159
edits
Changes
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Line 13:
Line 13: +
Talk:Endosymbiotic hypothesis (view source)
Revision as of 18:29, June 28, 2011
, 18:29, June 28, 2011no edit summary
:::::I was entirely accurate in the article. The evidence that was burned (Godwin's law, anyone?) represents a wealth of scientific knowledge that has been accumulated over a century. I agree that symbiotic theory is a key argument used by evolution proponents, but I don't think that warrants the blatant disregard of scientific fact. Whether we agree with the theory or not, surely we can respect the massive amount of time and research that has been devoted to better understanding ourselves and other organisms. [[User:Professor|Professor]] 13:07, 28 June 2011 (EDT)
:::::I was entirely accurate in the article. The evidence that was burned (Godwin's law, anyone?) represents a wealth of scientific knowledge that has been accumulated over a century. I agree that symbiotic theory is a key argument used by evolution proponents, but I don't think that warrants the blatant disregard of scientific fact. Whether we agree with the theory or not, surely we can respect the massive amount of time and research that has been devoted to better understanding ourselves and other organisms. [[User:Professor|Professor]] 13:07, 28 June 2011 (EDT)
:::::::I am not buying your "wealth". Please read: [[Evolution]] and [[Atheism]]. Are you an atheist? Do you have proof and evidence that atheism is true? [[User:Conservative|conservative]] 13:47, 28 June 2011 (EDT)
:::::::I am not buying your "wealth". Please read: [[Evolution]] and [[Atheism]]. Are you an atheist? Do you have proof and evidence that atheism is true? [[User:Conservative|conservative]] 13:47, 28 June 2011 (EDT)
::::::::Conservative, I know perfectly well why you deleted that material, I am not asking you to explain it to me; all that I am asking for is that, in the spirit of openness, you acknowledge the complete deletion of a section in the log and in the talk page, clearly providing the reason for why it is deleted. It is very easy to be accused of censorship, and we do not want to provide any ammo to those who criticize us. And... you didn't reply for what concerns your next satire article :) --[[User:LeonardO|Leo-from-UK]] 14:29, 28 June 2011 (EDT)