Difference between revisions of "Talk:Neanderthal"
| Line 43: | Line 43: | ||
:[[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 10:28, 14 May 2007 (EDT) | :[[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 10:28, 14 May 2007 (EDT) | ||
| − | ::I think his claim of "Under his protection" is based on user:conservative's protecting the articles that he writes, the majority of, without allowing other editors, non sysops, to make changes. | + | ::I think his claim of "Under his protection" is based on user:conservative's protecting the articles that he writes, the majority of, without allowing other editors, non sysops, to make changes.--[[User:Tims|TimS]] 10:32, 14 May 2007 (EDT) |
Revision as of 14:32, May 14, 2007
Thought by evolutionists to represent some sort of "caveman". In fact, fits well within the normal height-weight ratios of modern humans
How does the fact that they were physically similar to modern humans in some characteristics preclude them from having lived in caves? Chrysogonus 07:47, 1 April 2007 (EDT)
- You need to consider the connotation of caveman, not just its denotation.
- denotation: a human being who lives in a cave : cave-dweller
- connotation: a primitive (practical subhuman) creature having the appearance of homo sapiens and yet not really a person
- This is rough, of course, or I'd simply add it to the article. Do you get my drift? --Ed Poor 07:50, 1 April 2007 (EDT)
So why use the term "caveman" in the article? In what way does the height/weight ratio of the neanderthals have a bearing on whether they were modern humans or not? Can you link to some evolutionist researh in which neanderthals are described as subhuman? Chrysogonus 08:10, 1 April 2007 (EDT)
- No, I can't. I don't know enough about human origins to do that. You sound like you know more about this than I do. May I offer you some writing tasks to volunteer for? ;-) --Ed Poor 08:58, 1 April 2007 (EDT)
Don't mess with this article!
I wrote 90% of this article and it now falls under my protection:
- I will only allow additions with credible references:
- Good: accredited news agencies, science journals, university websites and research papers
- Bad: blogs, 100 year old books, AiG, CMI,...
- I will not allow creationist material in this article: this one's for science, if you're a YEC, go to a debate page or go vandalize the Dinosaur article
- 95%? Give me a bit more credit thatn that, it took me a while to get this article properly started. Your work on the article is superb, but I claim th eright to assist with this project. Your work is excellent though, in transforming my text to a full article and I wonder if you would be interested in doing the same for Homo stevendavy
Is 90% ok? But, yeah, of course you can edit, anyone can edit this, as long as it's properly sourced.
- 90%, Ah, go on then, but I am only letting you off on account of the funky photos. stevendavy
Here goes your article. I hope you have the strength and power to defend your version. Leopeo 10:20, 14 May 2007 (EDT)
- What's this about it being under your protection? All articles on Conservapedia are subject to being edited by others. And what's wrong with AiG and CMI as sources? Just because they have a different worldview to you is no reason to malign them.
- And what's with the (offensive) distinction between "science" and "creationist material"? Since when does the atheistic worldview have a monopoly on science?
- Philip J. Rayment 10:28, 14 May 2007 (EDT)
- I think his claim of "Under his protection" is based on user:conservative's protecting the articles that he writes, the majority of, without allowing other editors, non sysops, to make changes.--TimS 10:32, 14 May 2007 (EDT)