THE MOST CONTROVERSIAL SUBJECT HERE . . .

@Frank Apisa,

Frank Apisa wrote:

ell. [/justquote]

I am not asking that I dictate the board, Edgar. Get off that nonsense.

I am making arguments that I think are solid...and germane.

If you disagree with what I am saying...tell me what you disagree with and let's discuss it.

What seems to happen here is that if anyone voices opinions that do not toe the party line...they are deemed to be trolls...or charged with their comments being irrelevant.

I am not a troll...and the thoughts I am sharing are not irrelevant.

Frank, it might help if you entertain the idea that some people simply don't find some arguments as compelling as others. You say the thoughts you are sharing are not irrelevant, I agree with that. Can you also understand that some people find your insistence on answers to your relevant ideas as a tedious exercise in futility for them? I'm not mocking your ideas, I just can't get overly invested in what some people believe is the almighty truth of various belief or non belief. I doubt any one who posts about their take on religion thinks their thoughts are irrelevant either.

0 Replies

@Setanta,

Setanta wrote:

You're way over Whackeye's head now--and you can fly pretty low and still accomplish that. He's just attention whoring now. He becomes more troll-like every year.

He says after so many subjects that I used to be a lone wolf talking about have gone on to be huge topics of conversation in America.

You sir are clearly CLUELESS.

2 Replies

Frank makes the same argument in every post. After ten years, I don't find myself compelled to discuss it with him.

1 Reply

@hawkeye10,

Ah-hahahahahahahahaha . . .

0 Replies

@edgarblythe,

edgarblythe wrote:

Frank makes the same argument in every post. After ten years, I don't find myself compelled to discuss it with him.

I do not make the same argument in every post...at least no more than others do on these same issues.

But the arguments I make are strong...and quite honestly, I've never seen you take them on.

Here are some I have made just hours ago. Rather than crying "he makes the same arguments all the time"...why not tell me which of these statements you disagree with...or why you think they are not significant in this discussion.

Quote:

Big difference between discussing "evolution"...which may or may not have a GOD component (of intelligent design)...

...and discussing "creationism"...which requires a GOD.

Most of the controversy on this issue is not the result of trolling...but of honest differences of guesses about the existence of a GOD.

If there is the possibility of a GOD...of course there is the possibility of intelligent design. No logical reason to suppose that what we call "evolution" cannot be the product of intelligent design.

And since the "probability" or "likelihood" of "a GOD exists" and "no GOD exists" cannot logically be determined...

...the probability or likelihood of intelligent design also cannot be determined.

Best thing to do to end the long-term controversial subject that seems to bother or annoy some people here...is to simply acknowledge all that.

Anything past that is nothing more than blind guessing gone amok.

I doubt you will do it...because you just want to cry foul rather than actually discussing any of these things.

0 Replies

I will take this opportunity to point out that the topic of this thread is not trolls, nor is it even evolution. It is what, at this site, constitutes the most controversial subject.

1 Reply

@Setanta,

Setanta wrote:

I will take this opportunity to point out that the topic of this thread is not trolls, nor is it even evolution. It is what, at this site, constitutes the most controversial subject.

Although around here people who take on controversial subjects or take minority positions routinely are subjected the to knee jerk troll name calling.

0 Replies

We once had an Englishman (a subject) that was quite controversial..

0 Replies

Whackeye is ailing, somebody call the Whaaaaaa-bulance.

0 Replies

There's an evolutionary troll active at the moment who loves pictures and insane conjectures presented as fact.

I'm posting this as representative of his style of logic:

http://static.fjcdn.com/pictures/Checkmate+atheists_98cc4a_5156559.png

2 Replies

@hingehead,

I've seen that image elsewhere, but never presented as a serious support for theism. Are you sure it's not tongue-in-cheek?

1 Reply

@FBM,

Oh God - of course it's tongue in cheek! But it is almost exactly what I'd expect him to post without irony. A picture and massively flawed logic and nil clue.

2 Replies

@hingehead,

Quote:

Oh God - of course it's tongue in cheek! But it is almost exactly what I'd expect him to post without irony. A picture and massively flawed logic and nil clue.

Yeah Exactly like to evolutionists do. The problem is they even that they not only don't use logig or reason, they even can't recognize them!

It is a bloody shame!

If logic and reason would kick in, evolutionshite bolocks would be gone the next day! Would be a relief!!!!!

But, alas.....

0 Replies

@hingehead,

hingehead wrote:

Oh God - of course it's tongue in cheek! But it is almost exactly what I'd expect him to post without irony. A picture and massively flawed logic and nil clue.

Oh, you meant that he was trolling in favor of evolution? I thought you meant it the other way 'round. My bad.

0 Replies

@hawkeye10,

hawkeye10 wrote:

He says after so many subjects that I used to be a lone wolf talking about have gone on to be huge topics of conversation in America.

I can see what's happened here.

http://splinteredsunrise.files.wordpress.com/2010/01/417.gif?w=477

0 Replies

@hingehead,

hingehead wrote:

There's an evolutionary troll active at the moment who loves pictures and insane conjectures presented as fact.

I'm posting this as representative of his style of logic:

Seems to me you would give your speculations here more credence if you grew the balls to name him, Hinge...assuming, of course, that there is such a person.

1 Reply

@Frank Apisa,

You mean you can't guess? I can, and I don't think Hinge is not naming him because of fear of the consequences, I think he's not naming him because it's ******* obvious.

1 Reply

@izzythepush,

izzythepush wrote:

You mean you can't guess? I can, and I don't think Hinge is not naming him because of fear of the consequences, I think he's not naming him because it's ******* obvious.

If it is so "obvious"...why not eliminate any possible doubt...by actually naming the individual. It seems the reasonable thing to do.

Although I guess Setanta set the tone for obscurity with his opening remarks.

1 Reply

@Frank Apisa,

There is no possible doubt, it's obvious. That's what obvious means. The only way there could be any possible doubt is if you're not that quick off the mark.

Have you been experiencing difficulties in getting off the mark recently?

1 Reply

@izzythepush,

izzythepush wrote:

There is no possible doubt, it's obvious. That's what obvious means. The only way there could be any possible doubt is if you're not that quick off the mark.

Have you been experiencing difficulties in getting off the mark recently?

If it is obvious, Izzy...YOU mention the name.

It is not obvious to me.

As for your "quick off the mark" question...I suppose you are asking if I am losing my mental faculties.

I acknowledge I am not a spring chicken...and some of my mental abilities have slowed a bit, but I am still able to do a Killer Sudoku, a
Sunday length crossword and the Rubik's Cube just about every day.

I also discuss and debate on the Internet to keep myself as mentally acute as possible.

So I would say that if you are suggesting that you are much more alert and intelligent than I...or that you see me as mentally slow because I do not find the person describes as "obvious"...I do not see that being the case at all.

Who is this obviously apparent person...and why is there so much trouble mentioning his name?

1 Reply

THE MOST CONTROVERSIAL SUBJECT HERE . . .

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know