74
edits
Changes
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Line 6:
Line 6: +
Talk:Ardipithecus ramidus (view source)
Revision as of 18:50, October 3, 2009
, 18:50, October 3, 2009no edit summary
::: I created this article with the appropriate references so it would be a reliable source of information. I welcome any additional scientific information, not pseudo-science. I also request that all edits be fully referenced. For this reason the addition concerning the claims of creationists needs to be removed unless a reputable scientific source that specifically details why this fossil find is not over 4 million years old can be posted. General statements like, "creations disagree" will not suffice and the reference provided gives no evidence about the inadequacy of radiometric dating methods that show a fossil is millions of years old.
::: I created this article with the appropriate references so it would be a reliable source of information. I welcome any additional scientific information, not pseudo-science. I also request that all edits be fully referenced. For this reason the addition concerning the claims of creationists needs to be removed unless a reputable scientific source that specifically details why this fossil find is not over 4 million years old can be posted. General statements like, "creations disagree" will not suffice and the reference provided gives no evidence about the inadequacy of radiometric dating methods that show a fossil is millions of years old.
:::Please provide references and justification for any claims of atheism amongst the scientists that are studying this find and why such a claim is relevant. Anything else just detracts from the article. --[[User:MichaelJB|MichaelJB]] 14:28, 3 October 2009 (EDT)
:::Please provide references and justification for any claims of atheism amongst the scientists that are studying this find and why such a claim is relevant. Anything else just detracts from the article. --[[User:MichaelJB|MichaelJB]] 14:28, 3 October 2009 (EDT)
::::I added that to give balance; without that the article appears to be completely focused on the evolutionist/old earth/naturalistic world-view. As I'm sure you are aware there are other views and theories, and we should not be afraid to open our minds to them. I have added references, including a very well written (if a little technical!) article. However this is your article and if you wish for it to only be from one POV then I will respect that. [[User:TESvestad|TESvestad]] 14:50, 3 October 2009 (EDT)