Block, Siteadmin, SkipCaptcha, Upload, Automoderated users, delete, edit, Moderators, move, protect, rollback, Administrators
27,336
edits
Changes
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
mLine 54:
Line 54: − − Sorry, but Samsonn is entirely correct. The science on that page is horrendous. It's a waste of time to fix; it should be scrapped and rewritten. If you cared about accuracy (i am slowly learning you don't) then you'd get a scientist to write it for you. The short of it is: evolution is fact. It's been proven over and over through genetics. [[User:Mises|Mises]] 11:16, 17 December 2011 (EST)
Reverted edits by Mises (talk) to last revision by Karajou
Regarding the link to the Conservapedia section of 'lack of transitional forms', I have made it clear that I find it fallacious; that is why I am talking about it here, so I can get a consensus to correct it. And the links to the creationist website are full of fallacies also. And as I have said, because it was written by a creationist, who has clearly already made up his mind about evolution, and not a biologist, then I don't think that it is a reliable citation. Give me a link to the work of an actual scientist and I will listen. --[[User:Samsonnn|Samsonnn]] 12:27, 13 November 2011 (EST)
Regarding the link to the Conservapedia section of 'lack of transitional forms', I have made it clear that I find it fallacious; that is why I am talking about it here, so I can get a consensus to correct it. And the links to the creationist website are full of fallacies also. And as I have said, because it was written by a creationist, who has clearly already made up his mind about evolution, and not a biologist, then I don't think that it is a reliable citation. Give me a link to the work of an actual scientist and I will listen. --[[User:Samsonnn|Samsonnn]] 12:27, 13 November 2011 (EST)
:::Samsonn, I cited biologists in this article. You still did not address the evidence I presented. You won't be editing at Conservapedia anymore due to your poor contributions. Lastly, your contributions lead to me you were a liberal atheist editor. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 15:00, 13 November 2011 (EST)
:::Samsonn, I cited biologists in this article. You still did not address the evidence I presented. You won't be editing at Conservapedia anymore due to your poor contributions. Lastly, your contributions lead to me you were a liberal atheist editor. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 15:00, 13 November 2011 (EST)