Is it a sin to continually use misleading and discredited evidence to support a point?

It is only a "sin" if it is done so intentionally and with malice. With a high degree of confidence, however, I can say "Ω Odd!" these people usually haven't a clue as to how to spell "evidence", never mind articulately use evidence to prove a point.

Actually, unless you're doing serious academic work, almost everybody on all sides has trouble with rigorously supporting the assertions by which they live. Atheism, for example, cannot prove that God does not exist, yet here on R&S they spend so much energy trying to prove what is impossible to prove, you would think they suffered from a compulsion disorder of some kind. The bigger problem is that your statement appears to assume that evidence only comes in one flavor. That is hardly the case. A math proof is not the same as a historical proof is not the same as a philosophical proof. Thus, when one side offers what it considers good historical evidence, the other side can sidestep by demanding proof of a mathematical kind that can't possibly be satisfied by historical evidence. This is a mere stunt. It is useless as a way to carry on a meaningful conversation about what matters most, truth. Until people really want to engage in a serious process of mutual learning, they will continue to spew their team's slogans, and we all know that slogan fights are the best form of debate because they require no proof at all.

Certainty grants comfort. When two ideas conflict it brings uncertainty.

Those who seek truth will follow the route poorly understood in order to better clarify it in context with a belief already held. If they still seem to be incompatible, one of them has to go.

There are two many things in the world to think about for most people to also consider the multitude of possibilities they present.

Nobody knows everything about anything.

It's a dynamic world and the only true knowledge we have of it is that gained through experience and the logical interpretation of it. You can't pray for knowledge. Well, I guess you can, but you should realize that if you feel like you need to, it's not the knowledge you're after so much as the self-confirmation you think it will provide because, you're asking for something that is already there for the taking.

Knowledge is everywhere. It's embedded deep into every place there is to look. It's in every tree, rock, animal and person in existence.

Your ability to learn something of truth relies solely on your capacity to see what's right in front of your eyes for what it really truly is.

I guess that for something to be a sin, you have to realize that you're doing it in the first place. This doesn't hold true as the tendencies to dismiss observations when they conflict with previously held conceptions are similar in all people who suffer from a specific delusional disorder in which they feel compelled to attach themselves to an idea or faulty perception that is both very significant as well as having a very personal attachment to the individual. It's hardly limited to religion.

If you know something is false and say it as evidence then it is lying, and that would be a sin. Just having some one explain problems with them would not be enough to call it a sin because it would be just a difference in opion.

i don't believe in sins. it's an archaic concept.

but i think thatthere is no integrity in "bearing false witness" either, yet christians do it all the time.

"my friend doesn't believe in god. should i tell him/her that god spoke to me personally and wants him/her to attend my church?"

a "christian" should have a moral obligation to avoid such logical fallacies or outright lies.

willful ignorance implies knowledge and, though i wouldn't call it sinning, per se, it's dishonest and dishonorable.

a "christian" should have a serious opposition to it.

I think you are judging and very harshly. Not every Creationist gets their info from a website. There is certainly no Theistic Directive to use that website.

Many of us have been Creationists for longer than the internet has existed.

I grew up believing Darwin recanted on his death-bed and only recently read up on it. Very disappointing, but apparently, according to his daughters, he never re-canted.

To me the only rational answer to these arguments as presented is that the people who invent them are members of what I call the priest class, these people have no belief in god they simply see a whole strata of vulnerable and trusting people and proceed to exploit them

I think if you knowingly lie then it is a sin. If you tell an untruth out of ignorance then it is not, until you have been educated as to the actual truth.

I would say its just flat out wise not to lie or spread misconstrued information. If you lose integrity, you will lose your whole audience - hopefully. (Sometimes I give humans too much credit) If you have to lie to prove your point, you prove nothing. In other words, it is wrong, immoral, and just a waste of time.

http://youtube.com/watch?v=qEgvJ6dqzyo

http://youtube.com/watch?v=ZGND4bEOtS8

http://youtube.com/watch?v=aLqQttJinjo&feature=rel...

And then you get made fun of.

http://youtube.com/watch?v=bdkRzkXbZ1M

Out of all the creationists I have heard about, Ken Ham (creator of AIG) has to be the one who tries not to lie about other theories. I have to give him a lot of credit - even if I don't agree with what he says. :D

For me it would be a sin. I believe sin means missing the mark. I do not do to others what I would not want done to me. So doing that would miss that mark. You have to decide what is sin for you.