Dinosaur Shocker (YEC say dinosaur soft tissue couldn’t possibly survive millions of years)

Are you saying that if I stop for a little bit and then start up again, I have not really started up again? How would that be *recanting*? Even your hero Slick Willy wouldn't be dumb enough to think that. How come you do?

No, as I said it before, it is simply stating that you are a liar. (furthermore, you are an idiot)

In other words, you can't even begin to back up your claims. What a coward.

Your posts are the evidence. Liar. Idiot.

Only in your dreams. :)

Another of your lies.

I did nothing you have not done ten fold.

Wow. Another bold-faced lie. I have not used Eliza to respond to you.

You just broke the rules too. You obviously are also a hypocrite as well as a recovering liar.

You have made an ironic group of statements. My observations about you are true.

BTW, how are the meetings going? Get a sponsor yet? :)

I wouldn't know, since I have never attended your "meetings", though you are intimately familiar with them.

Liar. Eliza fooled you, and like every other mistake you make, you can't admit it.

Liar yourself. I told you about your stupid coaches long ago.

I purposely put a grammatically messed up sentence for you to catch on. If I hadn't, a year or two from now when we are still posting on this thread (and we will be), you would still not know you had been had.

Liar.

I repeat, "I contend that Darwinism is also non-falsifiable."

"No, as I said it before, it is simply stating that you are a liar. (furthermore, you are an idiot)"

Are you saying that if I stop for a little bit and then start up again, I have not really started up again? How would that be *recanting*? Even your hero Slick Willy wouldn't be dumb enough to think that. How come you do?

"Your posts are the evidence. Liar. Idiot."

In other words, you can't even begin to back up your claims. What a coward.

"Another of your lies."

Only in your dreams. :)

"Wow. Another bold-faced lie. I have not used Eliza to respond to you."

But you have broken any number of FR rules about posting etiquette. That makes you, not me, the liar.

"You have made an ironic group of statements. My observations about you are true."

Um, no. You are the one who attempted to scold me about breaking FR rules while breaking them as you said it. You are a hypocrite (or perhaps not intelligent enough to know.)

"I wouldn't know, since I have never attended your "meetings", though you are intimately familiar with them."

You are the the one who is the pathological liar, not me.

"Liar yourself. I told you about your stupid coaches long ago."

Um, no. You ridiculed my posts, but you had no idea I was using Eliza on one sentence a post. If I hadn't wanted you to know, you would have not figured out, even after years of posting. You simply aren't smart enough.

"Liar."

No. I fooled you, and you are too little to admit it.
I purposely put a grammatically messed up sentence for you to catch on. If I hadn't, a year or two from now when we are still posting on this thread (and we will be), you would still not know you had been had.

"I repeat, "I contend that Darwinism is also non-falsifiable.""

So I repeat, that goes against your claim that there is evidence against evolution that is being suppressed.

Without being supported by evidence one contention is no better than another. You act as if the fact that a contention doesn't have to be supported by evidence to be called a contention means that a contention doesn't need to be supported by evidence to be taken seriously.

Unfalsifiable claims cannot, by definition, have evidence that goes against them. Yet you claim that evolution is both unfalsifiable AND has evidence that goes against it (which is vigorously suppressed by a secret conspiracy of evolutionists). There is a deep logical contradiction in your position, and you are not man enough to admit it.

I've answered you.

In other words, you can't even begin to back up your claims. What a coward.

I've answered you. You still remain a liar and an idiot.

But you have broken any number of FR rules about posting etiquette. That makes you, not me, the liar.

You still remain a liar and an idiot.

Um, no. You are the one who attempted to scold me about breaking FR rules while breaking them as you said it. You are a hypocrite (or perhaps not intelligent enough to know.)

You admitted your playing of games. Calling you what you are is not breaking the rules.

You are the the one who is the pathological liar, not me

Hiring back your 4-year old coach won't work.

Um, no. You ridiculed my posts, but you had no idea I was using Eliza on one sentence a post. If I hadn't wanted you to know, you would have not figured out, even after years of posting. You simply aren't smart enough.

"Liar."

