nsTeam2RO, nsTeam2RW, nsTeam2_talkRO, nsTeam2_talkRW
13,254
edits
Changes
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Line 1:
Line 1: + + Line 51:
Line 53: + + + + Line 58:
Line 64: − − The archive is here: [http://www.conservapedia.com/Conservapedia_talk:Lenski_dialog/archive1 Archive 1]--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 22:36, 26 June 2008 (EDT)
Conservapedia talk:Lenski dialog (view source)
Revision as of 02:53, June 27, 2008
, 02:53, June 27, 2008Comment wasn't silly given that no link was provided to the archive when posted. (I also thought that it had simply been deleted.)
[http://www.conservapedia.com/Conservapedia_talk:Lenski_dialog/archive1 Archive 1]
The discussion below concerns the letters and response set forth at [[Conservapedia:Lenski dialog]].
The discussion below concerns the letters and response set forth at [[Conservapedia:Lenski dialog]].
::::With regard to 'competent scientists' consider that Behe, in his discussions on this topic has not argued about the 'mechanics' and data presented in Lenski's paper. In his review that can be found on the amazon.com website, he calls Lenksi's work 'fascinating' (and means it in a good way).--[[User:Argon|Argon]] 21:29, 26 June 2008 (EDT)
::::With regard to 'competent scientists' consider that Behe, in his discussions on this topic has not argued about the 'mechanics' and data presented in Lenski's paper. In his review that can be found on the amazon.com website, he calls Lenksi's work 'fascinating' (and means it in a good way).--[[User:Argon|Argon]] 21:29, 26 June 2008 (EDT)
== removal of content from this page removes context of Lenski's second reply ==
I'm sure it's an oversight but Lenski, in his second letter, made several direct references to the discussion that has been removed from this page. Some of his comments thus appear inappropriately to lack context. I'm sure you did not intend to remove significant parts of this debate, especially when the result seems so one-sided.[[User:AndyMann|AndyMann]] 20:09, 26 June 2008 (EDT)
: Yes, it was an oversight. It was archived, but the archive was not linked to on this page. It has since been linked. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 22:53, 26 June 2008 (EDT)
==Archive Link?==
==Archive Link?==
Oops. Did my edits delete the earlier sections? If so, I'm sorry. Could someone restore the original? --[[User:Argon|Argon]]
Oops. Did my edits delete the earlier sections? If so, I'm sorry. Could someone restore the original? --[[User:Argon|Argon]]
:No, your edits were not a problem. It was the edits of those individuals who decided to use this talk page as an attack forum. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 21:02, 26 June 2008 (EDT)
:No, your edits were not a problem. It was the edits of those individuals who decided to use this talk page as an attack forum. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 21:02, 26 June 2008 (EDT)