Why do evolutionists have to lie to support evolution?

[bob b]

From a Chicago Tribune interview with the president of the Field Museum about the new "Darwin" exhibit there:

McCarter (the president) was a big booster for creating the exhibit as a counterbalance to a surprisingly strong movement working to restore creationist teaching in schools, believing that evolutionary theory is false and that God created the Earth and all living species upon it around 6000 years ago.

How many lies can one stuff into a single sentence like the above?

Is evolution so weak that it must resort to lies to counter its opposition?

Many people, like myself, have rejected evolution because it is not credible. To be blunt, the idea is amazingly dumb.

And when I first looked at this dumb idea skeptically 23 years ago, it began a slow gravitation back to the faith which I had rejected at college 58 years ago.

"Humans are here because of a long series of fortunate copying errors."

With an idea like that who needs evidence?

 

[fool]

Can you clue us in as to what the lie is?

 

[bob b]

Can you clue us in as to what the lie is?

I once had an older boyhood friend who lied so often and so blatantly that I finally realized that he didn't even know he was lying.

I think that this is what is going on in our society today with regard to belief in evolution.

So I think that the better question may be: "How come intelligent people can not see the lies, and even fall into the habit of repeating them without thinking?"

Both Ernst Mayr and Stephen J. Gould, two scientists who I consider to have been highly intelligent, for some odd reason were apparently unable to detect their own unfortunate habit of repeating such lies about creationists.

I suppose it might have something to do with wanting to believe that the only possible explanation why some people do not believe in evolution is that they must be terribly dumb.

Of course another factor is the belief that there is something extra special about the word "species", and if one can only show that a new "species" can arise that the rest of the transition from a primitive protocell to Man is a mere detail.

And who is it that gets to tell us when a new "species" has arisen?

Guess.

Hint: the guy that gains honor and prestige and also the right to name the new species.

I have often wondered whether people did breeding experiments (like they do on domestic animals) on insects to determine whether they were interfertile or not before declaring a new "species".

I would bet a lot that they don't in the case of fossils.

 

[Andre1983]

1) Many people, like myself, have rejected evolution because it is not credible. To be blunt, the idea is amazingly dumb.

2) "Humans are here because of a long series of fortunate copying errors."

3) With an idea like that who needs evidence?

1) What relevant education do you have?
I assume you have a master-degree within both biology and biochemistry, seeing that you are capable of determining the truth behind evolution.
If you don't have any relevant education, you're just beeing "Calvinistic".

2: Thanks for proving that you don't have any relevant education...
To call evolution a series of copying errors is to suggest that life was best as single celled organisms who's only fuction was to be able to replicate.
That is not true -- an inaccurate and semi-randomly changing reciepe for life has proved to be the best solution -- life has evolved through the survival of the fittest.
There are no errors, as errors indicate a plan.
Not understanding evolution is one of the greatest reasons why so many people can't grasp it.
It is *only* logical, and only logical if you understand the process behind it...

3: With opposition like you, evidence doesn't seem to matter anyway...

Edit: If ignorance was a petty crime, you'd be sentenced to 5x lifetime in prison...

 

[Memento Mori]

Can you clue us in as to what the lie is?

I once had an older boyhood friend who lied so often and so blatantly that I finally realized that he didn't even know he was lying.

I think that this is what is going on in our society today with regard to belief in evolution.

So I think that the better question may be: "How come intelligent people can not see the lies, and even fall into the habit of repeating them without thinking?"

Both Ernst Mayr and Stephen J. Gould, two scientists who I consider to have been highly intelligent, for some odd reason were apparently unable to detect their own unfortunate habit of repeating such lies about creationists.

I suppose it might have something to do with wanting to believe that the only possible explanation why some people do not believe in evolution is that they must be terribly dumb.

Of course another factor is the belief that there is something extra special about the word "species", and if one can only show that a new "species" can arise that the rest of the transition from a primitive protocell to Man is a mere detail.

And who is it that gets to tell us when a new "species" has arisen?

Guess.

Hint: the guy that gains honor and prestige and also the right to name the new species.

I have often wondered whether people did breeding experiments (like they do on domestic animals) on insects to determine whether they were interfertile or not before declaring a new "species".

I would bet a lot that they don't in the case of fossils.

Well now can you clue us in on what the clue is?

 

[bob b]

Evolutionists: please keep those posts coming, and the madder you are the better.

I love it !!!

 

[kmoney]

What is the lie?

 

[Evoken]

What is the lie in the quoted sentence, bob b?


Evo

 

[Johnny]

Bob is very likely referencing the fact that neo-creationists don't actually believe God created "every" living species on the planet. He created "kinds" which then gave rise to the species.

