Replies

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.