201
edits
Changes
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
mLine 32:
Line 32: + + + + Line 46:
Line 50: +
comment, comment, comment
:Yes, I'm sure you ARE the grand pooh bah bile-ologist around here. But I think we have heard quite enough from you for one day. And please don't pull rank. If we respected science, we'd hardly be here, would we? --[[User:MylesP|MylesP]] 11:51, 9 April 2007 (EDT)
:Yes, I'm sure you ARE the grand pooh bah bile-ologist around here. But I think we have heard quite enough from you for one day. And please don't pull rank. If we respected science, we'd hardly be here, would we? --[[User:MylesP|MylesP]] 11:51, 9 April 2007 (EDT)
::He has a point. Merely being a biologist is not enough. Conservapedia has a healthy level of anti-intellectualism, because we need to keep out the liberal propaganda that has infected higher education. Being qualified in biology, unless that qualification comes from a Creationist Christian college, is actually grounds to respect you less. - [[User:NewCrusader|NewCrusader]]
::How about some technical articles using technical terms and some ordinary egg-laying mammal articles for us laymen and our grade-school children? --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 15:52, 9 April 2007 (EDT)
::How about some technical articles using technical terms and some ordinary egg-laying mammal articles for us laymen and our grade-school children? --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 15:52, 9 April 2007 (EDT)
:::If we call it a monotreme, we need to define monotreme. Considering the origin of the word, we don't want to open up that can of worms. This is a family encyclopedia, not a place for discussing the more unusual examples of reproductive anatomy. Egg-laying mammal it is. - NewConservative
== platypus / canetoad compared to article page / talk page ==
== platypus / canetoad compared to article page / talk page ==
I'm confused about this too? There seems to be a huge disparity across many of the articles here regarding what might be the age of the Earth. The [[Dinosaur]] article suggests a 6000 year old Earth too. Is there no agreement? [[User:50something|50something]] 05:37, 29 May 2007 (EDT)
I'm confused about this too? There seems to be a huge disparity across many of the articles here regarding what might be the age of the Earth. The [[Dinosaur]] article suggests a 6000 year old Earth too. Is there no agreement? [[User:50something|50something]] 05:37, 29 May 2007 (EDT)
:The answer is simply that there are a number of editors who are unwilling or unable to accept that these ages are not factual, but based on a belief system, and persist in inserting them into articles, frequently despite being quite aware of Conservapedia's stance on that issue, and some of them remain undetected for some time. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 11:41, 29 May 2007 (EDT)
:The answer is simply that there are a number of editors who are unwilling or unable to accept that these ages are not factual, but based on a belief system, and persist in inserting them into articles, frequently despite being quite aware of Conservapedia's stance on that issue, and some of them remain undetected for some time. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 11:41, 29 May 2007 (EDT)
::No, there is no agreement. None at all. Conservapedia's editors have mostly succeeded in banning Evilutionists, but it is still split between young-earth and old-earth creationists, with a scattering of 'young earth, old universe' thrown in for good measure. Because of this, timescales often get changed back and forth until the point is reached where they are simply ommited to end the squabbling. That seems to be the easiest solution: If in doubt, cut it out. - [[User:NewCrusader|NewCrusader]].