[Dimensio]

Some may be wrong on some issues but they aren't liars.

When a creationist responds to an article about Antony Flew conceding that a "prime-mover" type God may have started the universe and also states that Flew still accepts Darwinian evolution by saying that Flew has "rejected" the theory of evolution, what is that? What about when the article is quoted directly to them and they insist that Flew rejects the theory. What about if later, the same creationist denies ever saying anything about Antony Flew in the first place, even in response to a link to their very own post?

If that isn't lying, what is it?

What is it when a creationist claims that it is a "historical fact" that Darwin's own children stated that he "recanted" his theories "on his deathbed", completely ignores references to articles that dispute the claim, claims that no one has provided references that dispute the claim (after said references are provided multiple times), later takes one quote from one of the references out of context and presents it as "proof" of his claim, even though the article that he quoted out of context comes to the opposite conclusion that he claims he has proven? What if this creationist also says that the article that he has quoted out of context is a "pro evolution story", even though it comes from Answers in Genesis? How about when the creationist later presents an article that says that a woman named "Lady Hope" might have visited Darwin several months before his death (well before he was on his "deathbed"), acknowledges that Darwin's children disputed the claim of his recanting and comes to the conclusion that "we cannot conclude either way" regarding Darwin becoming a Christian before his death as "absolute proof" of his previous claims (that Darwin's own children said that Darwin recanted on his deathbed)? If that isn't lying, then just what is it?

[Strategerist]

Yeah, you hit the nail on the head.

Also brought up something I forgot; Creationists are the all time, never-will-be-challenged, give them the trophy permanently, CHAMPIONS of out-of-context quotations.

I believe there's an entire page devoted to the subject, let me look around and find it.

[DallasMike]

If that isn't lying, what is it?>

I call it being wrong. If the odd person here or there continues to post something that it is obviously wrong, then it would correctly be deemed a lie. However, calling an entire group liars as a blanket statement is wrong. I won't call hard-core evolutionists a group of liars even though schoolchildren are still treated to Haeckel's drawings of embryos and fairy-tale stories of moths pinned to British trees.

[longshadow]

If that isn't lying, what is it?

Anti-Evo "misspeaking"?

;-)