My main point here is the logical consequences of there arguments, like for example if somebody would say a is b and in the second sentences, would say, well I'm not really sure if a is b, and yet insist that a is b because he or she believe it, that is doubtful. Take note also that in the court of law your statements can be use againts you, that is the method being use to determine that somebody is lying.
Let's use an example. This is a well known Darwin quote mine that has been used by creationists for years:
"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 possible degree." (Darwin 1872)
This would seem to indicate that Darwin believed the eye could not have evolved, and this is exactly the trap the creationists have led you into. However, reality is quite the opposite. Darwin went on to say:
"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. . . .
In the Articulata we can commence a series with an optic nerve merely coated with pigment, and without any other mechanism; and from this low stage, numerous gradations of structure, branching off in two fundamentally different lines, can be shown to exist, until we reach a moderately high stage of perfection. In certain crustaceans, for instance, there is a double cornea, the inner one divided into facets, within each of which there is a lens shaped swelling. In other crustaceans the transparent cones which are coated by pigment, and which properly act only by excluding lateral pencils of light, are convex at their upper ends and must act by convergence; and at their lower ends there seems to be an imperfect vitreous substance. With these facts, here far too briefly and imperfectly given, which show that there is much graduated diversity in the eyes of living crustaceans, and bearing in mind how small the number of living animals is in proportion to those which have become extinct, I can see no very great difficulty (not more than in the case of many other structures) in believing that natural selection has converted the simple apparatus of an optic nerve merely coated with pigment and invested by transparent membrane, into an optical instrument as perfect as is possessed by any member of the great Articulate class."
As you can see, the first part of the quote was rhetorical. Darwin was setting up a problem, and then demonstrated how that problem is solved. Creationists have dishonestly pulled quotes out of context in order to make someone say the opposite of what they meant. This is why you should not pull quotes from creationist sites, or at least find the original source and see for yourself if the quote is in context.
Edited by Taq, : No reason given.