No. I fooled you, and you are too little to admit it. I purposely put a grammatically messed up sentence for you to catch on. If I hadn't, a year or two from now when we are still posting on this thread (and we will be), you would still not know you had been had.

Sorry guy, you can't weasel out of your lies. You got caught. Despite your mewling, you didn't just turn yourself in.

I repeat, "I contend that Darwinism is also non-falsifiable."

"I've answered you."

Are you saying that if I stop for a little bit and then start up again, I have not really started up again? How would that be *recanting*? Even your hero Slick Willy wouldn't be dumb enough to think that. How come you do?

"I've answered you."

In other words, you can't even begin to back up your claims. What a coward.

"You still remain a liar and an idiot."

And you still break FR rules while trying to lecture me about breaking FR rules. You are a hypocrite (or just too stupid to know.) :)

"You admitted your playing of games. Calling you what you are is not breaking the rules."

Um, no. You are the one who attempted to scold me about breaking FR rules while breaking them as you said it. You are a hypocrite (or perhaps not intelligent enough to know.)

"Sorry guy, you can't weasel out of your lies. You got caught. Despite your mewling, you didn't just turn yourself in."

Um, no. I didn't lie at all.

You ridiculed my posts, but you had no idea I was using Eliza on one sentence a post. If I hadn't wanted you to know, you would have not figured out, even after years of posting. You simply aren't smart enough. It BURNS you that I have been laughing at you for about 3 weeks now. I can feel it in every post you make. :)

"I repeat, "I contend that Darwinism is also non-falsifiable.""

So I repeat, that goes against your claim that there is evidence against evolution that is being suppressed.

Without being supported by evidence one contention is no better than another. You act as if the fact that a contention doesn't have to be supported by evidence to be called a contention means that a contention doesn't need to be supported by evidence to be taken seriously.

Unfalsifiable claims cannot, by definition, have evidence that goes against them. Yet you claim that evolution is both unfalsifiable AND has evidence that goes against it (which is vigorously suppressed by a secret conspiracy of evolutionists). There is a deep logical contradiction in your position, and you are not man enough to admit it.

Other of your blather previously answered.

Um, no. I didn't lie at all.

Liar.

You ridiculed my posts, but you had no idea I was using Eliza on one sentence a post. If I hadn't wanted you to know, you would have not figured out, even after years of posting. You simply aren't smart enough. It BURNS you that I have been laughing at you for about 3 weeks now. I can feel it in every post you make. :)

You're delusional again plus you are a bald-faced liar. You did not use Eliza on post 1603,1605,1607,1609,1611, 1614... Ha, ha, ha, you got caught again.

I repeat, "I contend that Darwinism is also non-falsifiable."

"Other of your blather previously answered."

That's not even a complete sentence.

Are you saying that if I stop for a little bit and then start up again, I have not really started up again? How would that be *recanting*? Even your hero Slick Willy wouldn't be dumb enough to think that. How come you do?

In other words, you can't even begin to back up your claims. What a coward.

"You're delusional again plus you are a bald-faced liar"

You ridiculed my posts, but you had no idea I was using Eliza on one sentence a post. If I hadn't wanted you to know, you would have not figured out, even after years of posting. You simply aren't smart enough. It BURNS you that I have been laughing at you for about 3 weeks now. I can feel it in every post you make. :)

"You did not use Eliza on post 1603,1605,1607,1609,1611, 1614... Ha, ha, ha, you got caught again."

Ha ha!; I didn't say I did use Eliza on those posts.

You have NO idea how funny your posts are to me. :)

"I repeat, "I contend that Darwinism is also non-falsifiable.""

So I repeat, that goes against your claim that there is evidence against evolution that is being suppressed.

Without being supported by evidence one contention is no better than another. You act as if the fact that a contention doesn't have to be supported by evidence to be called a contention means that a contention doesn't need to be supported by evidence to be taken seriously.

Unfalsifiable claims cannot, by definition, have evidence that goes against them. Yet you claim that evolution is both unfalsifiable AND has evidence that goes against it (which is vigorously suppressed by a secret conspiracy of evolutionists). There is a deep logical contradiction in your position, and you are not man enough to admit it.