Certainly an unsurprising reinterpretation of "kinds" in the wake of modern biology.

 

[kmoney]

Bob is very likely referencing the fact that neo-creationists don't actually believe God created "every" living species on the planet. He created "kinds" which then gave rise to the species.

Certainly an unsurprising reinterpretation of "kinds" in the wake of modern biology.

I figured he was referring to something like that, but wasn't sure.

 

[bob b]

What is the lie?

Are you serious?

You have seen many of my posts here and yet you play dumb?

The best teachers I ever had did not merely spoon feed "canned" answers.

The best ones challenged the student to find the answer on his own with perhaps a few hints here and there. Because if one determines the answer by oneself there are several benefits. First, the lesson is driven home and never forgotten.
Second, it gives a person confidence that the next problem can be solved. And finally, it adds to a person's problem-solving ability as opposed to being merely an exercise in memorizing canned answers.

I find it hard to believe that evolutionists here will not even venture a guess as to what the multiple lies were in the short sentence from the Chicago Tribune article about the new Darwin exhibit at the Field Museum and the related "slam" at creationists.

Why will they not venture a guess?

Because they are cowards who do not dare to think for themselves for fear that others will laugh at them if they are wrong. They are comfortable being on the "bandwagon" with so many others, and unaware that the wagon is on a path that will take it (and them) off that far off cliff.

It is painfully obvious from at least one of the postings on this thread that this is what is going on.

 

[fool]

Evolutionists: please keep those posts coming, and the madder you are the better.

I love it !!!

So you admit that your a troll.
Nice.
Let us know when you're ready for a serious discussion.

 

[kmoney]

Are you serious?

Yes.

You have seen many of my posts here and yet you play dumb?

First, I don't spend much time in creation/evolution threads. Second, I'm not playing dumb.

The best teachers I ever had did not merely spoon feed "canned" answers.

The best ones challenged the student to find the answer on his own with perhaps a few hints here and there. Because if one determines the answer by oneself there are several benefits. First, the lesson is driven home and never forgotten.
Second, it gives a person confidence that the next problem can be solved. And finally, it adds to a person's problem-solving ability as opposed to be merely an exercise in memorizing canned answers.

I find it hard to believe that evolutionists here will not even venture a guess as to what the multiple lies were in the short sentence from the Chicago Tribune article about the new Darwin exhibit at the Field Museum and the related "slam" at creationists.

Why will they not venture a guess?

Because they are cowards who do not dare to think for themselves for fear that others will laugh at them if they are wrong. They are comfortable being on the "bandwagon" with so many others, and unaware that the wagon is on a path that will take them over that far off cliff.

It is painfully obvious from at least one of the postings on this thread that this is what is going on.

If you wanted people to guess what the lie you are referring to was you should have mentioned that in the opening post, but you didn't. All you did was quote from the article and claim there is a lie in it. It's only natural for people to ask what that lie was. There's no reason to call people cowards.

In any case, Johnny has ventured a guess as to what he thinks you were referring to. Was he right?

 

[Evoken]

I find it hard to believe that evolutionists here will not even venture a guess as to what the multiple lies were in the short sentence from the Chicago Tribune article about the new Darwin exhibit at the Field Museum and the related "slam" at creationists.

Why will they not venture a guess?

Because they are cowards who do not dare to think for themselves for fear that others will laugh at them if they are wrong. They are comfortable being on the "bandwagon" with so many others, and unaware that the wagon is on a path that will take it (and them) off that far off cliff.

It is painfully obvious from at least one of the postings on this thread that this is what is going on.

How many lies and misrepresentations can one stuff into a few sentences like the above?

Seriously bob b, by this point you should know better.


Evo

 

[Johnny]

I figured he was referring to something like that, but wasn't sure.

To be fair to Mr. McCarter, it is very likely that your average creationist still believes in the fixity of species, despite the fact that their more informed peers have moved on. I know amongst my Christian friends and peers, I always get the old "but speciation has never happened!" argument all. the. time.

The one thing you can be sure of is that there is always some subject of the religious population who does not fit your labeling. That's just the nature of faith -- people believe different things. Statements like "Christian believe x" and "creationists believe y" are always going to elicit outcry from some portion of the respective populations who don't actually believe that way, even if they represent a minority position. Mr. McCarter should keep that in mind before he paints creationists with a single brush.

That being said, misinformation is distinct from a lie. A lie says something about the intentions of the communicator. I think it's prudent to try and be careful who we accuse of lying, because when we do that we assume we know someone's intentions and are aware of what knowledge they do and do not possess. This is hard information to come by. Usually it requires prior statements and familiarity with the person's position and knowledge base before such an assessment can be made.

