nsTeam2RO, nsTeam2RW, nsTeam2_talkRO, nsTeam2_talkRW
13,254
edits
Changes
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Line 24:
Line 24: +
No more evidence for evolution.
::::: Ummmm... next question? Two wrongs don't make a right, you know. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 11:26, 5 June 2008 (EDT)
::::: Ummmm... next question? Two wrongs don't make a right, you know. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 11:26, 5 June 2008 (EDT)
::::and you will also see that many articles don't present full views of both sides(e.g. [[Theory of evolution]], [[Atheism]], [[George W. Bush]]) and are biased, while the majority of wikipedia articles both sides of the story (and their really is much more scientific evidence for evolution then creationism, that is why there isn't really any criticism on the evolution page , scientifically)-[[User:Greenmeanie|Greenmeanie]] 20:42, 5 June 2008 (EDT)
::::and you will also see that many articles don't present full views of both sides(e.g. [[Theory of evolution]], [[Atheism]], [[George W. Bush]]) and are biased, while the majority of wikipedia articles both sides of the story (and their really is much more scientific evidence for evolution then creationism, that is why there isn't really any criticism on the evolution page , scientifically)-[[User:Greenmeanie|Greenmeanie]] 20:42, 5 June 2008 (EDT)
::::: I'm not sure what you mean by "full views"; space limitations will always mean that not everything can be included. Yes, we are biased towards accuracy; what's wrong with that? Evolution has no more evidence than than does creation (why do you call the latter an "-ism", but not the former?); evolution and creation are two different explanations for ''the same evidence''. So no, that's not why there's no criticism on Wikipedia's evolution page: it's because of ideology. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 11:30, 6 June 2008 (EDT)