That's not even a complete sentence.

So what? It conveys what it needs to convey.

Ha ha!; I didn't say I did use Eliza on those posts.

Ha, ha. You're a liar again ... "but you had no idea I was using Eliza on one sentence a post."

You have NO idea how funny your posts are to me. :)

You are obviously entertained by everything. Idiots tend to be that way and since I am not an idiot such as you, I have no idea of how funny things are to you.

I repeat, "I contend that Darwinism is also non-falsifiable."

"So what? It conveys what it needs to convey."

It conveys the fact you're barely literate. :)

"Ha, ha. You're a liar again ... "but you had no idea I was using Eliza on one sentence a post.""

One sentence for every post that I used it. I didn't use it for most of the posts. Though you weren't smart enough to know anyway. If I didn't let you know, I could have used it for the next few years (which is how long this thread will go). :)

"You are obviously entertained by everything."

No, but I do find your hypocrisy and idiocy entertaining. Much like seeing a train wreck or a car accident. I just can't look away.

"I repeat, "I contend that Darwinism is also non-falsifiable.""

So I repeat, that goes against your claim that there is evidence against evolution that is being suppressed.

Without being supported by evidence one contention is no better than another. You act as if the fact that a contention doesn't have to be supported by evidence to be called a contention means that a contention doesn't need to be supported by evidence to be taken seriously.

Unfalsifiable claims cannot, by definition, have evidence that goes against them. Yet you claim that evolution is both unfalsifiable AND has evidence that goes against it (which is vigorously suppressed by a secret conspiracy of evolutionists). There is a deep logical contradiction in your position, and you are not man enough to admit it.

It conveys the fact you're barely literate. :)

It sufficiently conveys that your blather was addressed.

One sentence for every post that I used it. I didn't use it for most of the posts. Though you weren't smart enough to know anyway. If I didn't let you know, I could have used it for the next few years (which is how long this thread will go). :)

Clinton has nothing on you. Plus, you didn't let me know. You got caught. A few years is not forever, liar.

No, but I do find your hypocrisy and idiocy entertaining.

No, that is your hypocrisy and idiocy you are laughing at.

I repeat, "I contend that Darwinism is also non-falsifiable."

"It sufficiently conveys that your blather was addressed."

And by *addressed* you mean *ignored*.

"Plus, you didn't let me know. You got caught."

No, I LET you know by posting an obviously screwed up sentence. I was feeling for pity for you, having watched you make such a fool of yourself answering Eliza without a clue it was Eliza. I could have done it to you for years and you would not have been smart enough to figure it out.

"A few years is not forever, liar."

I already said it wasn't going to be *forever*, as in till the end of time. Unlike you, I admit mistakes. That doesn't make me a liar, it makes me honest. I can see how you wouldn't be familiar with that concept.

That being said, it will FEEL like forever for you in a few years when most of your posts are in this thread. :)

"No, that is your hypocrisy and idiocy you are laughing at."

No, when you try to lecture me on what the rules of etiquette are here while breaking them with every post you make (you know, the rules against personal attacks), that's hypocrisy on your part. And stupidity.

"I repeat, "I contend that Darwinism is also non-falsifiable.""

So I repeat, that goes against your claim that there is evidence against evolution that is being suppressed.

Without being supported by evidence one contention is no better than another. You act as if the fact that a contention doesn't have to be supported by evidence to be called a contention means that a contention doesn't need to be supported by evidence to be taken seriously.

Unfalsifiable claims cannot, by definition, have evidence that goes against them. Yet you claim that evolution is both unfalsifiable AND has evidence that goes against it (which is vigorously suppressed by a secret conspiracy of evolutionists). There is a deep logical contradiction in your position, and you are not man enough to admit it.

And by *addressed* you mean *ignored*.

Of course, the second and third times you post the same crap after I tell you it doesn't make a difference. Forever is not one or two years.

No, I LET you know by posting an obviously screwed up sentence. I was feeling for pity for you, having watched you make such a fool of yourself answering Eliza without a clue it was Eliza. I could have done it to you for years and you would not have been smart enough to figure it out.

