[Dimensio]

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

A "lie" implies that I knew the claim to be false when I made it. As I had forgotten about the case against Berkely and was unaware of the other cases referenced, and did not realise that my claim was false at the time, I was not lying. It is presumptious for you to make the claim.

Note that not one of the lawsuits has actually resulted in a judgement stating that the theory of evolution is a religion, and several of the referenced legal challenges have been rejected. It would appear that the "Challenge" to which you referenced is baseless.

[taxesareforever]

Let's start from the beginning of your oration: 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.

You claim this to be a fact. Not a theory, but a fact. A "lie" implies that I knew the claim to be false when I made it.

You claimed it to be a fact, when in fact it was not true. Now if you had claimed it to be a theory that would mean that you weren't quite sure. But you claimed it was a fact when in reality it wasn't. Note that not one of the lawsuits has actually resulted in a judgement stating that the theory of evolution is a religion

That was not the issue. You made the claim that there has never been a lawsuit. Umm. Naughty naughty. So this brings us back to the evolution challenge. Since the challenge has been proven to not be The challenge is predicated upon a lie.

predicated on a lie you may now take the challenge. You have used up your quota of excuses.