From Conservapedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Pot calls kettle black

The article states:

"EvoWiki is an evolutionist website that claims to be free, but only allows pro-evolution edits".

Have you noticed, by any chance, that the "Theory of Evolution" page at Conservapedia is locked? And that it is actually an "Anti-Theory of Evolution" page?

Hypocrisy reigns supreme. --Horace 22:29, 15 March 2007 (EDT)

Horace, I suggest you take this up with the Conservapedia Panel Conservative 02:15, 20 September 2012 (EDT)

Horace was exiled years ago (as you well know) so you are talking to someone who can't reply (as you well know) - and the CP Panel has not answered its phone for a similar length of time (as you well know,) so, even if he could reply, it wouldn't do him any good (as you well know.) You have outdone yourself on this one. Well done! AlanE 02:37, 20 September 2012 (EDT)

Actually, I recently heard that Horace was still obsessed with CP and particularly with me and still posting to CP via various sockpuppets. I got a good laugh out of Horace's obsessive and pathetic behavior.
If memory serves and it may not, around the early part or beginning half of 2011, which is about the time I created the Atheism and obesity article and some satires of atheism such as Militant atheism and short man's syndrome, I believe I told Horace that when I think of atheism I laugh. Horace was unsuccessfully trying to convince me that I fear atheism at the time. Conservative 23:11, 21 September 2012 (EDT)
The fact remains that Horace is banned from editing at CP (as you well know) and cannot "take this up" with the CPanel even if he wanted to (as you well know) so why say it? AlanE 23:56, 21 September 2012 (EDT)

Horace, alleges he believes in evolution. Using evolutionary "logic", given enough time anything can happen. Therefore, it is still possible that he will be unbanned and be able to contact the Conservapedia panel if he repeatedly attempts to contact them. :) Conservative 09:12, 22 September 2012 (EDT)

ScientificAustralian's reversion

ScientificAustralian just reverted my previous edit, with the comment, "why put stuff about creation wiki on the evo wiki page".

To answer that question, because CreationWiki's responses to EvoWiki's claims are relevant to an article about EvoWiki.

And I would ask a question in return: Why revert my entire edit simply because you disagree with one part of it?

Philip J. Rayment 22:19, 2 November 2007 (EDT)

Philip J. Rayment, I added the CreationWiki material for you. Conservative 02:13, 20 September 2012 (EDT)