790
edits
Changes
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Talk:Essay:Motivation for the Hypothesis of Intelligent Design (view source)
Revision as of 18:42, April 17, 2007
, 18:42, April 17, 2007no edit summary
If this page gets deleted, than I don't see why [[Essay:Motivations for the Theory of Evolution]] can't go bye-bye as well. --<font color="#0000CC" face="Comic Sans MS">[[User:Hojimachong|'''Hojimachong''']]</font><sup><font color="00FFAA">[[User_Talk:Hojimachong|talk]]</font></sup> 23:04, 9 April 2007 (EDT)
This is nothing but an array of pot-shots written by a speculative doctor with no citation anywhere. I'm sorry, but it sounds more like the ramblings of someone that doesn't beleive in Intelligent Design more than a legitimate intellectual attack against the belief. You clearly don't agree with the message and structure of Conservapedia - why are you here? --[[User:Thammersmith|Thammersmith]] 14:38, 17 April 2007 (EDT)
: There isn't a single citation in the other essay; at least PalmD001 is only sticking to bashing ID, whereas Aschlafly seems to have pulled figures out of his head to snipe at evolution.
'You clearly don't agree with the message and structure of Conservapedia - why are you here?'
It has been expressly stated that ''anyone'' (even liberals! even Hojimachong!) can contribute to CP in order to make it 'fair' and 'balanced'. -- <font color="#222222" face="Times New Roman">Wik</font><font color="#444444" face="Times New Roman">i</font><font color="#666666" face="Times New Roman">nterpreter</font>'''<sup>[http://www.conservapedia.com/User_talk:Wikinterpreter talk?]</sup>
This is nothing but an array of pot-shots written by a speculative doctor with no citation anywhere. I'm sorry, but it sounds more like the ramblings of someone that doesn't beleive in Intelligent Design more than a legitimate intellectual attack against the belief. You clearly don't agree with the message and structure of Conservapedia - why are you here? --[[User:Thammersmith|Thammersmith]] 14:38, 17 April 2007 (EDT)
: There isn't a single citation in the other essay; at least PalmD001 is only sticking to bashing ID, whereas Aschlafly seems to have pulled figures out of his head to snipe at evolution.
'You clearly don't agree with the message and structure of Conservapedia - why are you here?'
It has been expressly stated that ''anyone'' (even liberals! even Hojimachong!) can contribute to CP in order to make it 'fair' and 'balanced'. -- <font color="#222222" face="Times New Roman">Wik</font><font color="#444444" face="Times New Roman">i</font><font color="#666666" face="Times New Roman">nterpreter</font>'''<sup>[http://www.conservapedia.com/User_talk:Wikinterpreter talk?]</sup>