Replies

You mean if I stop for a week, and start up again, I really haven't started up again? Just how fast do I have to post a reply to please you? :)

You had to have had a hand in this statement...

But, there were also a lot of times when, even though no one could see us, the doors were open to the halls, on both ends of the halls, people could hear. . . . So, there were a lot of times when we were alone, but I never really thought we were. . . .

Why should I recant? I'd rather keep posting.

Yeah, I guess you want to keep your lack of integrity streak going and not recant. Recanting has nothing to do with posting so keep on posting. It is the content that matters, and, of course, you didn't know that.

No, but I read your posts where you claimed that evidence existed against evolution but was being suppressed by an evil cabal of evilutionists (possibly with help from Opus Dei).

Ah, captured by your delusions again.

What about your own delusions are severe?

I guess you did fire your 4-year old coach, however, your use of Eliza ® as a consultant is worse.

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

"You had to have had a hand in this statement..."

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?

"Yeah, I guess you want to keep your lack of integrity streak going and not recant."

Recant what? My intention to keep posting for a few years? Why? Are we not having fun? You MUST be, you keep replying. :)

"Ah, captured by your delusions again."

They were your delusions. YOU were the one who claimed that evidence against evolution was being suppressed. After you read the "Darwin Code", where it was revealed that Darwin was really married to Lady Hope and recanted on Hitler's deathbed.

"I guess you did fire your 4-year old coach, however, your use of Eliza ® as a consultant is worse."

Took you long enough. It was fun watching your reaction.
Oh... did fire my 4-year old coach, however, my use of Eliza ® as a consultant is worse?

"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.