Siteadmin, Check users, nsTeam1RO, nsTeam1RW, nsTeam1_talkRO, nsTeam1_talkRW, oversight, Administrators
30,650
edits
Changes
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Line 176:
Line 176: + + + + + + + + + + + +
→Definitions: A brisk word to the good doctor
Roger! This is an article about THEORY, not what YOU think Evolutionary scientists have to say about theory. The above should be sufficient, and you should remove the irrelevencies that you reinserted and that are poorly supported.--[[User:palmd001|PalMD]]<sup>[[User_talk:palmd001|talk]]</sup> 14:20, 30 March 2007 (EDT)
Roger! This is an article about THEORY, not what YOU think Evolutionary scientists have to say about theory. The above should be sufficient, and you should remove the irrelevencies that you reinserted and that are poorly supported.--[[User:palmd001|PalMD]]<sup>[[User_talk:palmd001|talk]]</sup> 14:20, 30 March 2007 (EDT)
:Stop yelling, we can hear you fine. You seem to be missing Roger's point (and it's my point too, if I may barge in).
:Supporters of the [[Theory of Evolution]] use the word ''theory'' in a particular way, by which they intend to make a distinction between a "fact" and a "theory".
:*Opponents: Evolution is only a theory.
:*Supporters: Evolution is a fact
:Sounds like two kids in the schoolyard: Is too! Is not!
:An adult would patiently explain what a theory is. Liberals, not being normal adults but nature-worshipping [[Druid]]s (as [[Ann Coulter]] so gently puts it), are not adults. The moment you contradict them they start screaming. One reason I suggest you tone it down is that grown-ups don't listen to little screaming kids. (No offense meant.)
:Now, I suggest you give up arguing with Mr. Schlafly for the moment, and try explaining his ideas back to him. As Covey says, Seek first to understand, then to be understood. You'll never win an argument while your debate partner feels you don't 'get' what he's saying. And the audience will yawn or change the channel. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 14:31, 30 March 2007 (EDT)