User talk:Able806
From Conservapedia
Welcome!
Hello, Able806, and welcome to Conservapedia!
We're glad you are here to edit. We ask that you read our Editor's Guide before you edit.
At the right are some useful links for you. You can include these links on your user page by putting "{{Useful links}}" on the page. Any questions--ask!
Thanks for reading, Able806!
- DanH 15:25, 20 September 2007 (EDT)
Thanks:)--Able806 15:28, 20 September 2007 (EDT)
I just tried to help, and when I check my watchlist, you've already reverted all my edits. What's the deal, I'm just trying to help.--Paul51 23:14, 7 October 2007 (EDT)
Paul your information seems a bit off. Perhaps you could cite some sources to those claims that are contrary to modern biosciences.--Able806 23:15, 7 October 2007 (EDT)
- For example, a protein is made up of amino acids, not the other way around (and the codon doesn't match to proteins OR amino acids). This is a pretty gross error. HelpJazz 23:19, 7 October 2007 (EDT)
Could you possibly be interested in being a judge with me? --~BCSTalk2ME 09:47, 14 January 2008 (EST)
Able, I would not even need you for that much time. I simply need you to confer with about points and scoring. That's it. I can take the majority of the work. I hope you can do it! --~BCSTalk2ME 11:08, 14 January 2008 (EST)
Please see our private discussion page here. Thanks! --~BCSTalk2ME 08:47, 17 January 2008 (EST)
- You seem to have confused talk pages with Debate Topics. It's an easy mistake to make, even with the best of intentions.
- Next week, perhaps you can provide information which is actually relevant to the ID articles we are trying to develop here. For example, if you explained why ISSR feels that ID is "against science", that would help. Don't bother pointing out that ID is contrary to evolution; we already know that.
- ID is a critique of a particular scientific theory, on scientific grounds. Using an appeal to authority, in effect saying, "No it's not scientific" is of no help at all. In fact, the intelligent design controversy article already mentions that.
- What would help is to explain in what it is about ID that opponents object. Is there an error in reasoning? A false example? Or is it just that ID touches on philosophical issues that materialists don't want examined? It will probably take you a whole week to compose your answer. Please don't hurry back. --Ed Poor Talk 17:27, 8 April 2008 (EDT)
