Difference between revisions of "Talk:Origin of Life"

From Conservapedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search
m (Talk:Criticisms of abiogenesis moved to Talk:Origin of Life: that is what the article is about and it takes a conservative view, there is no NPOV policy at Conservapedia)
Line 17: Line 17:
  
 
This does not meet our standards for an article, but is an essay. --<font color="#0002AC" face="Comic Sans MS">[[User:TK|şŷŝôρ-₮K]]</font><sup><font color="OOFFAA">[[User_Talk:TK|Ṣρёаќǃ]]</font></sup> 20:46, 21 August 2007 (EDT)
 
This does not meet our standards for an article, but is an essay. --<font color="#0002AC" face="Comic Sans MS">[[User:TK|şŷŝôρ-₮K]]</font><sup><font color="OOFFAA">[[User_Talk:TK|Ṣρёаќǃ]]</font></sup> 20:46, 21 August 2007 (EDT)
 +
 +
== References ==
 +
 +
Would anyone mind if I reformat the links in the references section? And not to involve myself in any controversy, but while the article is well-sourced, the anti-naturalistic origin quotes do seem a little densely packed at the moment... [[User:Feebasfactor|Feebasfactor]] 18:23, 17 September 2007 (EDT)

Revision as of 22:23, September 17, 2007

http://www.genesispark.org/genpark/spongen/spongen.htm

Grammatical error

There are numerous instances in this article where "creationist" (singular) should be "creationists" (plural).

Bootstrap problem

Why no mention thereof?

Scientific American

  • Scientific American isn't really a journal. Masterbratac 15:03, 19 August 2007 (EDT)

Essay

This does not meet our standards for an article, but is an essay. --şŷŝôρ-₮KṢρёаќǃ 20:46, 21 August 2007 (EDT)

References

Would anyone mind if I reformat the links in the references section? And not to involve myself in any controversy, but while the article is well-sourced, the anti-naturalistic origin quotes do seem a little densely packed at the moment... Feebasfactor 18:23, 17 September 2007 (EDT)