You got caught and know it. I listed an incomplete series of of your posts and you admitted that they did not contain Eliza sentences. That list ended in an ellipsis. Now you made 16 posts including the last one I responded to with the Eliza accusation, after post 1614. That spanned a total of 4 days. "Please go on."(among some of your other statements) is more pithy as a target used to beat you over the head, rather than as premature accusation of Eliza use. You would have denied it. In any case, you got caught. You are a liar, an idiot, and someone who has severe difficulties with the concept of time. Two years is not forever and a few days are not years.

I already said it wasn't going to be *forever*, as in till the end of time. Unlike you, I admit mistakes. That doesn't make me a liar, it makes me honest. I can see how you wouldn't be familiar with that concept.

The moment you left the decision up to me, is the moment you lost the ability to define "forever". Liar.

No, when you try to lecture me on what the rules of etiquette are here while breaking them with every post you make (you know, the rules against personal attacks), that's hypocrisy on your part. And stupidity.

The first person to mention lack of integrity was you. You liar. I responded with the "not" example because of your personal attack, "I have given up thinking you will provide any evidence for it, because that would take integrity." in post 1173. Plus you have the gall to bring up a incomplete sentences when you use them.

I repeat, "I contend that Darwinism is also non-falsifiable."

"Forever is not one or two years."

I already said it wouldn't be *forever*. I amended my claim (mainly because as in everything you are too dumb to see beyond the literal, like with Genesis, and understand the meaning of what was written: I would be posting for a long, long time). When I do that you call it a lie; when you make a MUCH bigger mistake (saying that an unfalsifiable claim can have evidence that goes against it) you will literally go on forever denying your error, as you are constitutionally incapable of honesty.

"You got caught and know it."

Um, no. I LET you know by posting an obviously screwed up sentence. I was feeling pity for you, having watched you make such a fool of yourself answering Eliza without a clue it was Eliza. I could have done it to you for years and you would not have been smart enough to figure it out.

"Two years is not forever and a few days are not years."

That's deep. Think of that all by yourself? :)

"The moment you left the decision up to me, is the moment you lost the ability to define "forever"."

The decision was never yours.

"Liar."

Yes, you are.

"The first person to mention lack of integrity was you."

Because you lacked integrity. You still do. You always will. Forever. (and that's not just for a few years)

"I responded with the "not" example because of your personal attack,"

Then I said speak for yourself, and you said you were, clearly meaning it was you who was not a fine example of integrity. I remember the sequence; it was one of the funniest things I have ever read on FR. :)

"Plus you have the gall to bring up a incomplete sentences when you use them."

That should be *an* incomplete sentence. Also, *a/an* does not match *sentences*. *Sentences* should be singular.

And you are a hypocrite when you try to lecture me on what the rules of etiquette are here while breaking them with every post you make (you know, the rules against personal attacks); that's hypocrisy on your part. And stupidity.

"I repeat, "I contend that Darwinism is also non-falsifiable.""

So I repeat, that goes against your claim that there is evidence against evolution that is being suppressed.

Without being supported by evidence one contention is no better than another. You act as if the fact that a contention doesn't have to be supported by evidence to be called a contention means that a contention doesn't need to be supported by evidence to be taken seriously.

Unfalsifiable claims cannot, by definition, have evidence that goes against them. Yet you claim that evolution is both unfalsifiable AND has evidence that goes against it (which is vigorously suppressed by a secret conspiracy of evolutionists). There is a deep logical contradiction in your position, and you are not man enough to admit it.

I already said it wouldn't be *forever*. I amended my claim (mainly because as in everything you are too dumb to see beyond the literal, like with Genesis, and understand the meaning of what was written: I would be posting for a long, long time). When I do that you call it a lie; when you make a MUCH bigger mistake (saying that an unfalsifiable claim can have evidence that goes against it) you will literally go on forever denying your error, as you are constitutionally incapable of honesty.

And I told you, too bad, you are already a liar.

