314
edits
Changes
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Line 88:
Line 88: − − == Spent time proofreading == − − I received a short note regarding grammatical errors in this article. I was a writing tutor at a university so I did some proofreading and found some grammatical errors in the article. I also made some minor stylistic changes to sentences that I had composed. If anyone has any further input regarding this matter your comments would be appreciated. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 02:38, 15 March 2007 (EDT)conservative − :Let a scientist get a crack at it? [[User:Nematocyte|Nematocyte]] 05:58, 15 March 2007 (EDT) − ::A scientist may introduce too much undesired fact. This article is clearly designed to be a showcase of typical creationist reasoning: devoid of actual fact, rich in quote mining and dishonesty. Clearly the author of this article wishes to give the impression that all conservatives are backwards champions of stupidity, and that conservatism means using lies to support a purely religious movement to destroy observed reality. I cannot fathom the reason for this, except to speculate that the Theory of Evolution page was actually written by a liberal who seeks to make liberalism look reasonable by comparison. [[User:Dimensio|Dimensio]] 09:03, 15 March 2007 (EDT) − − :::Dimensio, your vague allegations and attempts at mind reading are not exactly impressive. :) [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 10:57, 15 March 2007 (EDT)conservative − ::::Nonetheless, you could let a scientist have a shot. Or are you afraid?--[[User:AmesG|AmesG]] 11:09, 15 March 2007 (EDT) − :::::It must be said conservative's understanding of biology does not appear to streach beyond quoting random biolgists. [[User:Nematocyte|Nematocyte]] 11:15, 15 March 2007 (EDT) − ::::::Not all conservatives, some conservatives are, dare I say it... Atheist. [[User:ToryBoy|ToryBoy]] − ::::::I think he meant the user Conservative, versus all conservatives. But worse than not understanding biology, Conservative is not even willing to learn, which is just plain sad.--[[User:AmesG|AmesG]] 11:18, 15 March 2007 (EDT) − ::::::::Attempts to focus on me and my mental state are rather futile, given that I cited an abundance of creationist scientists and non-creationist scientists. I have noticed a lot of unsubstantive criticism on this talk page although I have certainly taken advantage of constructive criticism that has been offered at this website in regards to this article. Please try to focus the criticism on the article and not on me. It certainly would be taking the high road. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 11:20, 15 March 2007 (EDT)conservative − − I've made it quite clear that the entire tactic of simply quoting little soundbites from various scientists in an attempt to distort the scientific posistion is not the proper way to write an article. You could read a few of the mainstream texts on the issue (I gave Futuyama's as a good example) before passing yourself off as an expert. Since you are currently the only person editting the article, focusing on you appears a valid topic. [[User:Nematocyte|Nematocyte]] 11:24, 15 March 2007 (EDT) − − Conservative - the most obvious criticism of the article, to my mind at least, is that the various sections consist primarily of quotes. I think it would be greatly improved by synthesizing findings and allowing the reader to judge, rather than listing judgments that others have already made.--[[User:Murray|Murray]] 11:25, 15 March 2007 (EDT) − :::Nematocyte, why is it that evolutionist have a strong penchant for claiming things are random. I chose the scientists I cited. They were not "random". [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 11:30, 15 March 2007 (EDT)conservative − ::::I'm guessing you picked them from premade lists of quote mines compiled by creationists. Am I close? [[User:Nematocyte|Nematocyte]] 11:32, 15 March 2007 (EDT) − − ::::::Nematocyte, again I think you need to focus on the article and not me. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 11:38, 15 March 2007 (EDT)conservative − :::::::That's a "correct", then? Since your are the only person editting the article I think it's highly important to discuss your credentials on the matter. Perhaps editting should be done by a person who's actually read the titles you're quoting from? [[User:Nematocyte|Nematocyte]] 11:45, 15 March 2007 (EDT) − − :::::Murray, a substantial portion of the article is non quotes. However, quotes are an effective means to powerfully convey with precision what an expert has to offer. Aschlafly used a number of quotes for his portions of the article. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 11:35, 15 March 2007 (EDT)conservative − − ''OR'', we could accurately and concisely convey the scientific consensus position on the matter by reviewing the mainstream authoratative text books and scientific reviews. Just mabey. Crazy thought, really. [[User:Nematocyte|Nematocyte]] 11:37, 15 March 2007 (EDT) − − ::::Please see the article in regards to the scientific consensus and the evolutionary view. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 11:39, 15 March 2007 (EDT)conservative − − :::::::I'm an actual scientist. I deal with this subject on a day to day basis. Every day I meet and talk to other biologists, and read the literature on the subject. You only need to open the latest issue of ''Nature'', ''Science'', ''Cell'' or any other mainstream journal to see the consensus position. [[User:Nematocyte|Nematocyte]] 11:45, 15 March 2007 (EDT) − − ::::::And a substantial portion of it is quotes. Again, from my perspective the article would be much improved with more original content. This is particularly glaring in the section on experimental data, which contains no actual discussion of the experimental data, merely a secondhand quote.--[[User:Murray|Murray]] 11:40, 15 March 2007 (EDT) − :::::I think we're probably about to hear Conservative claim that [[User:Nematocyte|Nematocyte]] is a biased, God-hating atheist evolutionist, whose well-reasoned statements are nonetheless not due any deference.