nsTeam2RO, nsTeam2RW, nsTeam2_talkRO, nsTeam2_talkRW
13,254
edits
Changes
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Line 81:
Line 81: + + + +
→When even Creationist sites disagree...: The point is still valid.
:::: JakeC, I think you are a [[provocateur]], and have not seen a quality edit by you yet. Unless you do some quality edits soon I would expect your account to be blocked by a Sysop under our [[rules]].--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 22:11, 1 January 2008 (EST)
:::: JakeC, I think you are a [[provocateur]], and have not seen a quality edit by you yet. Unless you do some quality edits soon I would expect your account to be blocked by a Sysop under our [[rules]].--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 22:11, 1 January 2008 (EST)
::::: Andy, I took JakeC's reference to "creationist sites" disagreeing to be referring to other creationist sites that ''do'' still cling to Hoyle's now-discredited view. I'm now not so sure that's what he was referring to, but the point still remains that the argument—that Hoyle's claim of forgery is rejected by leading creationists (as well as evolutionists)—is true and valid. And even if you want to ignore him because you doubt his motives, I'm making the same point.
::::: And you didn't answer my question about "biased and inappropriate labeling by evolutionists".
::::: [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 22:21, 1 January 2008 (EST)