User talk:Thinker - Revision history

Aschlafly: /* Warning of blocking */ reply

2008-11-17T16:56:08Z

Warning of blocking: reply

Thinker at 16:46, November 17, 2008

2008-11-17T16:46:16Z

Aschlafly: warning of blocking

2008-11-17T16:41:59Z

warning of blocking

Philip J. Rayment: /* Comments on your user page */ new section

2008-10-25T03:55:20Z

Comments on your user page: new section

HelpJazz: New page: {{welcome}} Welcome to Conservapedia. ~~~~

2008-10-25T02:56:19Z

New page: {{welcome}} Welcome to Conservapedia. ~~~~

New page

{{welcome}}

Welcome to Conservapedia. [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 22:56, 24 October 2008 (EDT)

← Older revision		Revision as of 16:56, November 17, 2008
Line 21:		Line 21:
	Don't rant against the site with misleading statements, such as claiming that "My arguments and logic rely on an understanding of science and "proof" which is simply not present here." That is not accurate or intelligent, and will not be allowed.--[[User:Aschlafly\|Aschlafly]] 11:41, 17 November 2008 (EST)		Don't rant against the site with misleading statements, such as claiming that "My arguments and logic rely on an understanding of science and "proof" which is simply not present here." That is not accurate or intelligent, and will not be allowed.--[[User:Aschlafly\|Aschlafly]] 11:41, 17 November 2008 (EST)
	:Fine, this experiment is over. Now I know how Georges Danton felt.--[[User:Thinker\|Thinker]] 11:46, 17 November 2008 (EST)		:Fine, this experiment is over. Now I know how Georges Danton felt.--[[User:Thinker\|Thinker]] 11:46, 17 November 2008 (EST)
		+
		+	:: Typical [[Parthian Shot]]. We're here to learn. Go somewhere else to rant.--[[User:Aschlafly\|Aschlafly]] 11:56, 17 November 2008 (EST)

← Older revision		Revision as of 16:46, November 17, 2008
Line 20:		Line 20:

	Don't rant against the site with misleading statements, such as claiming that "My arguments and logic rely on an understanding of science and "proof" which is simply not present here." That is not accurate or intelligent, and will not be allowed.--[[User:Aschlafly\|Aschlafly]] 11:41, 17 November 2008 (EST)		Don't rant against the site with misleading statements, such as claiming that "My arguments and logic rely on an understanding of science and "proof" which is simply not present here." That is not accurate or intelligent, and will not be allowed.--[[User:Aschlafly\|Aschlafly]] 11:41, 17 November 2008 (EST)
		+	:Fine, this experiment is over. Now I know how Georges Danton felt.--[[User:Thinker\|Thinker]] 11:46, 17 November 2008 (EST)

← Older revision		Revision as of 16:41, November 17, 2008
Line 16:		Line 16:

	[[User:Philip J. Rayment\|Philip J. Rayment]] 23:55, 24 October 2008 (EDT)		[[User:Philip J. Rayment\|Philip J. Rayment]] 23:55, 24 October 2008 (EDT)
		+
		+	== Warning of blocking ==
		+
		+	Don't rant against the site with misleading statements, such as claiming that "My arguments and logic rely on an understanding of science and "proof" which is simply not present here." That is not accurate or intelligent, and will not be allowed.--[[User:Aschlafly\|Aschlafly]] 11:41, 17 November 2008 (EST)

← Older revision		Revision as of 03:55, October 25, 2008
Line 2:		Line 2:

	Welcome to Conservapedia. [[User:HelpJazz\|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz\|Jazz]] 22:56, 24 October 2008 (EDT)		Welcome to Conservapedia. [[User:HelpJazz\|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz\|Jazz]] 22:56, 24 October 2008 (EDT)
		+
		+	== Comments on your user page ==
		+
		+	First, let me add my own welcome to you. I was going to add the welcome box above, but HelpJazz beat me to it.
		+
		+	I'm one of those people with whom you won't agree, me being a committed YEC. And we are likely to end up disagreeing somewhere before long. But if you debate they way you indicate you will, we should get along fine. Be warned, though, that there is a rule here against too much talking and not enough editing, and although I will rarely block someone on this rule (I'm an administrator), other administrators will do so more readily.
		+
		+	I'm not a scientist, and can't claim any formal qualifications in that area, but I have also studied, and been involved in, the creation/evolution issue for years (decades, actually). Be prepared to learn the things that ''you'' [[suppression of alternatives to evolution\|weren't ''allowed to be'' taught in school]]! I also reject argument from misplaced authority, but do use argument from valid authority quite a bit. It's simply far easier to quote an expert's view on something than to quote all the relevant evidence that might have led him to that view. As for your knowledge of the topic, when you argue ''for'' evolution, you are really arguing that evolution is a better explanation that the alternative(s). You may be an expert on evolution, but how much have you studied the alternatives? I've seen far too many people arguing for evolution and against creation yet with obviously very little idea of the creationist viewpoint and arguments.
		+
		+	The "frighteningly low level" of public support for evolution would, in my opinion, be a frighteningly ''high'' level of support, and are only as low as you see them because of the solid arguments that exist against evolution, in my opinion.
		+
		+	I'm also fussy about grammar, style, and spelling, and I liked your edit to [[Convergent evolution]] (despite it being written as though evolution was true), but most of you other contributions I haven't looked at yet, so perhaps I'll go and do that now. :-)
		+
		+	[[User:Philip J. Rayment\|Philip J. Rayment]] 23:55, 24 October 2008 (EDT)