If I tell you a lie about yourself, we both know it's untrue. This is a most arrogant act. It is insulting on at least three levels, and it is an attempt at intimidation.

Russ banned people for dishonesty, and the particular form of dishonesty in question leaves little choice: one either accepts intimidation of this sort or one does not. Once it became evident that Russ was not going to accept it, there's no more point in the intimidation game. Subsequent events of this sort must be classified as forum suicide.

Now since you have asked me so nicely, and said please and all, I suppose I'll comply with your request. I could spend a lot of time on the project, but I choose otherwise. Your current series of posts is deceitful.

Only now do you come close to accurately acknowledging what I clearly said. You've been trying to create the impression that I said things I didn't. I never said all your evolutionist friends or family members were dishonest, nor can anyone get such an impression from reading what I said. Not even if they tried!

I don't care if this is some habit thing, or whatever excuse you might try to come up with. This is obviously dishonest, and I don't see why any creationist who chooses to post here should have to be subjected to such treatment as a matter of routine. On evohype forums we expect such, but we don't have to put up with it here. It should be pretty clear at this time that this isn't an evohype forum.

You have shown that when cornered you can interpret what people say. Why not pretend to be so cornered all the time?

You might do well to recall some history. The first thing you did that convinced me you were insincere to some extent was when you supported the cowardly attacks on the livelihood of Guillermo Gonzales. How anyone could have such strong dislike for a person they don't know the first thing about is something I'd rather not understand, and attacking a man's livelihood without cause is just purely a cowardly act.

During our discussion, you also omitted to explain how an astronomer could be a threat to the precious doctrines of evolutionism. No evolutionist has been willing to state the obvious.

Neither has anyone ever explained how the story of post-abiogenesis evolution is in any way in conflict with ID.

These omissions are not by accident. They are the result of the absence of any possibility of satisfactory answers. If evolution says nothing about the origin of the first life, there is no problem saying it might have been created. And to stretch to astronomy, well... You said exactly all you can say: absolutely nothing.

Unless you're honest enough to require yourself to answer such questions... But we have no indication that this might be the case.

Still I maintained hope. I imagined you might one day look back on this forum and have a good laugh.

We discussed self-regulation, and I thought you might allow yourself to notice, like "Hey! This junk won't make sense no matter which way you try to work it. Selection is impotent when there's no disaster, and reality shows the disasters are avoided. Hmm... needs rethinking..."

But my imagination knows its place. Neither it nor any other part of me is sufficient to alter history. I know these thoughts were not acceptable to you.

Now when I gave up hoping was when we were discussing glaciers, and your own source spilled the beans. You pretended not to even see it. That takes serious dedication there! That's commitment. Embarrassment can be quite powerful in it's way, but it couldn't jar you into even looking at the truth there.

It ain't like evolutionism would fall if the glacier dates don't work, either. This is a pathetic, trivial issue devised to prop it up, but it's not important at all. Even so, you cannot admit to yourself that the evohype could be bogus.

I do not doubt that every single person who has ever taken the time to investigate evolutionism at all knows it's false. They have to subdue the part that knows this, but it's there. There's no way to rid oneself of it, so it must be kept down.

I have to wonder that people aren't troubled when they begin to have an easier time keeping it down. That should be a warning sign. What other aspects of reality can one treat in such a manner? What other fantasies can one put over on oneself? It's scary stuff.

I expect you're a little more than mildly curious. This is a part of evolutionism, and like the rest, it doesn't work. You take and fill the universe with one big cloud of hydrogen and nothing else, and it won't evolve. It will obey the laws of thermodynamics. It will obey the gas laws. It is absurd to claim it will do otherwise.

Were there a magic self-organizing property in the matter, such a property would still be present and available for observation. It is not. So scientifically, we know it must not have been. The story is impossible. The story is as antiscientific as it can get. There is no wiggle room; nothing to obfuscate; no way to twist understandings of the laws of science to make the hydrogen cloud break itself up and begin forming the universe we see.

The energy available in the cloud is uniform. Without an imbalance there's no way to get the work done even if a device had been in place and the device was designed to perform the task. That's thermodynamics, and by the story that's a system where even the cockeyed, bogus, evomyth versions of thermodynamic laws must apply.

This wouldn't concern you in the least if it didn't have something to do with evolution. But we both know it does. You might ask yourself why... I suggest overriding your concerns by diverting your attention. Just think was a rotten coincidence it is that I'm able to accurately assess the situation. The evogod of luck sure is cruel to allow me to possess such information as I do.