> Again, you ignore what I wrote,  why is that?   What do you fear?

> > Actually, what you've done is sidestep the rea questions. You think by
> > focusing on where my quotations come from, the validity of using them,
> > and like questions, that you can avoid dealing with the actual
> > quotations themselves.  The more power to me.

> Actually there is no need for me to "deal with the quotations".  It's
> already been well established that the quotes you stole from the other site
> were taken out of context, and do not mean what you want them to.  My point
> is to show that by stealing the quotes in the first place, lying about where
> they came from, and then trying to excuse your stealing and lying by
> claiming "the ends justify the means" , you are behaving in a dishonest and
> unChristian manner.    That the quotes are themsevles lies is another matter
> entirely.

> > You're trying to choke off the pipeline of quotations, as thus every
> > other evolutionist has done.

> Again, there is no need to "choke off the pipeline of quotations".  The
> quotations are falsehoods.  Lies of omission.  I leave it to others to
> demostrate how those quotes are dishonest.  I am content to show that you
> are dishonest in how you use them.

> > If a quotation is used, you:

> > 1. Accuse of taking out of context

> It's been amply shown by several posters that those quotes are indeed taken
> out of context.

> > 2. Plagiarizing

> Stealing another person's words without attribution is plagurizing.  You
> quoted from "Anointed one"'s site without making proper attribution.
> Futhermore you implied that you made photocopies of the original sources.
> That is another falsehood.

> > But you don't answer the real questions.

> You never presented any "real questions".   You cut and pasted a bunch of
> misquotes and lies of omission.  You didn't present any real questions that
> required an answer.

> > You never:

> > 1. prove these to be out of context.

> That has already been done, by several posters.  Why should I re-invent the
> wheel?

> > 2. deal with the fact that a evolutionist has admitted a portion of
> > evolution to be fraudulent, hence the quotation.

> Those quotations were carefully taken out of context, to change the meaning.
> The "evolutionist(s)" in those quotations was NOT admitting that "a portion
> of evolution" was "fraudulent".   That is the whole point of a "lie of
> omission", to omit the part of the person's words that explains and
> clarifies the person's  position.  Those quotes you stole are classic lies
> of omission.  They are false, and using them is perpetrating a falsehood.
> This is beside the point that your use of them was at best dishonest, and at
> worst despicable.