In His own image .....

AdminPamboli correctly points out that discussion of the evidence for an ancient earth belongs in the Dates and Dating forum, but the issue of how YEC is a deception can be addressed without getting into the evidence.Mainstream YECism as represented by organizations like ICR and CRS is misleading, deceptive and at times outright fabricationist because they purposefully ignore, distort, conflate or make up evidence in order to support their own particular literal interpretation of Genesis. They paint a distorted picture of modern scientific views to their church audiences to give the impression that questions like the age of the earth and the origin of species are still much in debate in scientific circles when nothing could be further from the truth. At best their faith has led them astray, and at worst they are liars and cheats.If YECism were honest then it would forthrightly state that modern science is fully convinced that the earth is billions of years and the TOE is correct, and that there is no doubt about this within scientific circles. If they were honest they would say this because this is the truth. They could then go on to state why they believe science is wrong.But they don't do that. They instead tell their congregations that science isn't really sure how old the earth is or where species came from, and that there is still plenty of controversy. Then they tell you that the saved Christian knows the answers to these scientific puzzles without a doubt, because these questions are plainly answered for all to see by the Word of God contained in the Bible.--Percy

Hi Drum,I don't normally express myself in such black and white terms as I did in the prior message, but you were missing a point that had been made to you several times so I tried yet another approach. And you still seem to be missing the point.The original point being made to you wasn't about whether Creationists are liars or whether Duane Gish was an evolutionist, but was about what you think of a website that purposefully misstates information. As near as I can tell (and you don't make it easy to tell), you're attempting to make the case that their misstatement wasn't with knowledge and forethought.As someone else has already pointed out, their mistake is small potatoes as far as Creationist whoppers go, but it's the whopper currently under discussion, and I'm satisfied to stick with it.Addressing some of your other points: Creationists have been saying this for over half a century. It's as false today as it ever was. What Creationist website told you this? Whichever one it was, they're lieing. They lie because they're not interested in truth but in protecting the faith. You don't even need to do any investigating to know this is a lie because if it were true boards like this would be full of former biology professors who could argue the issues knowledgably, and the science at Creationist websites wouldn't be so pathetic, and journals would be publishing the evidence that convinced so many evolutionists to become Creationists, and Time and Newsweek would be noting the stunning reversal as school boards across the country added Creationism to the curriculum. But none of that is happening, is it?So what website told you this? What do you think of a Creationist website that knowingly states misinformation? Individuals don't evolve, so no, I don't believe I'm evolving to anything, including "a god-like stage." Evolution, as you've been told many times here, has no innate direction. Science takes no position pro or con regarding the supernatural, and would never incorporate such concepts into theory.You seem to have gotten the definition of evolution confused with all kinds of mumbo-jumbo competing-with-God nonsense. It's a shame that the evolution you object to so strongly isn't the one that science actually accepts.--Percy

You're addressing all the side issues introduced simply to reinforce the original point, and you're ignoring the main point entirely. Your history is one of changing subjects rather than addressing issues, so there seems little point in moving on to new topics which you will likely also abandon.The original question to you was, what do you think of websites that make intentionally misleading statements like the one about Denton? It's actually a rhetorical question, but it would be a welcome change if you would address the issue. Seriously credibility problems have been pointed out to you concerning the websites you're using to inform your arguments - why do you continue to use them?--Percy

The discussion has become confused. Here's the history:

1. You opened a thread called Evidence For God with no discussion, just a link to a website: marshill.org. Because of the absence of any introductory discussion the thread was closed.
   ​
2. You opened a new thread a few hours later called What would be the resume for evidence of a creator? in which you introduced a couple arguments from that website, but failed to reference the website. NosyNed listened to the MP3 from that website that mentioned the arguments you had just introduced, and that's where he brought up the statement about calling Denton an evolutionist. You haven't responded to this thread since this past Monday.
   ​
3. Since you didn't respond in the other thread, I raised the issue here when the opportunity arose.

Hopefully this is enough information for you to now understand the question about Denton. The website you cited quoted Denton words from his anti-evolutionist days and then called him an evolutionist. What do you think of sources that misrepresent or distort information?If it helps, the audio portion of the website is at Home / Mars Hill. I haven't listened to them and so don't know which one contains the Denton reference, but you and NosyNed should know which one it is.--Percy