1,767
edits
Changes
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Line 54:
Line 54: + + + + +
→Gravitationism, Electricityism, Wheelism
::::::Have you ever '''''read''''' a text on Evolution? Let us mean what we say, and say what we mean: I mean to say, what do you know about science, to think that evolution harms it?--[[User:AmesG|AmesG]] 20:12, 19 March 2007 (EDT)
::::::Have you ever '''''read''''' a text on Evolution? Let us mean what we say, and say what we mean: I mean to say, what do you know about science, to think that evolution harms it?--[[User:AmesG|AmesG]] 20:12, 19 March 2007 (EDT)
::::::I have a very open mind, actually. However, when you state that something is encyclopedic material, you should be able to find at least SOME sources other than one of the involved sides. Right now, the concept of "Evolutionism" is as encyclopedic as the "O RLY?" owl, and LESS encyclopedic than the Star Wars kid, Pastafarianism and possibly "All your base are belong to us".
::::::I read through the two sources that were in the initial version. One of them is a pure quote collection (once again: Science, research and a good argumentation is not done by collecting as many quotes as possible), but the Creationists.org source made me laugh for a very long time. Not even on ''this'' site have I ever seen such a lack of understanding of scientific work. The source reads as if scientists looked at some bones and went "Okay, I have no idea how old it is or what it belonged to, so let's just make some random stuff up and have faith in it".
::::::The whole "Present both sides, argue with me, find counter-arguments! Or are you afraid?" gig doesn't apply when the initial claim starts off on complete nonsense.
::::::Your sources construct a wrong image of science, scientists and the scientific method in regard to evolution and then "prove" how that image can be seen as a religion. Then they just declare "It's proven! Evolution is religion!". --[[User:Sid 3050|Sid 3050]] 20:50, 19 March 2007 (EDT)