183
edits
Changes
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Line 247:
Line 247: + +
Andy NEVER SAID ANYTHING about the {{category:creationist}}
It seems to me that you can't be an anti-evolutionist or a creationist before the two distinctions existed, especially not on incidental evidence. That's like saying that George Washington would've been a Republican, because he loves America & favors a strong army. The correlation is tenuous, and it's just guesswork anyways.-'''<font color="#007FFF">Ames</font><font color="#FF0000">G</font>'''<sub>[http://www.conservapedia.com/User_talk:AmesG yo!]</sub> 23:29, 9 April 2007 (EDT)
It seems to me that you can't be an anti-evolutionist or a creationist before the two distinctions existed, especially not on incidental evidence. That's like saying that George Washington would've been a Republican, because he loves America & favors a strong army. The correlation is tenuous, and it's just guesswork anyways.-'''<font color="#007FFF">Ames</font><font color="#FF0000">G</font>'''<sub>[http://www.conservapedia.com/User_talk:AmesG yo!]</sub> 23:29, 9 April 2007 (EDT)
TK, Andy <i>never said anything</i> about the <nowki>{{category:creationist}}</nowiki> tag. He spoke about the quote, which is still there. Ed Poor added the creationist tag originally and then tried to remove it, but you keep reverting it based on a misunderstanding of what Andy was talking about. --[[User:Jtl|Jtl]] 23:36, 9 April 2007 (EDT)