
believe in creation.

Originally posted by RJHinds
In fact, there is as much, if not more, evidence for Jesus than any other person of that time period.

Jesus himself didn't write a single word his whole life long and not a single word was written about him during his lifetime. While I am willing to accept that Christianity was triggered by the followers of a maverick Jewish rabbi whom they called Jesus, the suggestion that there is "more, evidence for Jesus than any other person of that time period" is sheer invented nonsense.

Originally posted by KellyJay
You should not put anyone in such a place they are beyond human error or typical human
errors. Errors are not the issue I had anyway, I dislike being called dishonest because I
believe in creation.

There's a strong whiff of dishonesty of the self-deception kind in the way you use your clumsy notion that 'all people make errors' to dismiss or sidestep evidence that contradicts and challenges your stated beliefs.

Originally posted by RJHinds
We have historical evidence tha proves there was a person that we call Jesus now. In fact, there is as much, if not more, evidence for Jesus than any other person of that time period. Don't forget we also have the Shroud of Turin and the Sudarium of Oviedo as well as His empty tomb that visitors are still visiting today.

The historical evidence for Jesus is one or two passing references. The historical evidence for his contemporaries, including Caesar Augustus, Pontius Pilate, and even John the Baptist is far stronger.

The historical evidence for Socrates, who like Jesus left no written record, is far stronger. Of course, Socrates was several hundred years older than Jesus.

Originally posted by Wulebgr
The historical evidence for Jesus is one or two passing references. The historical evidence for his contemporaries, including Caesar Augustus, Pontius Pilate, and even John the Baptist is far stronger.

The historical evidence for Socrates, who like Jesus left no written record, is far stronger. Of course, Socrates was several hundred years older than Jesus.

You are being dishonest at best and extremely wicked at worst.

The Near Genius 😏

Originally posted by RJHinds
You are being dishonest at best and extremely wicked at worst.

The Near Genius 😏

That one dug a bit deeper than most digs, eh. Dishonest, no. What he said is true, outside the bible there isn't much evidence JC ever lived. We can live with wicked. I guess that is your worse invective, the ultimate put down.

Originally posted by RJHinds
You are being dishonest at best and extremely wicked at worst.

The Near Genius 😏

hey wind bag find something else to whine on about.