[Dimensio]

And that lie is evolution. You finally came around.

I did not state that the lie was evolution. In fact, I was very clear in identifying the lie and explaining it. You do not demonstrate your point by falsely representing my statements.

There is also the fact that the challenger claims that teaching evolution violates the First Amendment of the US Constitution, yet there is no record of any lawsuit challenging the teaching of evolution on the grounds that it is a religion. That the challenger him or herself has not filed such a suit suggests that the "case" is not as strong as the challenger beleives. Instead, the challenger is suggesting that a US court judge can be convinced to take part in a wager not tied to any criminal or civil matter. Rather than actually demonstrate that the claimed point is accurate, by filing suit against a public school district, the challenger has instead posited a "wager" predicated upon false claims and a faulty premise of the US Justice system, perhaps as a means of declaring victory without actually presenting an argument.

[taxesareforever]

There is also the fact that the challenger claims that teaching evolution violates the First Amendment of the US Constitution, yet there is no record of any lawsuit challenging the teaching of evolution on the grounds that it is a religion

Gotcha!!!

http://www.insidehighered.com/news/2005/10/18/evolution

http://www.berkeley.edu/news/media/releases/2006/03/15_evolution.shtml

http://www.evolutionnews.org/2005/10/lawsuit_says_national_science_foundation.html

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/peloza.html

I could go on but I believe this should be enough for you to dwell on as you try and cover up your lie.