Um, no. I LET you know by posting an obviously screwed up sentence. I was feeling pity for you, having watched you make such a fool of yourself answering Eliza without a clue it was Eliza. I could have done it to you for years and you would not have been smart enough to figure it out.

You got caught.

That's deep. Think of that all by yourself? :)

To you, of course it is.

The decision was never yours.

Liar.--- " I can do this forever if you want."... You left it up to me.

Yes, you are.

Back to the 4-year old coach again, aren't you?

Because you lacked integrity.

Which I have proved about you, liar.

Then I said speak for yourself, and you said you were, clearly meaning it was you who was not a fine example of integrity.

You are still delusional and still unable to tell the difference between "FOR" and "OF".

That should be *an* incomplete sentence. Also, *a/an* does not match *sentences*. *Sentences* should be singular.

No shit sherlock, that was my mistake. I was editing and forgot to omit the "a". That still leaves you as a glowing hypocrite.

And you are a hypocrite when you try to lecture me on what the rules of etiquette are here while breaking them with every post you make (you know, the rules against personal attacks); that's hypocrisy on your part. And stupidity.

I'm calling you what you are, a liar, and an idiot.

"And I told you, too bad, you are already a liar."

You don't understand what the word means, though the irony is palpable.

"You got caught."

Um, no. I LET you know by posting an obviously screwed up sentence. I was feeling pity for you, having watched you make such a fool of yourself answering Eliza without a clue it was Eliza. I could have done it to you for years and you would not have been smart enough to figure it out.

"To you, of course it is."

I was being sarcastic.

"Liar.--- " I can do this forever if you want."... You left it up to me."

I did no such thing. I never left it up to you to define what *forever* means, which is what you were referring to when you said this,

"The moment you left the decision up to me, is the moment you lost the ability to define "forever"."

I left it up to you to decide when this thread will die. As you obviously enjoy this, it won't die any time soon, apparently.

"Which I have proved about you, liar."

Not even close. Saying it doesn't make it so. Just like saying that there is evidence against evolution being suppressed doesn't make it so.

"You are still delusional and still unable to tell the difference between "FOR" and "OF"."

You were speaking FOR yourself, which in that automatic expression clearly identifies YOU as the one with integrity issues.

I was so proud of you. It takes a big man to admit they have a problem, and you most definitely have one. Then you blew it.

One day at a time. :)

"No shit sherlock, that was my mistake."

I'm speechless. You admitted a mistake. That's a first. Now, how about the dozens of others? You've got a lot of catching up to do!

BTW, watch the language. Rules and all that. :)

"I was editing and forgot to omit the "a". That still leaves you as a glowing hypocrite."

No it doesn't. :)

"I repeat, "I contend that Darwinism is also non-falsifiable.""

You're slipping. You almost forgot that.

So I repeat, that goes against your claim that there is evidence against evolution that is being suppressed.

Without being supported by evidence one contention is no better than another. You act as if the fact that a contention doesn't have to be supported by evidence to be called a contention means that a contention doesn't need to be supported by evidence to be taken seriously.

Unfalsifiable claims cannot, by definition, have evidence that goes against them. Yet you claim that evolution is both unfalsifiable AND has evidence that goes against it (which is vigorously suppressed by a secret conspiracy of evolutionists). There is a deep logical contradiction in your position, and you are not man enough to admit it.

You don't understand what the word means, though the irony is palpable.

The word is embodied in you.

You got caught.

I was being sarcastic.

You were trying to be sarcastic.

I did no such thing. I never left it up to you to define what *forever* means, which is what you were referring to when you said this,

I left it up to you to decide when this thread will die. As you obviously enjoy this, it won't die any time soon, apparently.

You are caught lying again.

Not even close. Saying it doesn't make it so. Just like saying that there is evidence against evolution being suppressed doesn't make it so.

Look at the immediately previous sentences, liar

You were speaking FOR yourself, which in that automatic expression clearly identifies YOU as the one with integrity issues.

Nope. You are getting closer to what "FOR" means, though.

I'm speechless.

Were that true...

No it doesn't. :)

Sure it does, you did use incomplete sentences and had the gall to criticise my use of them.

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.