>TheBrotherhood, this seems to be a core tenet of evo logic. They begin on the basis you are a liar. I say they lie in their accusations.
I will not stain myself to their lying and personal attacks by reciprocating and hurling ad hominem attacks at them. It's not in my vein to do so, despite their calling me lier and other pejorative terms.
Talking a high-minded game is useless when posting with patent, sneering dishonesty. If you didn't know up front that the Lady Hope story was so flimsy as to be basically unfounded, contravened by most of what is known, you might at least have admitted as much when confronted with numerous refuations of the story and being able to produce nothing supporting it.
Calling something a historical fact means you can back it up without lying about what your links are actually saying. Trying to float on air in such a situation--and that's what you think you're doing here, floating on a total lack of evidence--makes a mockery of attempts to claim the high road. You can't take the high road while lying your butt off.
Again, I used to ask why a creationist can't be a man. That's too sexist for the 21st century, apparently, so I'll modify it. Why can't a creationist be an adult?