Ah yes, redefinition. That always helps to deceive.
Evidence is facts. Interpretation is speculation.
To equivocate speculation w/ 'evidence' is to deceive.
The basis of evolution.
"Evidence is facts. Interpretation is speculation.
"To equivocate speculation w/ 'evidence' is to deceive.
"The basis of evolution.
I wasn't redefining anything, I was clarifying my definition to avoid any misunderstandings. If I intended to deceive I wouldn't have bothered to explain my terminology.
I do not appreciate you calling me a liar and I do not appreciate your attempts to introduce a red herring into the discussion.
If you want to discuss dishonesty in regards to 'fudging the books' then let's discuss the honesty (or lack thereof) behind Baraminology. Or if you prefer we can discuss the honesty behind the many creationist quote mines found on the Web. Or perhaps the honesty Kent Hovind displays.
There are plenty of creationist honesty issues we can discuss, evidence of it is all over the Web, you just have to pick one.