No ma'am. All you need is proof that the claim is false and that the claimant knew it was false when they made it.
but if we can't know what is in a man's heart, then we can't call him a lier now can we? Hummm, consistant with what I have said and claim, how could that be? How is it possible that razz. was right.........
You mean as you are doing. I asked you to present for me any and specific claims made by evolutionists which could be determined to be lying, and rather quickly, you accused me -even without knowing my heart or my intent, or even what I was talking about.
Back up a moment, what I said is that I didn't want to get into the discussion because we can't know a man's heart, thus refuse to call any man a lier. You pressed me for lies of which I said that you have made statements that could be viewed as lies. You are doing it again, by claiming that I 1. quickly accused and 2 accused you of lieing. Both are false accusation. What was in your heart when you made them, I can only guess, not knowing for sure, which is why I refrained from making said accusations. Deal with it.
That's right, you shouldn't have accused me of lying when you couldn't be sure if it was a lie or not.
That would be a great arguement except for one small detail, I never accused you of lieing. Humm, false accusations, misrepresentation of what I have said, what does that make you?
Dangerous business that. Never make that accusation until you can prove it.
Actually, my claim is that you have made statements that could be viewed as lies of which I have provided many. As with lies, that is an issue of heart of which we cannot know which is why, such discussions are fruitless as well as the claims such as you have made about creationists.
No, it can't. If you can show where I made a particular claim that you can show is wrong, and you can show that I knew it to be wrong when I made it, then that could only be interpreted as a lie.
Look at the above, either you knew I didn't accuse you of lieing or you are not itelligent enough to read my words many times over, and your accusation of my claim is false, therefore both your criteria have been met. I still refrain from calling you a lier, because my criteria is higher, but by your assertions, you have just evidenced yourself to be a lier. Good job old chap.
I have many specific examples of that from creationists, especially the pros. I challenged you to provide even one such example from any evolutionist. I predict you'll never find one.
But I have just done that, met your list of requirements for calling someone a lier and your refuse to accept it, so are there other requirements you want to provide? We are going to base it on your criteria since I already told you mine were very restrictive.
Too late. You've already taken the low road.
Then you should have done so this time too.
Well, I know better than make allegations against someone's honor when those accusations can't be substantiated.
Then you're not very graceful, because you assumed I lied and accused me of lying even when -in the same breath- you admit that you might have misunderstood. Very bad form!
I think that once again you are misreperesenting my posts and words and ideas, I think you should reconsider before you have to call yourself a lier.
Then you shouldn't have done what you just did, making a whole bunch of other accusations you can't defend.
Ask yourself that question because I didn't accuse you. You accused me.
Another lie? You really should stop with your lies. (note I didn't call you a lier, only that your statement was a lie.) I have never accused you of lieing, only that you have made statements that could be viewed as lies as is once again just evidenced.
If neither of our claims can be shown to be incorrect, then it can't be a lie. If we claim something that isn't correct, but we thought it was at the time, then it still isn't a lie.
By jove I think he's got it.
All of it, with particular notice of the words I then bolded in red.
You have not shown me how my words could be interpreted that way, but you're accusing me anyway.
Whenever you feel you've dug your own hole deep enough.
Huh? how words are read and interpreted are as individual as we are, they are based on our own experiences and lessons and teachings and personalities which is why how someone views our comments are as much a variable as whether or not we know someone has lied, because it is a personal matter. Therefore it is impossible to prove someone lied as much as it is impossible to know if someone interpreted ones words as a lie, because both are a matter of the heart and we cannot know another man's heart.
Well then, you are mistaken.
No, because I must be honorable, I have to pursue this conversation until you either present a case to back your accusations or surrender an apology.
Well since I have presented evidence in excess to back up
my actual claims and not my percieved claims, can we then move on? I would like an apology for all the misrepresentations you have levied, but I won't hold out hope for such.
No matter how many times you assert this, you can't make it true. Try this once, when you can't explain any reason behind your allegations, don't make them.
You already have. You have accused me of lying earlier in this post, and in at least three other posts, and you did so again just now.
No, I have asked you several times now if they were lies by your definition. Deal with it
I don't care how things "seem" to you. I think your perspective and judgements are flawed. But none of that matters until or unless there is a defensible basis for the claim.
Now wait a momnet. My claim is that we can't know a man's heart therefore we can't know if he is a lier or not, you agree with this but I am wrong and you are right. How does that work?
Not unless it was misrepresented intentionally. It would be particularly difficult to misrepresent your views because you have a reputation on this board of double-talking in circles,
You know what, I would like to take a moment to talk about this accusation. I talk to people all the time, in fact, it is part of my business, not just talking to but teaching as well. I talk to people of all different backgrounds and ideas and walks of life and everyone understands me except the evolutionists on this board. What could the possibilities be for that?
1. I can't communicate.
2. evolutionists on this board have preconcieved ideas of who I am and what I will say therefore do not listen
3. I change my communication style to confuse the evolutionists
4. another option I can't think of
Now of these 4 possiblies, only one fits the evidence, 2 above. In fact, people that I have talked to in other settings will try to understand something repeatedly, I explain it to them and they get it immedicately, thus demonstrating that I can communicate effectively. We do know for fact, that people can color what they read with perceptions, which is part of the above discussion on how ones words are viewed. So I wonder why this accusation keeps surfacing when, the evidence which you claim faith in suggests that it is a false accusation. Humm, another false accusation and this time with evidence what does that make your words?
a trait which you've demonstrating again right now. So no one can tell for sure what your views really are -even after you explain them!
My views have been clearly and repeatedly stated, I do not think that any man can know another heart therfore cannot judge them and call them a lier.
If we're still only talking about "in your view" then it is meaningless. All that matters is what you can substantiate. Try to think objectively.
That is what I am doing and saying to you. objectively speaking we must understand and accept that what another thinks and feels and knows we cannot know, the best we can do is take him at his word until or unless such time as the evidence is compelling to disagree with him. (note at this point, we can't even call it a lie) You and I agree on much, but you refuse to accept it, why?
Yes, but the key part of that definition is that it doesn't require any. I do.
But the definition doesn't omit it either which simply means that it doesn't matter if you require it or not, it is not necessary for faith to exist. That is the problem, you take something that is unrestricted and apply restrictions and call it fact. The fact is, faith is not restricted by evidence. Note restrictions all restrictions are removed.
Everything I believe necessarily does.
That is not part of the definition. The definition doesn't remove evidence from what is faith, it only says that it is necessary for faith.
but science has no faith even in itself,
nor can science lie because it is not an intity in and of itself, it rather is a study, a disipline, a thing.
They are humans and can lie and can and do have faith.
Virtually every aspect of the scientific method denies faith.
I think you have a wrong word here, what the scientific method does, is purpetuates a faith in the evidence. if it did not, then evidence would not be important to science much less it's heart.
Keep telling yourself that, judging from past experiences you do seem to be good deluding youself about what people said. 
I dont suppose you have anything to back that up with? Anything at all?
