Changes

Jump to navigation Jump to search
Line 96: Line 96:  
1. Evolutionists can't have it both ways on the [[Origin of life]].  You can't spout on about [[Origin of life|chemical evolution]] from one side of your mouth, but on the other hand say it has nothing to do with evolution. Face it, evolution is a religion/philosophy. It is not science.  
 
1. Evolutionists can't have it both ways on the [[Origin of life]].  You can't spout on about [[Origin of life|chemical evolution]] from one side of your mouth, but on the other hand say it has nothing to do with evolution. Face it, evolution is a religion/philosophy. It is not science.  
   −
2. I see a noticeable lack of footnotes. But even if you had footnotes, you would probably link to junk science (talkorigins, etc.). [[User:Conservative|conservative]] 17:50, 28 June 2011 (EDT)
+
2. I see a noticeable lack of footnotes. But even if you had footnotes, you would probably link to junk science (talkorigins, etc.).
 +
 
 +
By the way, are you an atheist?  If so, please provide proof and evidence that atheism is true. 
 +
 
 +
I suggest rereading Conservapedia's [[evolution]] and [[atheism]] articles over and over until they sink in. [[User:Conservative|conservative]] 17:52, 28 June 2011 (EDT)
Irenaeus, Siteadmin, Check users, oversight, Administrators
351,132

edits

Navigation menu