Let's make it simple enough for you to understand. If you make a post that says the sky is green and I suggest to you a web site that demonstrates that the sky is blue and that, furthermore, explains why the sky is blue and yet you continue to demand that the sky is green without addressing the content of the site the site that explains why the sky is blue, then you are dishonest and I have the right to ask if you really read the site. This is directly analogous to all of your positions.
That is bogus. And you also lied that you had read my posting.
This is what i wrote in the posting:
There did appear something of a faq eventually, the evolutionists of talk.origins published the book "index to creationist claims", which had a claim about Hitler. In this book the evolutionists asserted that it appeared Hitler was apparently a young earth creationist, based on a quote of Hitler in a book, where he talked about people existing for "thousands" of years.
Then I pointed out that in the same book Hitler talked about hundreds of thousands of years of higher development. They then changed the claim to add that Hitler talked about hundreds of thousands of years "in another context", and that in another print it talked about millions of years, but still leaving in it the assertion that Hitler once may have believed in a young earth, so as that now the claim doesn't really make any sense"
And then later you said:
It is not clear to me what role you actually played in "making it" .
Very clearly you are lying by implying all the time, that you have read what I wrote. And then further you went all moral about how I did not read the index claim, while you did not read what I wrote, and lied about it.
It is further dishonesty, that when I repeated part of what I originally wrote, you then responded with questions to the part I repeated, instead of what you should have done, which is to question the more extensive original post. If you had any emotional basis, you would know this is the honest thing to do.
And further your questioning is vacuous, that is also dishonest. Your questions are a debating tactic to provide a lot of work, and not really engage the issue. Lawyers and politicians use tricks like that, ask a million question just to keep your opponent occupied, without any sincere interest whatsoever in the answers.
Why don't you engage the very obvious peculiarity that in the index claim you posted, it talks about Hitler as once believing in a young earth, while in the same book he talks about hundreds of thousands of years, and in a later print millions of years? .......
