Difference between revisions of "Talk:Evolutionism/Draft"

From Conservapedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search
(New page: Wow. I've been gone a couple of days and missed the discussion on this article, and all I can say is wow. This is ridiculous. Evolution is '''not''' a religion. Period. And you can't quote...)
 
Line 1: Line 1:
 
Wow. I've been gone a couple of days and missed the discussion on this article, and all I can say is wow. This is ridiculous. Evolution is '''not''' a religion. Period. And you can't quote biased creationist sites to try to prove evolution is a religion. I know this article was on the AFD list at one point, I recommend it go back on there. This kind of stuff doesn't help conservapedia at all. [[User:ColinR|ColinR]] 13:13, 19 March 2007 (EDT)
 
Wow. I've been gone a couple of days and missed the discussion on this article, and all I can say is wow. This is ridiculous. Evolution is '''not''' a religion. Period. And you can't quote biased creationist sites to try to prove evolution is a religion. I know this article was on the AFD list at one point, I recommend it go back on there. This kind of stuff doesn't help conservapedia at all. [[User:ColinR|ColinR]] 13:13, 19 March 2007 (EDT)
 +
 +
:So what's your point? Why not have a contraversy section that defends both sides? There's nothig wrong with sourcing creationists sites, except for the fact that you disagree with them. --[[User:Ymmotrojam|Ymmotrojam]] 13:19, 19 March 2007 (EDT)

Revision as of 17:19, March 19, 2007

Wow. I've been gone a couple of days and missed the discussion on this article, and all I can say is wow. This is ridiculous. Evolution is not a religion. Period. And you can't quote biased creationist sites to try to prove evolution is a religion. I know this article was on the AFD list at one point, I recommend it go back on there. This kind of stuff doesn't help conservapedia at all. ColinR 13:13, 19 March 2007 (EDT)

So what's your point? Why not have a contraversy section that defends both sides? There's nothig wrong with sourcing creationists sites, except for the fact that you disagree with them. --Ymmotrojam 13:19, 19 March 2007 (EDT)