257
edits
Changes
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Line 69:
Line 69: + + +
Talk:Origin of Life (view source)
Revision as of 15:28, December 31, 2008
, 15:28, December 31, 2008→Rebuttals of problems: correct, and other responses
::::::: As for not presenting the naturalistic view, you are correct, and that is a problem that many articles suffer from. Start another section if you want to discuss it further, or just directly edit the article. But please keep in mind that Conservapedia doesn't allow the naturalistic POV to be presented as fact (see my first comment in this post).
::::::: As for not presenting the naturalistic view, you are correct, and that is a problem that many articles suffer from. Start another section if you want to discuss it further, or just directly edit the article. But please keep in mind that Conservapedia doesn't allow the naturalistic POV to be presented as fact (see my first comment in this post).
::::::: [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 04:12, 31 December 2008 (EST)
::::::: [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 04:12, 31 December 2008 (EST)
:::::::: By saying ''naturalist'', I was implying (or, trying to imply) that I was making a hypothetical statement. Had I been supporting their view, I would have simply put ''in the 3.5 billion years ago earth''. The word "view" would have made the sentence sound redundant to me.
:::::::: You are correct in your rebuttal of the Spiegleman experiment. I am saying that we should include an explanation of such experiments (and reasoning) '''and''' their rebuttals. (continued further down)
:::::::: [[User:WilliamBeason|WilliamBeason]] 10:28, 31 December 2008 (EST)
==Superfluous link==
==Superfluous link==