Bob B is really raising a stink here just to create a little scene. In truth, he has no way of knowing whether this man is lying, whether he's just spreading misinformation, or to which group of creationists he refers. Indeed Mr. McCarter painted with a wide brush, but if for instance 75% of a population believes something, is it really a lie?

Mr. McCarter certainly needs to be more cautious, I am not defending what he said, I am simply pointing out that calling him a liar is a serious charge and one that I think was prematurely made.

Edit: Now that I've written all this I see that the author of the newspaper article was not in fact quoting Mr. McCarter but rather appears to be stating his or her own take on things. Now it's pretty clear to me that you're just grasping at straws to find something to be mad at. "Oh my the newspaper got it wrong!" Welcome to the world, Bob.

 

[bob b]

if for instance 75% of a population believes something, is it really a lie?

People pass on lies all the time without being aware that they are lies. So it is irrelevent how many people believe the lie.

The key here is "what was the origination of the lie?"

Mr. McCarter certainly needs to be more cautious, I am not defending what he said, I am simply pointing out that calling him a liar is a serious charge and one that I think was prematurely made.

I didn't call McCarter a liar, any more than I called Ernst Mayr and Stephen J. Gould liars for passing on false information. But if something is a lie then it is correct to call "a spade a spade".

So perhaps you could guess where this lie originated?

Also, what about the other lies in the same sentence of the article?

 

[Andre1983]

Because they are cowards who do not dare to think for themselves for fear that others will laugh at them if they are wrong. They are comfortable being on the "bandwagon" with so many others, and unaware that the wagon is on a path that will take it (and them) off that far off cliff.

It is painfully obvious from at least one of the postings on this thread that this is what is going on.

...
Bandwagon...

The bandwagon that has passed the mountain, gone through the valley of death and now rest peacefully at the station right next to the Theory of Gravity, loaded with 500 carts of supportive evidence with Kent Hovind in the onboard prison?

Yes -- I'm on that bandwagon, but only because I've studied enough biochemistry and geology to actually understand why it is true.
It is only logical.

...
Why the heck do you think you provoke evolusionists anyway?
It's not like evolusionsts have the same ideas or have come to terms with evolution through the same teachers or through identical self-studies on the field of biology and chemistry -- besides, most of us are beyond the point where we take you seriously anyway.
You beeing condecending and rude does not exactly add to our willingness to discuss with you like our equal...

You've yet to provide any, *any* evidence for any of your assumptions -- yet you use this unique self-proclaimed evidence whenever you need it.

And now this...
"Why do evolutionists have to lie to support evolution" -- followed by --
"McCarter (the president) was a big booster for creating the exhibit as a counterbalance to a surprisingly strong movement working to restore creationist teaching in schools, believing that evolutionary theory is false and that God created the Earth and all living species upon it around 6000 years ago. "

...
There are so many variations of creationism that it's not funny.
And there are no lies in that sentence: There are people that believe the exact thing that is described...
Now lets play your game...

"McCarter (the president) was a big booster for creating the exhibit" - lie, mcCarter isn't the president.
Very clever...

"creating the exhibit as a counterbalance to a surprisingly strong movement working to restore creationist teaching in schools" - truth. I thought creationism was long dead and didn't know christians actually existed before ten years ago or so. So it is suprising, and they used to teach creationism...
And they want to teach it again...

"believing that evolutionary theory is false and that God created the Earth and all living species upon it around 6000 years ago."True: Very many creationists believe that, and before I met Bob B most creationists I ever discussed believed things in these same lines.
Though, they should probably separate the new old earth seperatist creationists from the (old) new earth creationists.

 

[Memento Mori]

People pass on lies all the time without being aware that they are lies. So it is irrelevent how many people believe the lie.

I don't think he was saying that 75% believe the lie but rather

75% believe x. Person A says all people believe x. You don't believe x and call A a liar. Did A really lie? Partly yes but not totally.

 

[bob b]

Isn't anybody going to answer me?

So perhaps you could guess where this lie originated?

Also, what about the other lies in the same sentence of the article?

--------

Hey Andrei,

You said "before I met bob b". Where did you ever meet me?

Also, my wife says that you should remember "i before e except after c".

 

[Andre1983]

Oh, and it sais McCarter (the President) -- that is a lie...
He is "*former* president"

People pass on lies all the time without being aware that they are lies. So it is irrelevent how many people believe the lie.

The key here is "what was the origination of the lie?"

Funnily enough, evolution has evidence... which means it has some merit under it's belt...
We could assert the exact same thing for god;
People pass on lies all the time without being aware that they are lies. So it is irrelevent how many people believe the lie.