Religious Apologist Theme Park Rides

There must be a religious apologist theme park somewhere. If so, it should include a go-kart ride called "The Apologist Switchback."  You'll find it near the Dodgems.

Here is a summary of a discussion with a religious apologist with several, high-speed, hairpin turns that send logical arguments skidding off course and crashing into the barriers.

#	Date	Event
1	18 Mar	The Apologist starts a thread entitled “HMFR Revisited” which provides links to a blog written Graham Veale and David Glass, where they provide their opinions on morality.
2	18 Mar	I see nothing new in the Veale and Glass Blog (VAGB) and so I provide links to previously made counter-arguments, plus a link to explain their atheism Category Mistake.
3	21 Mar	The Apologist starts a new thread: “Deconstructing RGFSMCL links” which begins with the same links to the VAGB from line 1.   He states that each of my counter-arguments is a combination of at least three logically fallacious arguments, and demonstrates this by connecting my counter-arguments to his own, ignoring the VAGB content.
4	21 Mar	I provide links to previously made counter-arguments, this time with specific paragraph references to make it easier to match the counter-arguments to the arguments in the VAGB.
5	24 Mar	The Apologist again states that my counter-arguments are logically fallacious by connecting my counter-arguments to his own, ignoring the VAGB text to which I am responding.
6	24 Mar	I provide links to previously made counter-arguments, this time with some additional paragraph references.
7	27 Mar	The Apologist provides an analogy for atheism.
8	27 Mar	I explain the analogy is a disanology. I ask if there's anything in the VAGB which requires a response as there was no reference to it on line 7.
9	29 Mar	The Apologist states the VAGB is now "off topic" and that he only referred to it "in passing" to demonstrate my counter-arguments are “false constructs”.   He mentions that I haven't responded to his “deconstruction.”
10	29 Mar	I explain that the VAGB obviously wasn't mentioned "in passing" as it formed the introduction to two separate threads, including this one.
11	29 Mar	The Apologist accuses me of dishonesty and of refusing to apologise for being dishonest.
12	29 Mar	I assume He hasn't read what I said on line 10, so I explain again.
13	29 Mar	The Apologist expresses faux disappointment that I haven't apologised for the counter-arguments that I provided on line 4 which he now describes as “irrelevant and dishonest verbiage”.  The Apologist asks me to provide an objective basis of morality from my perspective
14	29 Mar	I explain that from my perspective, there is no fixed, objective basis for morality.
15	29 Mar	The Apologist responds by telling me that I am incapable of giving "honest" and "on topic" responses.
16	29 Mar	I repeat that from my perspective, there is no fixed, objective basis for morality and I ask why that is off-topic, given that it was an answer to his question.
17	29 Mar	The Apologist tells me to present my point “elsewhere” and that I am “disingenuous."
18	29 Mar	I provide a recap of lines 10-17
19	31 Mar	The Apologist states that the "Veale and Glass blog" isn't the subject, rather the subject is what he calls my "dishonest responses."
20	31 Mar	It occurs to me that the confusion has arisen because the Apologist hasn't connected my counter-arguments to specific arguments in the VAGB.  So I provide a list of: A) Specific paragraph from the VAGB B) My specific counter-argument to that paragraph C) Apologist's opinion of my specific argument, which he provided without the VAGB context D) My response to his opinion E) A summary of the flaws in the Apologist's “deconstruction” (columns A-D)
21	6 Apr	The Apologist starts a new thread "Deconstructing RGFSMCL links (taken to the top)" which dismisses my explanation of his deconstruction on line 20 (which he asked for on line 13).   The Apologist suggests I should "take my explanation" to the original "HMFR Revisited" thread (even though this is impossible as it fell off the board 5 days previously).
22	6 Apr	I explain that as the topic is the Apologist's so-called “deconstruction”, my response to his deconstruction seem to be in the right place.  I also wonder which definition of “tautology” he is using.
23	6 Apr	The Apologist accuses me of using “unreliable references”. He then refers to the VAGB content on line 20 as “JimC's version of the source material”.   The Apologist announces that he “won't even bother” with point E on line 20.  The Apologist provides a definition of “tautology” taken from a wikipedia page that is clearly marked as being in error and unreliable.
24	6 Apr	I explain that I have not created a new version of the source material – I am quoting the source material verbatim.   I also provide a link to the wikipedia page that has the reliable and approved definition of tautology, and I give illustrative examples of tautologies.
25	7 Apr	The Apologist introduces a paragraph from the VAGB regarding genetics claiming I haven't responded to it.  He states that I am “re-writing everything” and again suggests that I am providing “versions of the source material”.  The Apologist states that I am using “tricks”, and my arguments are “garbage”.
26	7 Apr	I explain how nothing has been re-written, that I quote the source material verbatim and don't create "versions" of it. I refer to a previously provided counter-argument to the genetics argument in the VAGB.
27	10 Apr	The Apologist states that my response on line 20 demonstrates that I have "re-written everything." He suggests that when I refer to the VAGB as source material I should provide a link to it.  The Apologist states that my counter-argument to the Genetics argument (which he raised on line 25) is "confusing the issue."  The Apologist states that he “can't get back” to point E (on line 20)  because (again) I have “re-written everything”.   He states that he is happy to use an incorrect definition of tautology and my counter-arguments are “falsehoods” and “verbal garbage”
28	10 Apr	I explain that the content on line 20, including point E, is still there and nothing has been re-written. I ask why I need to provide links to the VAGB when it was The Apologist that originally provided them.