As you see, two can play that ad hominum game, ace.
The difference is that
I can directly point out an example where you outright lied, point out
where you were called on it and then cite
exactly where you jumped in and repeated your documented lie. Can you quote a post from me where I made a demonstratably false claim and tried to defend it even after it was shown to be false?
You lied. You fabricated a quote and falsely attributed it to Wayne Carley, then when it was pointed out that your quote was bogus you repeated the lie. You are a shameless liar. Nothing that you say can be trusted.
As usual - when you see you've lost the argument, you give up trying to defend your religion by changing the subject to personalities.
How can there be an argument when it's firmly established that your entire position is made up of lies?
You're out of your league, ace. You can't win. Hahahaha
I admit, you're a far better liar than I am. If I were to post such shameless falsehoods the likes of which you had presented, I'd be too ashamed to show my face around after they were exposed. You, on the other hand, just keep coming back and insist that your documented lies are facts.
NOTE TO ID PROPONENTS/CREATIONISTS: Follow the links that I just provided. See why I call Matchett-PI a liar. See why Matchett-PI's actions -- and the actions of many others who try to argue his position -- have led many here who accept evolution as valid science to view
any claim that attacks evolution with a great degree of skepticism. And if, for some reason, you think that Matchett-PI wasn't lying, please explain how his quote of Wayne Carley as saying "...teaching evolution is .... a religious doctrine" when in reality Wayne Carley really said “Intelligent design is a religious doctrine,” and "teaching evolution is" wasn't even something quoted by Carley is in any way honest.
That looks pretty darn convincing but then, when you stop and think about it, mearly everything the anti-evo's post is a fabrication to some degree.