Changes

I don't get why everyone is so mad about this. In my view there is a rich amount of information available to debate both sides. However, the people attacking "many" just seem to want to discredit ID. Why not admit that both sounds have reasonable grounds for argument?--[[User:CWilson|CWilson]] 17:15, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

I don't get why everyone is so mad about this. In my view there is a rich amount of information available to debate both sides. However, the people attacking "many" just seem to want to discredit ID. Why not admit that both sounds have reasonable grounds for argument?--[[User:CWilson|CWilson]] 17:15, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

: The problem here is that facts are being misrepresented.  It doesn't matter who is misrepresenting them - I'll fight just as hard if a secularist misrepresents something in the Bible.  However, when one says that multiple articles have been published in peer reviewed journals and that is shown to be not true, and the one article that was published was withdrawn, then facts are being misrepresented.  One can argue about interpretations all they want, but to make patently false claims to bolster their side of the argument is unacceptable. --[[User:Mtur|Mtur]] 17:18, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

: The problem here is that facts are being misrepresented.  It doesn't matter who is misrepresenting them - I'll fight just as hard if a secularist misrepresents something in the Bible.  However, when one says that multiple articles have been published in peer reviewed journals and that is shown to be not true, and the one article that was published was withdrawn, then facts are being misrepresented.  One can argue about interpretations all they want, but to make patently false claims to bolster their side of the argument is unacceptable. --[[User:Mtur|Mtur]] 17:18, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

== why aren't you counting this?  ==

== why aren't you counting this?  ==