- well, we have Atheistic Style, Atheistic denial (which uses the term ""atheistic science"), Atheistic Logic, Atheistic tools (which is associated with "Darwinian science," according to the article), and Atheistic Values. Why not "atheistic science" ? PeterF 00:38, 3 October 2009 (EDT)
- I created this article with the appropriate references so it would be a reliable source of information. I welcome any additional scientific information, not pseudo-science. I also request that all edits be fully referenced. For this reason the addition concerning the claims of creationists needs to be removed unless a reputable scientific source that specifically details why this fossil find is not over 4 million years old can be posted. General statements like, "creations disagree" will not suffice and the reference provided gives no evidence about the inadequacy of radiometric dating methods that show a fossil is millions of years old.
- Please provide references and justification for any claims of atheism amongst the scientists that are studying this find and why such a claim is relevant. Anything else just detracts from the article. --MichaelJB 14:28, 3 October 2009 (EDT)
- I added that to give balance; without that the article appears to be completely focused on the evolutionist/old earth/naturalistic world-view. As I'm sure you are aware there are other views and theories, and we should not be afraid to open our minds to them. I have added references, including a very well written (if a little technical!) article. However this is your article and if you wish for it to only be from one POV then I will respect that. TESvestad 14:50, 3 October 2009 (EDT)
- Balance means nothing in science. Constructive criticism, peer-review, and debate are what keeps scientists honest and encourages further research. Trying to counter honest science with pseudo-science is more than worthless; it is a waste of time. If the article appears to be focused on the alleged 'evolutionist/old earth/naturalistic world-view', then that is just too bad, that is what the evidence says. Unless there is something specifically written in a reputable peer-reviewed source, in my opinion it does not belong in this science article.
- Your sources fall far short of being considered reputable. The AIG article uses information from the RATE project that has been refuted many times and the author rejects anything that does not conform with his interpretation of the Bible. The second reference is actually written by a competent geologist, Dr Snelling, who has written many articles in peer-reviewed publications that support the alleged 'evolutionist/old earth/naturalistic world-view'. Why didn't you reference one of those articles? Why use an article written for an organization that only accepts articles that support their statement of faith and rejects all other scientific opinions?
- To sum up, I welcome different scientific views in this article. But keep the pseudo-science out. --MichaelJB 16:56, 3 October 2009 (EDT)
I fully agree with Ed Poor's comment (See? We do sometimes agree!) at the top of this page. We need to keep snarky comments out, and just say what the prevailing view is, and what the creationist view is. The vast majority (at least 97%?) of anthropologists accept evolution, so saying "evolutionist anthropologists" is sort of like saying "non-transgendered anthropologists"—it conveys essentially no information. SamHB 20:00, 21 September 2014 (EDT)
- Well, but this is a Creationist Wiki. So this article should be written from a Creationist view.--JoeyJ 07:55, 22 September 2014 (EDT)