Conservapedia talk:Arguments creationists shouldn't use

It is of course only about a quarter finished, not brilliant scholarship (mainly just cut and paste) and not brilliantly formatted. Perhaps its also not terribly interesting. Is this worth going on with ?--Damo2353 05:53, 9 July 2008 (EDT)

Mind if I play about with it a bit?--Bob^{bing up} 05:55, 9 July 2008 (EDT)

I'd say it's just as worthy as many of the articles in the Conservapediaspace. It is interesting, which makes it a keeper in my book. Radioactive afikomen ^{Please ignore all my awful pre-2014 comments.} 05:58, 9 July 2008 (EDT)

Very good and useful idea, Damo2353. Thanks! P.S. Before reading the page, I thought you were writing about Al Gore = Al G. = AlG... (Editor at) CP:^{no intelligence allowed} 05:59, 9 July 2008 (EDT)

Sure, it could sure use a bit of playing with. It's meant as an article, certainly not an essay.--Damo2353 06:00, 9 July 2008 (EDT)

Might be interesting to include CreationWiki as well.--Bob^{bing up} 06:31, 9 July 2008 (EDT)

To be fair to them, there aren't that many hits. Maybe they've been through the same exercise. Was surprised not to find the "Darwin Eye" one. It's used over and over again. --Bob^{bing up} 07:06, 9 July 2008 (EDT)

I'm getting tired of this now. Anybody else want to do a bit?--Bob^{bing up} 07:11, 9 July 2008 (EDT)

Holy crap!

"Dubois renounced Java man as a ‘missing link’" Would ya look at that... I am a missing link in evolution! Javascap 07:14, 9 July 2008 (EDT)

Move

CP Space? I assume so but let's try out this "rule of three" :P This is ONE. That's ONE! ArmondikoV^{d hominem} 16:40, 9 January 2009 (EST)

I think that this page is in CP space because it mostly shows examples used by conservapedia. I think that this page should be moved out of CP space and examples from around the internet should be shown. NapalmEagle (talk) 16:59, 31 March 2013 (UTC)