“Do you have something other than bluster to add to the conversation?”
Not really... do you guys have anything other than “Fools.” and “So?” to the conversation.
The problem is fundamental (emphasis on mental) and yes, I am partisan. “So?” was not a legitimate question and I will make the supreme judgement it wasn’t meant to be one. It was meant to be antagonistic.
Evolution is much more faith than fact. My contention is that we are at least willing to admit we believe in God not only because of what we see and touch, but out of faith as well. So is Evolution, but this is a point you and your Darwinist buddies are not willing to concede. So legitimate conversation is near impossible because you immediately label any argument that doesn’t meet your pre-determined notions as foolish. It’s all about point of view. There are no facts on your side, only theory based on highly questionable assumptions. Therefore to bring any argument to the table for discussion is only an exercise in mascohism. I just like stepping in every once in a while to see what all youse guys are up to (and I secretly am a glutton for punishment).
Meanwhile, the clitoris seems to be only to give pleasure.
God sure seems to have gotten that right.
I really don't have a dog in this fight at all, but your response is stupid. The question SO? is a question of what are the consequences or significance of your rather juvenile and autistic observation. If your observation has no meaning or consequence, then stow it. You're wasting our time.
Which merely proves that your "supreme judgment" is at least as poor as your ability to recognize and answer a legitimate question.
Your little foray into psychoanalysis is merely icing on the cake, demonstrating an astoundingly arrogant presumption of claiming to know my position, which is matched only by the degree to which you are wrong.
You're not worth a moment more of my time.
“… do you guys have anything other than “Fools.” and “So?” to the conversation.” [excerpt]Don't worry about them.