nsTeam2RO, nsTeam2RW, nsTeam2_talkRO, nsTeam2_talkRW
13,254
edits
Changes
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Line 126:
Line 126: − + − − :::::There also seems to be some copy-pasting going on, as I've seen the following text verbatim in several different articles: − <blockquote> − According to creationist scientists community, there is widespread discrimination against creationist scientists. This is not surprising given that a poll among United States scientists showed approximately 45% of scientists believed there was no God. − </blockquote> − − :::::If a Christian scientist can work on experiments involving evolutionary principles (as the great majority of genetics or biological experiments do), why is it assumed that any scientist, no matter their personal beliefs, will actively try to discriminate against valid research? − − :::::(There's also the tasty little bit at the end of that section where it claims on several points that the Bible was more accurate than popular opinion...and completely fails to note, even in a footnote, any of the points on which it is not. − :::::Conservapedia ''is'' supposed to be about an accurate and balanced viewpoint, isn't it?)--[[User:M|M]] 09:41, 23 April 2007 (EDT) − − :::::Sorry to double-comment, but I just noticed that there's at least one instance of inaccurate quote-mining on this page. Here's the quote by Mark Ridley in the entry: − − <blockquote> − "In any case, no real evolutionist, whether gradualist or punctuationist, uses the fossil record as evidence in favour of the theory of evolution as opposed to special creation." Mark Ridley (Professor of Zoology at Oxford University), 'Who doubts evolution?', New Scientist, vol. 90, 25 June 1981, p. 831 − </blockquote> − − :::::And here's the ''complete'' quote: − − <blockquote> − `In any case, no real evolutionist, whether gradualist or − punctuationist, uses the fossil record as evidence in favor of − evolution as opposed to special creation. The does not mean that − the theory of evolution is unproven. − `So what is the evidence that species have evolved? There have − traditionally been three kinds of evidence, and it is these, not the − "fossil evidence", that the critics should be thinking about. The − three arguments are from the observed evolution of species, from − biogeography, and from the hierarchical structure of taxonomy.' − (page 831)</blockquote> − <blockquote> − `These three are the clearest arguments for the mutability of − species. Other defences of the theory of evolution could be made, − not the least of which is the absence of a coherent alternative. − Darwin's theory is also uniquely able to account for both the − presence of design, and the absence of design (vestigial organs), − in nature.' (page 832) − </blockquote> − − :::::He's being misquoted, with the apparent intent of making it seem like a respected zoologist is saying the opposite of what he actually means.--[[User:M|M]] 09:45, 23 April 2007 (EDT)
Talk:Young Earth Creationism (view source)
Revision as of 14:20, April 23, 2007
, 14:20, April 23, 2007→This article is a travesty: Move last post to new section.
:::Equal footing does ''not'' mean 'supreme above all other views'. Nor does it mean 'allowing misinformation to stand as fact'.--[[User:M|M]] 07:27, 23 April 2007 (EDT)
:::Equal footing does ''not'' mean 'supreme above all other views'. Nor does it mean 'allowing misinformation to stand as fact'.--[[User:M|M]] 07:27, 23 April 2007 (EDT)
::::You're a bit slow responding to ''that'' comment! What misinformation is in the article? If I agree, I will remove/modify/clarify it. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 07:32, 23 April 2007 (EDT)
::::You're a bit slow responding to ''that'' comment! What misinformation is in the article? If I agree, I will remove/modify/clarify it. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 07:32, 23 April 2007 (EDT)
:::::Sorry if I'm posting on a dead comment; I was just skimming Conservapedia briefly before I left for class this morning. As for misinformation, there's a few things...the section on transitional fossils is simply disgraceful, for one thing. No mention whatsoever of ancestral whale fossils, the early mammal ancestors (as they split off from reptiles), the elephant or horse ancestral lines, or the australopithecines or other fossil hominids...and the two that it does mention, ''Archaeopteryx'' and ''Tiktaalik'', it dismisses for no good reason. (Referring to Archaeopteryx as a 'perching bird'...and completely disregarding the fact that it possessed ''teeth'' and a reptilian tail, for one thing!)
:::::''(M's reply has been moved to a new section below ([[#Misinformation|Misinformation]]) for clarity.)—Philip J. Rayment''
:::The current article clearly denigrates evolution below the place it enjoys in the scientific canons, based on inane arguments that don't deserve to be placed here. --[[User:AmesG|AmesG]] 17:25, 14 March 2007 (EDT)
:::The current article clearly denigrates evolution below the place it enjoys in the scientific canons, based on inane arguments that don't deserve to be placed here. --[[User:AmesG|AmesG]] 17:25, 14 March 2007 (EDT)