34
edits
Changes
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Line 7:
Line 7: + + + + + +
Talk:Ardipithecus ramidus (view source)
Revision as of 20:56, October 3, 2009
, 20:56, October 3, 2009no edit summary
:::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)
::::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)
:::::Balance means nothing in science. Constructive criticism, peer-review, and debate are what keeps scientists honest and encourages further research. Trying to counter honest science with pseudo-science is more than worthless; it is a waste of time. If the article appears to be focused on the alleged 'evolutionist/old earth/naturalistic world-view', then that is just too bad, that is what the evidence says. Unless there is something specifically written in a reputable peer-reviewed source, in my opinion it does not belong in this science article.
:::::Your sources fall far short of being considered reputable. The AIG article uses information from the RATE project that has been refuted many times and the author rejects anything that does not conform with his interpretation of the Bible. The second reference is actually written by a competent geologist, Dr Snelling, who has written many articles in peer-reviewed publications that support the alleged 'evolutionist/old earth/naturalistic world-view'. Why didn't you reference one of those articles? Why use an article written for an organization that only accepts articles that support their statement of faith and rejects all other scientific opinions?
:::::To sum up, I welcome different scientific views in this article. But keep the pseudo-science out. --[[User:MichaelJB|MichaelJB]] 16:56, 3 October 2009 (EDT)