[AndrewC]

You got caught and your tapdancing doesn't hide that fact. You won't even backup your claim of an obvious screwup in the sentence. Anyone with at least one eye can see you have been caught using Eliza ®.

You said you got to redefine what *forever* means. That's nuts; you get to do no such thing. You have a say in how long this thread will continue, that's it. I already said that I wouldn't be posting *forever*, as in till the end of time. I had to clarify that because you are too stupid to understand what I meant (or just too dishonest to acknowledge it; it's a coin toss as to which is correct). :)

I got to define the only potentially temporal term in your statement. You specifically allowed that. Ha Ha. You got caught again.

And your opinion is supposed to mean something to me? :)

You've already been clear on your disingenuousness, so your statement is rather superfluous. That does not change the fact that your tapdancing just makes you a tapdancing liar.

I made a mistake. I said so. I thought you would be smart enough to know what I meant; that was my mistake. You on the other hand have never admitted a mistake on this forum. Apparently the commandments you claim to follow don't apply to you.

Yeah, you hedged on it. Now that you have been caught you're changing your story so that it was a definite "mistake". That does not change the fact that it was a lie.

After the fact. After you realized how stupid your post made you look. I don't care what you claim after the fact. :)

Nope, the word used was "FOR". You're the one trying to change that word into "OF". It won't work.

If you're drunk, that is.

Calling yourself drunk will not change the fact that you called it a sentence and it is not. But it is an understandable statement that went right over your head and caused you to display your hypocrisy.

[CarolinaGuitarman]

"Anyone with at least one eye can see you have been caught using Eliza ®."

Are you blind then? It took you forever (yes, that word again; before your brain explodes it is not meant literally, but figuratively. Kinda like Genesis.)

"I got to define the only potentially temporal term in your statement."

No, you got to decide when this thread will die. You NEVER got to redefine words in the English language.

"Ha Ha."

Crack kills. Put down the pipe.

"You've already been clear on your disingenuousness, so your statement is rather superfluous."

I wasn't at all being disingenuous. I was very serious as I helped you make a fool of yourself. :)

"Yeah, you hedged on it. Now that you have been caught you're changing your story so that it was a definite "mistake"."

Got caught? I said I would post forever; I didn't mean it literally, though that is the only way your little brain could understand it. So I clarified what I said. My mistake was assuming you were smart enough to understand a figurative statement. You on the other hand have never admitted a mistake on this forum. Apparently the commandments you claim to follow don't apply to you.

I will in the future never assume you are smart enough for anything. :) I never lied about posting *forever*.

"Nope, the word used was "FOR". You're the one trying to change that word into "OF". It won't work."

You are trying to change the meaning of the phrase. I can understand why, as the way you wrote it said that you were the one integrity challenged. You have lived up to that with every subsequent post. :)

"Calling yourself drunk will not change the fact that you called it a sentence and it is not."

I didn't call myself drunk. I said one would have to be drunk to think your sentence was not a mess. Stop lying. :)

"But it is an understandable statement that went right over your head and caused you to display your hypocrisy."

No, it showed yet again how stupid you are. You are the hypocrite, lecturing me on forum rules while breaking them with every post.

"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.