--[[User:AmesG|AmesG]] 11:53, 15 March 2007 (EDT) − :::::::Please keep your focus on the article. The talk page is intended for talk about the article and not about me. Notice the heading: [[Talk:Theory of evolution]] [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 11:59, 15 March 2007 (EDT)conservative − − ::::::::Seeing as how you remain the only editor of the article I would like you explain why that isn't an important topic. Moreover I would like to directly ask, what are your qualifications regarding the understanding of the theory of evolution? [[User:Nematocyte|Nematocyte]] 12:04, 15 March 2007 (EDT) − − ==Is this a joke?== − − I just read through this article and I think I laughed. I can't tell if this entire article was written as a huge joke or not. Is this a serious article?[[User:MatteeNeutra|MatteeNeutra]] 11:40, 15 March 2007 (EDT) − :[http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/appeal-to-ridicule.html Logical Fallacy: Appeal to ridicule][[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 11:43, 15 March 2007 (EDT)conservative − − ::It's not a joke. This is what User:Conservative seriously believes the mainstream scientific position on evolution is. [[User:Nematocyte|Nematocyte]] 11:46, 15 March 2007 (EDT) − − :::::Again, see the two sections of the article focusing on the Scientific Consensus issue. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 11:51, 15 March 2007 (EDT)conservative − ::::::Conservative, it's also a fallacy to, when your reasoning is attacked, fall back on your reasoning as proof of itself. That's circular logic. Your statement of the "current position" is full of errors, that Nematocyte would gladly correct.--[[User:AmesG|AmesG]] 11:54, 15 March 2007 (EDT) − − :::The entire article is an appeal to ridicule. I'm not enitrely sure how someone can be so single minded and blunt? At least liberals allow for all PoV to be considered. This article has whiffs of Stalin-esque censorship about it.[[User:MatteeNeutra|MatteeNeutra]] 11:50, 15 March 2007 (EDT) − − ::::I don't think anyone has been put in a death camp or shot for criticizing this article. Please no theatrics. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 11:55, 15 March 2007 (EDT)conservative − − :::::How many months was it you tried to block JoshuaZ for? [[User:Nematocyte|Nematocyte]] 11:57, 15 March 2007 (EDT) − − :::::That does not answer the point that there is definitely censorship of many PoV from this article. Articles are locked, by Sysop's, to stop vandalism. Sysop's should not then continue to edit the page. That is plain abuse of privilege. [[User:MatteeNeutra|MatteeNeutra]] 12:00, 15 March 2007 (EDT) − :::::::The owner of Conservapedia does not seem to mind that I continue to make additions to the article in order to adequetely cover the conservative view. 12:07, 15 March 2007 (EDT)conservative − ::::::::That's logic, is it? As I've said before I do not regard YEC as synonymous with conservatism, but rather as a form of paganism. [[User:Nematocyte|Nematocyte]] 12:09, 15 March 2007 (EDT) − :::::::::(Wow, my colon key has never been used so much) How about covering the liberal PoV, the evolutionist PoV, the actual scientific PoV or many others besides? This site claims to be minimising bias, not creating it.[[User:MatteeNeutra|MatteeNeutra]] 12:14, 15 March 2007 (EDT) − − Conservative, I want to ask a serious question that I hope you take a long time to think about. Let's assume, ''arguendo'', that evolution is fact, and "Genesis" is not meant to be read literally, but as an allegory. It's no longer "six twenty-four hour days," but "six ages." How does that change your religion? It certainly makes life more complex, and makes faith more complex. But does that weaken your faith, or strengthen your faith by showing you the the ability of God to hide deeper truths in plain view? Suppose man did evolve from lesser forms of life. God did not create Adam and Eve as they were. Does that end God's role in man's life? Isn't God still responsible (in your view) for ''making us human'', giving us souls, raising us above our base anatomy as provided by nature? Isn't God still great because of that? − − The irreducible minimum is this: do you think religion should change over time? Should a set of beliefs change with the believers, or should it ossify a culture, insulating it from all other outside change, and holding all values constant, for all time? Should we return to Job's treatment of pain and suffering, and if we're ever sick, should we just take it, as Job did, or should we try to cure ourselves with modern medicines? Isn't it possible that God sent us medicine through Louis Pasteur, or whoever you choose, as an aid to us? − − And finally, is science actually destroying God, or just revealing more of His true nature? And does he suffer from that? Think long and hard before you answer.--[[User:AmesG|AmesG]] 12:21, 15 March 2007 (EDT) − − :Ames, nicely written. Have you ever read Bradbury's "Christus Apollo?" It speaks just to this: fulfilling God's Will by questing and striving to learn.--[[User:Dave3172|Dave3172]] 12:29, 15 March 2007 (EDT)
Talk:Theory of evolution/Archive 3 (view source)
Revision as of 16:45, March 15, 2007
, 16:45, March 15, 2007no edit summary
::Creationism appears to be spreading in Australia (compare the two footnotes)[http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/evolution/religion/revolution/1980.html][http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2004/10/27/1098667839167.html] [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 03:58, 15 March 2007 (EDT)conservative
::Creationism appears to be spreading in Australia (compare the two footnotes)[http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/evolution/religion/revolution/1980.html][http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2004/10/27/1098667839167.html] [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 03:58, 15 March 2007 (EDT)conservative
:::Poor Australia. I didn't realize that times were so hard there.--11:08, 15 March 2007 (EDT)
:::Poor Australia. I didn't realize that times were so hard there.--11:08, 15 March 2007 (EDT)