Block, SkipCaptcha, Automoderated users, edit
574
edits
Changes
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
mLine 17:
Line 17: − ::Alchemy was around a long time too. In science, evidence should be the decisive factor, not naturalistic philosophy. Anyways, [[Shockofgod]] said he is going to drive a stake in the heart of evolutionism biology textbook buying though his Texas assistance to the [[Question evolution! campaign]] which could certainly take a huge bite out of Darwinism. No real point in having a long discussion given the upcoming collapse of Darwinism. Have a nice day. [[User:Conservative|conservative]] 23:54, 28 June 2011 (EDT) − :::I have reverted your vandalism of this page. It was a well written and researched article until you came along and destroyed it. You then came on to this talk page and arrogantly dismissed the concerns expressed by the editor who had taken so much trouble in writing it. Your behaviour has been that of a bully. This is a wiki and, as such, relies on co-operation between editors. What you have done is calculated to drive contributing editors away. It was a destructive and disgraceful act. --[[User:XavierC|XavierC]] 17:28, 29 June 2011 (EDT) − − == Unlock this article == − − Conservative, you have hijacked this article in the most outrageous display of high-handed, arrogant behaviour I have ever seen on a wiki. You have destroyed a significant and considered contribution, refused to respond to requests to explain your appalling behaviour and now compound your disgrace by locking the article. This wiki is not your personal fiefdom. It is a co-operative project requiring multiple editors. Acting the way that you have done can only have one result. The eventual decline of this project. Unlock this page and act in a co-operative manner towards other editors. Collaborate in the development of a good article. Don't behave like a child who snatches all the toys for himself and runs off to play alone. Behave like an adult who is capable of co-operative enterprise. --[[User:XavierC|XavierC]] 18:10, 29 June 2011 (EDT)
Talk:Endosymbiotic hypothesis (view source)
Revision as of 22:21, June 29, 2011
, 22:21, June 29, 2011insulting/trolling comment
:::::::::::Sorry, atheism is on the decline in the world because of its irrelevance. Please see: [[Atheism]] and [[Evolution]]. Liberalism is under duress too via austerity budgets. Unlike evolutionists/atheists/liberals, I try to have relevant material. Not voodoo "science". [[User:Conservative|conservative]] 14:43, 28 June 2011 (EDT)
:::::::::::Sorry, atheism is on the decline in the world because of its irrelevance. Please see: [[Atheism]] and [[Evolution]]. Liberalism is under duress too via austerity budgets. Unlike evolutionists/atheists/liberals, I try to have relevant material. Not voodoo "science". [[User:Conservative|conservative]] 14:43, 28 June 2011 (EDT)
::::::::::::Again, I am not concerned with atheism, liberalism, conservatism, or any other "-ism". My only issue is the truth. I understand that you disagree with the facts (or perhaps my presentation), but how you can relegate a century's-worth of work to "voodoo" science is beyond me. What exactly makes this "voodoo" science? Is it my not providing you with original data? I think not, as I doubt you can present the ORIGINAL ten commandments. Not the "voodoo", copied version found in a book that was printed in the 50s. The REAL tablets. Is it that the theory cannot be adequately tested? Again, doubtful; there is no conceivable way (in my narrow-minded, scientific view) of testing God's existence. What, then, can it be? What makes certain evidence "true science", while other facts are labeled "voodoo, pseudoscience"? I can think of only one explanation: "voodoo" science is any piece of evidence not in accordance with your world view. Humbly waiting your reply, [[User:Professor|Professor]] 15:19, 28 June 2011 (EDT).
::::::::::::Again, I am not concerned with atheism, liberalism, conservatism, or any other "-ism". My only issue is the truth. I understand that you disagree with the facts (or perhaps my presentation), but how you can relegate a century's-worth of work to "voodoo" science is beyond me. What exactly makes this "voodoo" science? Is it my not providing you with original data? I think not, as I doubt you can present the ORIGINAL ten commandments. Not the "voodoo", copied version found in a book that was printed in the 50s. The REAL tablets. Is it that the theory cannot be adequately tested? Again, doubtful; there is no conceivable way (in my narrow-minded, scientific view) of testing God's existence. What, then, can it be? What makes certain evidence "true science", while other facts are labeled "voodoo, pseudoscience"? I can think of only one explanation: "voodoo" science is any piece of evidence not in accordance with your world view. Humbly waiting your reply, [[User:Professor|Professor]] 15:19, 28 June 2011 (EDT).