Pete: rob,...I am far from convinced that the examples you quote demonstrate any intentional deception.

What WOULD it take to convince you, Pete? How on EARTH could someone pick through a paragraph to take a single sentence right out of context and then elide it to a second sentence 3 paragraphs below it on order to come up with a quote which bears no relation to the author's original intention UNLESS it was done with a deliberate intention to deceive?

I have no doubt that similar examples could be collected from evolutionist writings, apart from some well known frauds like Piltdown and hacklyes embryonic drawings [ which persisted long after exposure].

Very little, compared with the masses of creationist deceptions I've seen (and I've been looking into this on and off since the very early 1990s). And the scientists are generally self-correcting! Was it creationists who pointed out that Piltdown Man was a hoax? No, it was scientists, doing actual science, who showed that the evidence that it was a hoax was beyond reasonable doubt.It was presented in 1912 and as early as 1913 was being challenged as being a compilation of ape and human fragments.By the time it was completely proven to be a forgery in 1953, almost all reputable experts in the field had concluded years before that it was fake.

so many top creation scientist liars.....I suppose it is possible.

It's not only possible, but it's been shown many times that almost all the top creationists have lied and distorted deliberately. Some of them have even lied about their "science" credentials.

maybe that's why they wont publicly debate top evolutionist scientists........oh, actually, it is the other way round.

Real scientists won't debate (usually) creationists in public debates for 2 main reasons:

1) because some consider that it gives an unwarranted aura of respectability to creationism that real scientists are willing to debate the issue....many just think it's so laughable that there's actually nothing TO debate

and

2) that the sort of "quick fire" rhetoric that is used in such debates is no place to properly show the flaws of creationism...the creationist makes dozens of quick points which are flawed, misquotes, or plain wrong and unless the opposition debater has had prior knowledge of what those points are,it's impossible to rebut them effectively live on-stage.

There's even a phrase for the technique. It's called the "Gish Gallop", as the "bamboozle them with hundreds of not-quite-facts" technique was developed by Duane Gish.

Take the recent Ham/Nye debate....Ham rushed through several sets of slides showing geologic columns or evolutionary trees and made completely inaccurate claims about what he was showing and what it meant....but he did it at such a rate that it was hard to actually perceive what he was doing "live"....you needed to go through slowly a replay of it and then analyse his slides in some detail to show where he was bullshitting. Something that Nye had no opportunity to do live on stage.

Stage debate is a ridiculous was to analyse the evidence for and against scientific hypotheses or theories. Detailed analysis ir required....which is what *creationists* are terrified of.