Changes

::::::: "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)

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)