Changes

Jump to navigation Jump to search
331 bytes added ,  03:10, April 30, 2007
Line 10: Line 10:  
:::That's a very helpful comment, Human.  Not.  Rather than just mock and criticise, how about suggesting how it could be improved (with specifics), or point out precisely what is wrong with it.  To just dismiss it as having a YEC perspective indicates that rather than there being anything factually wrong with it, you simply have an ideological issue with it.  If so, that's your problem, not the article's.  [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 02:05, 29 April 2007 (EDT)
 
:::That's a very helpful comment, Human.  Not.  Rather than just mock and criticise, how about suggesting how it could be improved (with specifics), or point out precisely what is wrong with it.  To just dismiss it as having a YEC perspective indicates that rather than there being anything factually wrong with it, you simply have an ideological issue with it.  If so, that's your problem, not the article's.  [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 02:05, 29 April 2007 (EDT)
 
::::It's not the presentation of the YEC perspective that bothers me, I expect that, but I would expect to see more thorough detail about what the scientific consensus is about the column/system itself.  Perhaps a listing of the major periods and which rocks represent them, and why this is claimed?  I might have a book around here somewher that lists them, I'll see if I can cobble together a decent paragraph or two. [[User:Human|Human]] 14:24, 29 April 2007 (EDT)
 
::::It's not the presentation of the YEC perspective that bothers me, I expect that, but I would expect to see more thorough detail about what the scientific consensus is about the column/system itself.  Perhaps a listing of the major periods and which rocks represent them, and why this is claimed?  I might have a book around here somewher that lists them, I'll see if I can cobble together a decent paragraph or two. [[User:Human|Human]] 14:24, 29 April 2007 (EDT)
 +
:::::As I said, your comment was not very helpful.  So unhelpful that it failed to convey to me what your actual issue with the article was.  However, now that's been clarified, I agree that it could/should be expanded to actually document the periods, etc.  [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 23:10, 29 April 2007 (EDT)
    
:::: Shouldn't the article name be geological system
 
:::: Shouldn't the article name be geological system
nsTeam2RO, nsTeam2RW, nsTeam2_talkRO, nsTeam2_talkRW
13,254

edits

Navigation menu