Block, SkipCaptcha
195
edits
Changes
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Line 14:
Line 14: + + +
no edit summary
::::::: "Lowkey", your statement is illogical and full of non sequiturs, and even misrepresents my own statements. Don't push evolutionism here. Hoyle was punished for exposing the [[Archaeopteryx]] fraud, and your attempts to dilute that historical fact are unjustified.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 18:53, 15 January 2009 (EST)
::::::: "Lowkey", your statement is illogical and full of non sequiturs, and even misrepresents my own statements. Don't push evolutionism here. Hoyle was punished for exposing the [[Archaeopteryx]] fraud, and your attempts to dilute that historical fact are unjustified.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 18:53, 15 January 2009 (EST)
::::::::Point out a logical fallacy (non-sequiturs included). What statement did I misrepresent and how? How did I push evolutionism? Please respond with substance or cease the accusations. [[User:LowKey|LowKey]] 19:04, 15 January 2009 (EST)
::::::::Point out a logical fallacy (non-sequiturs included). What statement did I misrepresent and how? How did I push evolutionism? Please respond with substance or cease the accusations. [[User:LowKey|LowKey]] 19:04, 15 January 2009 (EST)
Andy, if Hoyle's scientific pre-eminence is sufficient justification for accepting his conclusions about the Archaeopteryx, should we also accept his conclusions about a steady-state universe and deistic evolution? He ultimately did not reject evolution, merely naturalistic evolution. I on the other hand reject evolution altogether.[[User:LowKey|LowKey]] 19:25, 15 January 2009 (EST)
== Reversion explained ==
== Reversion explained ==