Re: Is the fact that Forrest Veils his metaphysica biases virtuous or

On Jul 6, 12:25 am, "richardalanforr...@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx"
<richardalanforr...@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

SNIP....


and have attacked
creationism by providing extensive evidence for its deep and
systematic dishonesty.

Forrest is full of *** as a Christmas turkey.  He's never provided
extensive evidence for his own faith-based fairy tale for which
presumably he has actually done the requisite reading.

...and Tony tries to evade the evidence for the deep and systematic
dishonesty of creationism by attempting to change the subject.

There are libraries full of scientific publications describing that
evidence for evolutionary theory in exhaustive detail.

No one denies the existence of these publications. What is disputed is
the fact that the claims of evolution are not supported by the
evidence; therefore there is no evidence of evolution. Darwinists are
recognized to be liars, or Atheists. This is why about half of all
adults in the U.S., according to all polls and surveys, are
Creationists-IDists or anti-evolutionists.

The fact that
you chose to pretend that this evidence does not exist is a mark of
your dishonesty.


Christians would say the exact opposite: denying the observation of ID
(= God) to exist in nature is dishonest, unless you are an Atheist.

Which is, of course, irrelevant to the fact that creationist sources
are deeply and systematically dishonest.


Again, could we expect Darwinists to say anything else?

I would like an answer, Richard.

 There is no
"extensive evidence" about how biological diversity emerged and
developed to maturity.  

Bearing in mind that you have been offered sources which detail this
evidence over and over again, this is no more than another lie.

What historical evidence?  It is largely a
mystery.

Bull***.



And I've seen no evidence whatsoever that Forrest has ever cracked
open a single creationist work.

As I have posted detailed analyses of several creationist works on my
web site, and have posted the link to those analyses many, many times,
this is a particularly blatant lie, Tony.

http://www.plesiosaur.com/creationism/index.php

If you can demonstrate that I am wrong in my conclusion that
creationist sources are guilty of systematic dishonesty, please
provide a link to an honest creationist source. I've asked this
question many times of creationists, but none have provided such a
link.
I have also asked creationists to provide a link to any "evolutionist"
web site they think is dishonest. None has responded to that request
either.
I can see no other conclusion but that creationists are systematically
dishonest, accept that they are systematically dishonest, and don't
care that they are systematically dishonest.
What other conclusion can you draw from this evidence?


When we remember that Richard Forrest is a Darwinist his opinion about
Creationists is becomes very predictable, having no objective value
whatsoever.

In addition: Creationists are relieved to be considered dishonest by
Atheists, that is, persons who say apes evolved into men and that
nature produced itself without the aid of Intelligence.

 Where would he actually get such
works?

I was given several creationist books many years ago. I found them to
be deeply and systematically dishonest, and nothing I have read since
has given me any reason to change my original response.

 They are mostly censored from public and collegiate libraries.

Another blatant and outright lie, Tony. They are widely available.

Again Forrest is full of *** and lying thru his teeth.

I suggest that if you look at the evidence of these posts, I'm not the
one who is exposed as a liar.

 If there's no
extensive evidence of the most contentious claims of the darwinian
fairy tale how on earth could their be extensive contradictory
evidence of creationism?  

As there is extensive evidence, so what?



And how would the supposed failure of a creationist theory be evidence
of "systematic dishonesty?"  

I haven't offered any "failure of a creationist theory" as evidence
for dishonesty. I have offered the evidence of misrepresentation,
distortion and the promotion of outright falsehoods as evidence for
dishonesty.


It is Darwinists who are dishonest to the bone. They lie openly and
brazenly. To counter they intentionally slander all opposition as a
way to cover and deflect their self-evident lies.

Forrest and atheists in the forum in
generally have no use for the objective truth.


Tony Pagano's statement above is absolutely true. This is where
Darwinists lie most brazenly. They make up things as they go in order
to make their pro-Atheism theory appear friendly to Christians. This
includes changing the meaning of uncomplicated concepts like
"Naturalism" and "Theism."

Naturalism says the concept of ID (= God, Theos, supernatural) is not
seen in nature. Yet many evolutionists like Dana Tweedy will
equivocate this simple claim of fact. Yet where is Richard Forrest
when Dana Tweedy denies the main claim of evolution in regard to God?

Why does Richard Forrest allow evolution to be seen as supporting its
enemy, ID?

The equivocation is an attempt to deceive Christians into accepting
evolution. The equivocation, and the failure to protest the lie,
proves that Darwinists are brazen liars since evolution and ID are
enemy combatants----an undisputed fact.

So address objectively the evidence I have posted over and over again
for the dishonesty of creationist sources.

 All they know is the
herd mentality;  consequently anyone who disagrees with the herd is
labeled dishonest.

I have offered the evidence of misrepresentation, distortion and the
promotion of outright falsehoods as evidence for dishonesty.


I have briefly explained why you make-up these unsupported
accusations.

Why not address that evidence rather than evading it?

   It's this reason and not some absurd claim of
extensive evidence.

Bullshitting again rather than address the issue, Tony.



snip

Hopefully more to follow if time permits;  I'm going to slam dunk this
atheist if I can...

Lying again, Tony.

Read back over your posts in this thread, and try to understand how
dishonest you are making yourself look.

Ad hominem attacks do not address the evidence.

Just to remind you of the question you evade like the intellectual and
moral coward you are:
) You have made statements which imply that the Pope is either an
atheist or a liar.
Which is it?
2) You have made statements which imply that the Pope is either an
atheist or a liar.
Which is it?
3) You have made statements which imply that the Pope is a liar or an
atheist.
Which is it, Tony?
4) You claim  that the Pope has made statements in support of
evolutionary science for political reason. If he believes those
statements to be false he is a liar. If he believes them to be true
he
is, according to YOU, an atheist.

No, our position is if ANY Christian supports Naturalism assumptions
concerning nature, which said assumptions are accepted by evolutionary
theory, then this Christian is either stupid, deluded, or has an
ulterior motive because it is logically inexplicable as to how a
Christian could accept the assumption that his God is absent from
nature.

We know Pope Benedict has stated support for both ID and evolution. We
interpret these statements as not wanting to offend IDists and
evolutionists, that is, persons who comprise his world-wide flock.

Which is it?
5) You said that the Pope has made statements in support of evolution
for political reason. So either the Pope believes those statements to
be true, in which case he is an atheist according to you, or else he
is making statements he believes to be false - which would make him a
liar.
Which is it, Tony?
6) You claimed that the Pope has made statements in support of
evolutionary science for political reasons.  Either the Pope made
those statements believing them to be false - in which case he lied -
or he made them believing them to be true - in which case he is,
according to you, an atheist.
Which is it, Tony? ...

read more »- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -



Ray

.

Quantcast