Replies

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.

You claim this to be a fact. Not a theory, but a fact.

You are misusing the term "theory". My statement was of a single data point. That could never be expressed as "theory".

You claimed it to be a fact, when in fact it was not true.

Correct. I was mistaken, and I acknowledge that. I know that acknowleding a mistake is a foreign concept to creationists, but if you do some research, you will find that "making a mistake" is not the same thing as "lying".

Now if you had claimed it to be a theory that would mean that you weren't quite sure.

If I had claimed it to be "theory", I would have been incorrectly using the term. "Theory" refers to an explanation of observed events. I was offering no explanations, I was merely stating a data point. The data point was mistaken, and I acknowledge that, however it would not have been "more correct" for me to call it "theory". That you suggest as much demonstrates that you have willingly refused to understand the meaning of the word "theory".

You made the claim that there has never been a lawsuit.

And I was incorrect. I acknowledge that. You are attempting to play a semantic game, but you are misusing th word "theory" as a means of doing it, and in so doing you are failing to make a coherent argument.

Since the challenge has been proven to not be The challenge is predicated upon a lie.

Actually, it is. The challenge suggests that "all evolutionists" -- that is, anyone who accepts the theory of evolution -- has "defaulted" on a judgement, however no such judgement exists. I explained this previously, so I do not understand why you have ignored the facts and attempted to claim that a lie that I had identified earlier is not in fact a lie.

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

There is no "challenge". The basis of the challenge is, as I have explained, the claim of a "default judgement", however that claim is a lie, as there is no "default judgement" against "all evolutionists" as the challenger claims. Also, the challenger claims that "evolutionists" have failed to defend the charge in court. Previously, I mistakenly believed that no such suits had been brought to challenge. I was mistaken, however; as you have pointed out, the "challenger" is lying in his claim, as at least two courts have responded to such challenges by denying the claim that evolution is a religion. Moreover, the "challenge" as stated suggests that a superior court judge can be brought in to mediate a "wager" not predicated upon any criminal or civil law. There is no reason to believe that a superior court judge would involve him or herself in such a situation. The challenger is merely using a challenge that could not possibly be carried out -- because no superior court judge would involve him or herself in a dispute that is not a civil case -- as a means of declaring victory against those who will not take an invalid challenge, because the challenger clearly has no evidence to support his or her claims.