nsTeam2RO, nsTeam2RW, nsTeam2_talkRO, nsTeam2_talkRW
13,254
edits
Changes
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Line 143:
Line 143: + +
→If this is a joke, it's not that funny.: Not a joke
I don't know what you people are, but you're not conservatives. I'd like to contribute positively to this site, but perusing through other related articles after seeing this one, I have realized that many have fought & "died" (been blocked) for pointing out what I just did. Will I face an uphill battle in just writing in encyclopedic style? Based on this article, I would assume, "yes."-[[User:BillBuck|BillBuck]] 11:06, 3 May 2007 (EDT)
I don't know what you people are, but you're not conservatives. I'd like to contribute positively to this site, but perusing through other related articles after seeing this one, I have realized that many have fought & "died" (been blocked) for pointing out what I just did. Will I face an uphill battle in just writing in encyclopedic style? Based on this article, I would assume, "yes."-[[User:BillBuck|BillBuck]] 11:06, 3 May 2007 (EDT)
:No, it's not a joke. What's a joke is that the atheistic agenda of evolution is treated as empirical science and creationary science is ''dismissed'' as an unreliable source, rather than actually being ''refuted''. The tactic is to argue, as you have implicitly, that "evolution is science" and is therefore totally objective. Scientists are ''not'' always totally objective, and [[physical science#[edit] Types of science|origins science]] is not empirical science]]. There is no anti-creationists ''conspiracy'', but there is a ''ruling paradigm'' that refuses to acknowledge creation as a valid alternative. Evolutionists (some of whom acknowledge their anti-theistic bias) are no less agenda-driven than creationists, and lay evolutionists who argue otherwise are the pot calling the kettle black. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 11:20, 3 May 2007 (EDT)