221
edits
Changes
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Line 65:
Line 65: + + + + + + + +
→We have decided that the article will not be changed in any major way.: @Conservative
:::::::::[[User:RonLar|RonLar]] 18:50, 5 August 2011 (EDT)
:::::::::[[User:RonLar|RonLar]] 18:50, 5 August 2011 (EDT)
It is very sad to see someone with [[Essay: Acute Conservapedia obsessive compulsive disorder|Acute Conservapedia obsessive compulsive disorder]] make an attempt to water down Conservapedia's evolution article. On a lighter note, it will be entertaining to see RonLar strap his evolutionism zealot rocket on his back, putting his evolutionism activist roller skates on his feet and be the next evolutionist to hit the brick wall of denied requests to make this article more palatable to evolutionists. The popular Christian YouTube video creator [[Shockofgod]] coined the phrase "Atheism is the Wile E. Coyote of worldviews" and it certainly applies to atheism and evolutionism. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 19:08, 5 August 2011 (EDT)
It is very sad to see someone with [[Essay: Acute Conservapedia obsessive compulsive disorder|Acute Conservapedia obsessive compulsive disorder]] make an attempt to water down Conservapedia's evolution article. On a lighter note, it will be entertaining to see RonLar strap his evolutionism zealot rocket on his back, putting his evolutionism activist roller skates on his feet and be the next evolutionist to hit the brick wall of denied requests to make this article more palatable to evolutionists. The popular Christian YouTube video creator [[Shockofgod]] coined the phrase "Atheism is the Wile E. Coyote of worldviews" and it certainly applies to atheism and evolutionism. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 19:08, 5 August 2011 (EDT)
:Again, you had the opportunity to score a few points in a discussion with someone whom you regard as an evolutionist and atheist. Again, you wasted this opportunity:
:*you didn't address the discrepancy of the text of the disclaimer and your behavior as detailed in the beginning of this section. The casual observer of our discussion gets the impression that you don't have a valid explanation
:*this impression will be assured by your meandering answers which are ripe of non-sequiturs and unsubstantiated statements:
:**'' Acute Conservapedia obsessive compulsive disorder'' again, an ad-hominem. Doesn't invalidate any point I make
:**''On a lighter note... '' This whole section doesn't make sense for any onlooker, maybe it is clear to you...
:So: How many valid points have you made? (The answer is '''none''')
:[[User:RonLar|RonLar]] 19:25, 5 August 2011 (EDT)