Difference between revisions of "Talk:Arguments about evolution"
From Conservapedia
| Line 4: | Line 4: | ||
:::I would've thought that the avocacy was implicit. Basically, I'm not a very long-established member of the site, but it seems like you're going against several of its stated aims here. '''<font color="impossibletouse" face="Comic Sans MS">[[User:Jellyfish|Jellyfish!]]</font>''' 16:59, 20 April 2008 (EDT) | :::I would've thought that the avocacy was implicit. Basically, I'm not a very long-established member of the site, but it seems like you're going against several of its stated aims here. '''<font color="impossibletouse" face="Comic Sans MS">[[User:Jellyfish|Jellyfish!]]</font>''' 16:59, 20 April 2008 (EDT) | ||
::::I'd rather stick with the facts than conform to an ideology. --<sub>[[Special:Contributions/AutoFire|<font color= 'black' face= 'OCR A Extended'>trans</font>]]</sub>[[User:AutoFire|<font color= 'red' face= 'OCR A Extended'>Resident Transfan</font>]]<sup>[[User Talk:Autofire|<font color= 'black' face= 'OCR A Extended'>form!</font>]]</sup> 17:03, 20 April 2008 (EDT) | ::::I'd rather stick with the facts than conform to an ideology. --<sub>[[Special:Contributions/AutoFire|<font color= 'black' face= 'OCR A Extended'>trans</font>]]</sub>[[User:AutoFire|<font color= 'red' face= 'OCR A Extended'>Resident Transfan</font>]]<sup>[[User Talk:Autofire|<font color= 'black' face= 'OCR A Extended'>form!</font>]]</sup> 17:03, 20 April 2008 (EDT) | ||
| + | :::::A search for facts is always guided by ideology, even when its not admitted. '''<font color="impossibletouse" face="Comic Sans MS">[[User:Jellyfish|Jellyfish!]]</font>''' 17:06, 20 April 2008 (EDT) | ||
Revision as of 21:06, April 20, 2008
Hey Jellyfish, care to say why you dismissed and reverted my edit as "nonsense"? --transResident Transfanform! 16:48, 20 April 2008 (EDT)
- Hi, Autofire. Sorry about that, I got carried away after reverting an endless production line of vandals. But unless I'm mistaken, didn't your edit argue that the link between Evolutionism and Social Darwinism was unsound or something? I would have thought that link was self-evident, and it seems to be prefectly in line with the official viewpoint of this site. Am I missing something? Jellyfish! 16:51, 20 April 2008 (EDT)
- My edit argued that the theory of evolution did not necessitate SD; rather, SD was the result of people misusing the theory to justify their racist ideas. I say "misusing" because the theory of evolution itself does not advocate mass murder/genocide. --transResident Transfanform! 16:55, 20 April 2008 (EDT)
- I would've thought that the avocacy was implicit. Basically, I'm not a very long-established member of the site, but it seems like you're going against several of its stated aims here. Jellyfish! 16:59, 20 April 2008 (EDT)
- I'd rather stick with the facts than conform to an ideology. --transResident Transfanform! 17:03, 20 April 2008 (EDT)
- A search for facts is always guided by ideology, even when its not admitted. Jellyfish! 17:06, 20 April 2008 (EDT)
- I'd rather stick with the facts than conform to an ideology. --transResident Transfanform! 17:03, 20 April 2008 (EDT)
- I would've thought that the avocacy was implicit. Basically, I'm not a very long-established member of the site, but it seems like you're going against several of its stated aims here. Jellyfish! 16:59, 20 April 2008 (EDT)
- My edit argued that the theory of evolution did not necessitate SD; rather, SD was the result of people misusing the theory to justify their racist ideas. I say "misusing" because the theory of evolution itself does not advocate mass murder/genocide. --transResident Transfanform! 16:55, 20 April 2008 (EDT)
