nsTeam2RO, nsTeam2RW, nsTeam2_talkRO, nsTeam2_talkRW
13,254
edits
Changes
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Line 41:
Line 41: + + Line 53:
Line 55: + + +
→Points of view: That it isn't about a point of view is your point of view!
:::::::Works for me.--[[User:Conservateur|Conservateur]] 10:54, 9 August 2007 (EDT)
:::::::Works for me.--[[User:Conservateur|Conservateur]] 10:54, 9 August 2007 (EDT)
::::::::Good. Done. Thanks for helping make it clearer. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 11:22, 9 August 2007 (EDT)
::::::::Good. Done. Thanks for helping make it clearer. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 11:22, 9 August 2007 (EDT)
== Points of view ==
Gentlemen, I've been staying out of this area a lot, but I offer one observation. We need to make the articles ''intelligible'' both to the 45 percent of Americans who believe that God created plants, animals and Human Beings in their present form around 10,000 years ago - as well as to the 50 percent who believe that life "evolved" (with or without God's help) over a period of millions of years.
Gentlemen, I've been staying out of this area a lot, but I offer one observation. We need to make the articles ''intelligible'' both to the 45 percent of Americans who believe that God created plants, animals and Human Beings in their present form around 10,000 years ago - as well as to the 50 percent who believe that life "evolved" (with or without God's help) over a period of millions of years.
::Philip, the problem I see is that this isn't about "point of view." I approach this argument from a logical standpoint - if someone is researching the [[Cambrian]] period, for example, they probably aren't interested in what YEC says about the existence of such a period. As such, any discussion of YEC in the Cambrian article is irrelevant to the actual article. At most, a footnote could link to YEC, but any actual discussion of the topic is completely misplaced in the article. There's something to be said about comprehensively including both sides of the discussion, but that '''does not''' mean that each side has to gun the other down each time one of the topics is discussed. By the current logic of discussing YEC at every mention of an old earth topic, then Uniformitarianism or old earth rebuttals should compliment any sort of YEC article, which isn't happening. '''[[User:Stryker|ΨtrykeЯ]]'''<sup><small>[[User_Talk:Stryker| eh?>]]</small></sup> 11:36, 9 August 2007 (EDT)
::Philip, the problem I see is that this isn't about "point of view." I approach this argument from a logical standpoint - if someone is researching the [[Cambrian]] period, for example, they probably aren't interested in what YEC says about the existence of such a period. As such, any discussion of YEC in the Cambrian article is irrelevant to the actual article. At most, a footnote could link to YEC, but any actual discussion of the topic is completely misplaced in the article. There's something to be said about comprehensively including both sides of the discussion, but that '''does not''' mean that each side has to gun the other down each time one of the topics is discussed. By the current logic of discussing YEC at every mention of an old earth topic, then Uniformitarianism or old earth rebuttals should compliment any sort of YEC article, which isn't happening. '''[[User:Stryker|ΨtrykeЯ]]'''<sup><small>[[User_Talk:Stryker| eh?>]]</small></sup> 11:36, 9 August 2007 (EDT)
:::You claim that this isn't about a point of view, then proceed to express your point of view! You show your bias by referring to this as "an old earth topic"? What makes it so? My point of view is that the Cretaceous rocks are not "old", which (if I am correct) would make it "a young earth topic". To maintain otherwise is to (also) express a point of view, which you deny this is about.
:::Thanks for your additions to the article, although I will be modifying them a bit.
::: [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 11:46, 9 August 2007 (EDT)