You Can’t Handle the Truth

Creationists lie.  And they lie all the time.  I have been bored enough to compile up this list.

– Fossil hoaxes are extremely common.  All these came from creationist websites.  They were beyond doubt photoshopped, and even if they were real they would be in the news and museums by now. Obvious hoax is obvious.

Over the past years there were some more subtle cases, for example: fossilised hammers or footprints or human fingers.  Not a single creationist fossil has been proven to be real, in fact, many have been debunked, and many have never been presented to science and to peer-review.  And certainly not one has made it to museums or to National Geographic.  Well, there is, of course, the atrociously stupid Creation Museum, where you might find a nice collection of them. Go here for more fossil claims.

– Here are some other creationist hoaxes, which I should not like to go into detail: Noah’s Ark, Ark of the Covenant, discovery of Mt Sinai, chariot wheels from Pharaoh’s army, the Ten Commandments tablet found in England, Jesus’ blood sample, Sodom and Gomorrah, etc. Interestingly enough, a lot of ill-informed people believe these outrageous lies.

– Hoaxes about Darwin: For example, Darwin’s deathbed conversion, to which they could provide no valid citation.  Creationists also claim that Darwin knew nothing about the cell, claiming that he only thought that they were “blobs of protoplasm”.  Well, check this drawing out, which was made by Darwin himself:

Scientists in Darwin’s time, in fact, had quite a good understanding of what cells were, and they were not simply “blobs of protoplasm”.  Yet another creationist hoax, so easily debunked.

– Creationists also like to misquote, a lot.  Here is the famous misquote of Darwin’s eye evolution:

“To suppose that the eye with all its inimitable contrivances for adjusting the focus to different distances, for admitting different amounts of light, and for the correction of spherical and chromatic aberration, could have been formed by natural selection, seems, I freely confess, absurd in the highest degree.”

But if only they had read on:

“Yet reason tells me, that if numerous gradations from a perfect and complex eye to one very imperfect and simple, each grade being useful to its possessor, can be shown to exist; if further, the eye does vary ever so slightly, and the variations be inherited, which is certainly the case; and if any variation or modification in the organ be ever useful to an animal under changing conditions of life, then the difficulty of believing that a perfect and complex eye could be formed by natural selection, though insuperable by our imagination, can hardly be considered real. How a nerve comes to be sensitive to light, hardly concerns us more than how life itself first originated; but I may remark that several facts make me suspect that any sensitive nerve may be rendered sensitive to light, and likewise to those coarser vibrations of the air which produce sound.”

 They also enjoy Darwin’s conclusion to the Origin of Species:

There is grandeur in this view of life, with its several powers, having been originally breathed by the Creator into a few forms or into one…”

“By the Creator” was added by Darwin owing to public response to his first edition.  In a letter to his friend, Darwin wrote:

“But I have long regretted that I truckled to public opinion, and used the Pentateuchal term of creation, by which I really meant ‘appeared’ by some wholly unknown process.”

Here is a stupid creationist attempt to destroy the Peppered Moth, providing of course no evidence but mere speculation, and makes false claims such as “the moths were glued to the trees”, to which there is no citation.

 – “Carbon-dating is inaccurate” or “Carbon-dating does not work” – These are famous sayings among creationists, and we’ve heard it all before.  They make claims such as “living mollusk shells are carbon-dated to be 2,300 years old” or the infamous “1,300 year-old living seal” and “20,000 year-old living snail”.  Well, duh!  Scientists have known since 1963 that carbon-dating does not work on marine animals, which is precisely why they don’t carbon-date marine animals.  Google reservoir effects.  In fact, the creationists are stupid enough to carbon-date their so-called “dinosaur bones”, and to come up with 20,000 year old dinosaurs – but on closer analysis, we find that the samples they used were mineralised and had no carbon in them to begin with!  Therefore CARBON-DATING REALLY DOES NOT WORK.  DUH!?  Thank god Kent Hovind is now in jail.

Before I get called a kettle calling the pot black, I need to speak up in defence of evolution.  The creationists are good at digging up the so-called “science-frauds”, such as the Nebraska Man, which was simply a discovery of a single tooth, published but then hyped by the media, and then later disproved by science itself.  The Piltdown Man is not a science fraud as the creationists claim, because the discovery was not made by a scientist, and it was later disproved by science itself.  I could go on forever.  Science is continually fixing its mistakes, and of course if you look for mistakes you would find them.  Science is a self-correcting process, based upon empirical evidence.  Creationism, on the other hand, deliberately invents hoaxes and spreads lies – downright lies.  Therefore I have come to a fitting conclusion:

You can’t handle the truth.