Correct use of terms matters

Paraleptopecten · January 4, 2026, 6:44pm

Exodus 20:16; Job 13; Psalm 119:104 (end of Mem, for those with alternate verse numberings), 119:128, and 119:163; Proverbs 11:1, 13:5, 14:5, 20:23; Zechariah 13:3; Ephesians 4:25; I Timothy 1; and 1 John 4:1 are among the many, many passages which condemn making false statements, which suggests that making false statements in support of one’s views is a bad move.

Claiming that completely unpermineralized soft tissues or unaltered red bloods cells, or anything like that is preserved in dinosaur bones is demonstrably wrong. Claiming that angular associations between quasars and foreground galaxies require them to be at the same distance is demonstrably wrong. Claiming that accelerated nuclear decay is a viable physical explanation that doesn’t require deceptive miracles is demonstrably wrong. Claiming that transitional fossils don’t exist is demonstrably wrong. And the list could go on.

Cherry-picking, quote mining, misrepresentation of evidence, fudged measurements, defying rules of measurement, etc. are methods of lying. All of these can be found, with unfortunate frequency, in YEC promotion materials. They can also be found in low-quality scientific papers, and are attacked just as vigorously by reviewers.

The Missed Point

The Missed Point

Lies are intentionally false statement the person knows are false. That is an extremely serous accusation. If you are so polarized that you feel the need to make up your own language just so you can label those who disagree with you as liars, let me know when your dictionary comes out.

I’m thinking of James 3:1 here.

Not many of you should become teachers, my fellow believers, because you know that we who teach will be judged more strictly.

As I say, it’s a matter of trust. When you are learning from a teacher, you are trusting them that they have done their due diligence, to the best of their ability, in making sure that what they are teaching you is accurate. If they are teaching things that you later find out that they should reasonably have been expected to know to be false, given their level of education and their actual or claimed authority to teach about such things, it is only reasonable to conclude that they have committed a breach of that trust. The more blatant and egregious the falsehood, the harder it is to excuse it.

It’s also worth considering this discussion that we had a few years ago on the extent to which we should assume good faith on the part of young earth advocates:

In the discussion Critique of the video Genesis Impact @jpm said this: There are some times when we should be assuming good faith on the part of YECs, especially when they are new to more informed conversations about science and faith. I have friends and relatives who have no scientific background who haven’t a clue what I’m talking about when I discuss these things. I wouldn’t expect any of them to see what’s wrong with asking questions such as “if we evolved from monkeys then why are still m…

The Missed Point

https://www.reddit.com/r/Creation/comments/uxzl4l/do_creationists_lie_part_1/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=mweb3x&utm_name=mweb3xcss&utm_term=1&utm_content=share_button

Is the link above an incorrect assessment of Snelling? Was he actually hiding cracks with a picture?

Thanks for the link. They point out that Andrew Snelling has indeed acknowledged the existence of the cracks in question. However it is worth noting that his acknowledgement of the fractures is only made in a lengthy technical report that was published in 2021. The dodgy photograph, and the claim that the rock formation in question was not fractured, is in a popular-level article that is one of a series that frequently gets re-posted on their Facebook feed and that of their supporters and that was first published in 2012. The thread on this forum discussing this misrepresentation was in September 2017.

The Missed Point

The Missed Point

Dr. Snelling stated in a AIG article that there are no cracks.

Are there quotes or links to that statement?

The assertion that the rock formation was not fractured is spelt out explicitly in the popular-level article, in the caption of the photograph itself:

Photo 1: The whole sequence of sedimentary layers through which Grand Canyon cuts has been bent and folded without fracturing. This includes the Tapeats Sandstone, located at the bottom of the sequence. (A 90° fold in the eastern Grand Canyon is pictured here.)

As of today, this article has not been updated to correct it, though it does have a link to the technical report at the bottom. I am not aware of any acknowledgement of the fractures by Snelling et al that predates our 2017 discussion, though if someone can provide a link to one I will be happy to acknowledge it.