Archaeologica.org

Ignoring one is the only answer. Anything that is posted to a troll, no matter how insulting, is food. That's all there is to it, but it takes everyone.

So it appears that a troll is similar to an exhibitionist

the definition of a troll is subjective in part. i do not consider myself one as i am here seriously and constructively despite what others think of my perspective. i am certainly not here to cause trouble nor to just post off the wall statementswithout some support for my position, which i have done from both religious and secular sources.

AS AN EXAMPLE: i could consider beagle one becuase his posts rarely go beyond copmments 'that is a nice post' or other generic statements to that effect. one rarely hears an opinion from him that would spark discussion. is absence in many threads help lead to this conclusion.

G.V. on the other hand from my perspective, would defiantly be labeled as a troll as he provides nothing of value and refuses to legitamize his comments with any textual reference or credible link.

doctor x and marduk would also fall under this category as they were not here to promote discussion in a credible manner but seized every opportunity to hijack a thread for their fun and games.

so classify me any way you want as i do not care since i know my reasons for participating here and it is not to cause trouble or hijack threads.

Archae, remember when you said that you don't tell the truth in some of your posts? So what does that make you?

remember when you said that you don't tell the truth in some of your posts

you are going to have to back that up with cold hard fact. i have never said any such thing.

Arch isnt a troll , BUT !!
He does drive everyone daft because he wont accept any evidence from anybody unless it proves any part of the bible correct .
No matter how the thread starts he will hijack it into another biblical discussion .
No matter how much evidence you have , even if you have proof positive , fossils , atrifacts , texts , photos , eye witnesses !! if it isnt in the bible it didnt happen .

He isnt a troll , just a single minded , bible thumping , fanatical zealot .
And he may even be a christian

tech--when i pointed out something you stated as false concerning the slave issue you fell silent. i would refrain from name calling if i were you.

He does drive everyone daft because he wont accept any evidence from anybody unless it proves any part of the bible correct

sorry but if it is not true nor even verifiable, then i cannot accept it no matter how many of you do.

[i know i need to get back to O.A.S. on his fossil question but i haven't had thetime to deal with it yet]

No matter how much evidence you have , even if you have proof positive , fossils , atrifacts , texts , photos , eye witnesses

fossils are not conclusive evidence and require too much conjecture to fill in the blanks; you have no eye witnersses just excuses ,[i.e. this took place before writing, there were no humans around etc]

pertaining to the latter, if there were no humans around then you can never verify what you propose because you have no hope of finding corroborrating evidence. you base your proof on the word of someone who does not have your best interests at heart let alone in mind.

as for texts, which ones? there are no ancient records for evolution, just those from 150 years ago which by some people's scale is too long ago to be considered valid.

so it isn't thati am merely rejecting your so called evidence, i am rejecting the whole process because it isn't valid.

so it isn't thati am merely rejecting your so called evidence, i am rejecting the whole process because it isn't valid.

But your asinine bible is?

You're an embarassment, arch.

Tech wrote: He isnt a troll , just a single minded , bible thumping , fanatical zealot .
And he may even be a christian

"I believe the whole world would follow Christ, if it wasn't for the Christians." Ghandi.

Smart guy that Ghandi.

archaeologist wrote:
fossils are not conclusive evidence and require too much conjecture to fill in the blanks; you have no eye witnersses just excuses ,[i.e. this took place before writing, there were no humans around etc]

ooops - who was the eye-witness for "In the beginning...."? If you dismiss the fossil record you better throw the creation myth out along with it by your own criteria.

Oas, Jesus is the model, not carnal man, you're looking for excuses, pretty lame.

Model for what?

Obviously not for you to this point.

Genesis Veracity wrote:Oas, Jesus is the model, not carnal man, you're looking for excuses, pretty lame.

I am sure you think that is connected to something I said, but you have confused two of us with this, maybe more. What are you on about?

You can figure it out, I hope.

Genesis Veracity wrote:You can figure it out, I hope.

Nope - with something this obscure I need a little push in the right direction. Please explain it to me as if I was really as stupid as you think I am......