nsTeam2RO, nsTeam2RW, nsTeam2_talkRO, nsTeam2_talkRW
13,254
edits
Changes
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Line 46:
Line 46: − + − + − + −
→"similar species": False claims
::::::::::::: So instead of proposing better wording, you instead go off on a tangent and launch an attack on the view that you disagree with. Further, you criticise the admins here for supposedly being unwilling to change their views, when I'd be quite certain that ''you'' are just as unwilling to change ''your'' views. As you are unwilling to discuss the issue further, and have not proposed better neutral wording, I'll revert your pro-evolution wording back to the more neutral wording that was there before. And by the way, universal common descent is a ''hypothesis'', not a ''fact'' that needs explaining. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 21:26, 27 March 2008 (EDT)
::::::::::::: So instead of proposing better wording, you instead go off on a tangent and launch an attack on the view that you disagree with. Further, you criticise the admins here for supposedly being unwilling to change their views, when I'd be quite certain that ''you'' are just as unwilling to change ''your'' views. As you are unwilling to discuss the issue further, and have not proposed better neutral wording, I'll revert your pro-evolution wording back to the more neutral wording that was there before. And by the way, universal common descent is a ''hypothesis'', not a ''fact'' that needs explaining. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 21:26, 27 March 2008 (EDT)
::::::::::::: I've further modified the wording to hopefully make clearer just what the similarity is. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 21:46, 27 March 2008 (EDT)
::::::::::::: I've further modified the wording to hopefully make clearer just what the similarity is. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 21:46, 27 March 2008 (EDT)
::::::::::::::AHHHRGH! The better wording was the first one. Common descent really is a scientific fact, attested to by overwhelming evidence and supported by all biologists and even the ID crowd, in the same way that gravity is. A wording that suggests evidence recovered by methodologies specifically designed to uncover relationships shows anything other than a relationship is somewhere between mealy mouthed an lying. If conservapedia wants to be a YEC wiki then just say it out loud. ATM it purports to be resource for, among others, home schooled kids and if this is what they are served then we are doing them a great disservice.
::::::::::::::AHHHRGH! The better wording was the first one. Common descent really is a scientific fact, attested to by overwhelming evidence and supported by all biologists and even the ID crowd, in the same way that gravity is. A wording that suggests evidence recovered by methodologies specifically designed to uncover relationships shows anything other than a relationship is somewhere between mealy mouthed an lying. If conservapedia wants to be a YEC wiki then just say it out loud. ATM it purports to be resource for, among others, home schooled kids and if this is what they are served then we are doing them a great disservice. {{unsigned|Igor nz}}
<- Just thought I'd point out the dangers associated with attesting something to be fact. True science holds no absolutes and as such you can only ever have at most a theory. It's just a case of which theory has more supporting evidence, and then using this to decide which will be the better wording. In this case, however, you'd probably be more productive in tossing a coin and going with whatever comes up, although I don't see what would be wrong with using the phase ''closest in genetic makeup''. [[User:TheGySom|TheGySom]] 22:34, 27 March 2008 (EDT)
<- Just thought I'd point out the dangers associated with attesting something to be fact. True science holds no absolutes and as such you can only ever have at most a theory. It's just a case of which theory has more supporting evidence, and then using this to decide which will be the better wording. In this case, however, you'd probably be more productive in tossing a coin and going with whatever comes up, although I don't see what would be wrong with using the phase ''closest in genetic makeup''. [[User:TheGySom|TheGySom]] 22:34, 27 March 2008 (EDT)
:Obviously, I use the term in the same way the late great SJ Gould did:
:Obviously, I use the term in the same way the late great SJ Gould did:
Science does not deal in certainty, so "fact" can only mean a
:Science does not deal in certainty, so "fact" can only mean a proposition affirmed to such high degree of certainty that it would be perverse to withhold one's provisional assent. {{unsigned|Igor nz}}
proposition affirmed to such high degree of certainty that it would be
:: Common descent is a ''hypothesis'', not a fact. There is no "overwhelming evidence", and I personally know biologists who do ''not'' agree with it, so that claim is also wrong. Gravity is ''observed'' every day, and is ''testable'' at any time. 99.999% of common descent is supposed to have happened before there was anyone around to observe it, and is not directly testable. So that analogy is quite inappropriate. And since when does an encyclopedia that in many cases reports ''both'' the evolutionary view and the YEC view become a "YEC wiki"? It seems that evolutionists are so bigoted that the only "neutral" view is the evolutionary view and any view that is actually neutral (i.e. gives both evolutionary and creationary viewpoints) is biased! That's nothing short of twisting the meaning of words, and this encyclopedia, unlike the biased and bigoted Wikipedia, won't stand for that. Your comment about being a resource for home-schooled students ''presumes'' your viewpoint to be correct, but if your viewpoint is ''not'' correct, that statement is nonsense. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 07:53, 28 March 2008 (EDT)
perverse to withhold one's provisional assent.