Difference between revisions of "Talk:Evolutionism/Draft"
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
| Line 3: | Line 3: | ||
: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) | :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) | ||
::Look, creationist sites are hardly reputable sources for proving evolution is a religion. If you find a site created by an "evolutionist" saying that evolution is a religion, I may be able to take this article a little more seriously. Until then, I stand by my position that this article needs to be deleted as soon as possible. [[User:ColinR|ColinR]] 13:22, 19 March 2007 (EDT) | ::Look, creationist sites are hardly reputable sources for proving evolution is a religion. If you find a site created by an "evolutionist" saying that evolution is a religion, I may be able to take this article a little more seriously. Until then, I stand by my position that this article needs to be deleted as soon as possible. [[User:ColinR|ColinR]] 13:22, 19 March 2007 (EDT) | ||
| + | |||
| + | "Followers of evolutionism"? This keeps getting weirder. If you can cite a source that discusses "evolutionism" and "following evolutionism" by anyone who claims to be a proponent I'd be heartily surprised.--[[User:Murray|Murray]] 13:23, 19 March 2007 (EDT) | ||
Revision as of 17:23, 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)
- Look, creationist sites are hardly reputable sources for proving evolution is a religion. If you find a site created by an "evolutionist" saying that evolution is a religion, I may be able to take this article a little more seriously. Until then, I stand by my position that this article needs to be deleted as soon as possible. ColinR 13:22, 19 March 2007 (EDT)
"Followers of evolutionism"? This keeps getting weirder. If you can cite a source that discusses "evolutionism" and "following evolutionism" by anyone who claims to be a proponent I'd be heartily surprised.--Murray 13:23, 19 March 2007 (EDT)