Difference between revisions of "Talk:Kangaroo"
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Nematocyte (talk | contribs) |
|||
| Line 16: | Line 16: | ||
:While some ID proponents may have old-earth leanings, Intelligent Design Theory itself is neutral to the age of the earth and merely proposes to detect evidences of intelligent design in life, not the history of the earth and creation. [[User:Rich P|Dr. Richard Paley]] 07:16, 8 March 2007 (EST) | :While some ID proponents may have old-earth leanings, Intelligent Design Theory itself is neutral to the age of the earth and merely proposes to detect evidences of intelligent design in life, not the history of the earth and creation. [[User:Rich P|Dr. Richard Paley]] 07:16, 8 March 2007 (EST) | ||
| + | |||
| + | ::So you concede that "7790 peer-reviewed articles on intelligent design" is not an accurate statement? [[User:Nematocyte|Nematocyte]] 08:26, 8 March 2007 (EST) | ||
Revision as of 13:26, March 8, 2007
I think we should include both creationist and evolutionist perspectives on kangaroo origins. Conservatives aren't monolithically creationist, and even if that were the case it'd be useful to at least be familiar with the other side's position. --John 22:26, 7 March 2007 (EST)
- The evolutionist perspective on kangaroo origins is speculative at best. A Google.com search for "kangaroo evolution" only shows up 221 results, most of which are people selling kangaroo meat! If you think you can explain just what their views are, you're welcome to try. Dr. Richard Paley 02:28, 8 March 2007 (EST)
- Well there might be slim pickings on the 221 google hits you ran....we might have better luck looking at the roughly 4,000 peer review journal articles on kangaroo and marsupial evolution from http://scholar.google.com Tmtoulouse 02:34, 8 March 2007 (EST)
- http://scholar.google.com/scholar?hl=en&lr=&safe=off&q=kangaroo+evolution+-rat&btnG=Search so we are on the same page. Tmtoulouse 02:35, 8 March 2007 (EST)
- If the scientific perspective on kangaroo origins is "speculative", what does that make the religious perspective? Nematocyte 05:54, 8 March 2007 (EST)
- The Truth, perhaps? Dr. Richard Paley 06:45, 8 March 2007 (EST)
- Well, you are welcome to read through those to tease out the evolutionist perspective on kangaroo origins. Personally, I'd rather read through the 7790 peer-reviewed articles on Intelligent Design (which surely puts the lie to the claim of liberals that ID is not science) Dr. Richard Paley 06:45, 8 March 2007 (EST)
Most of those are books, not peer reviewed papers. The rest appear to be about engineering, or pointing out the flaws in intelligent design as a biological mechanism (perhaps you should have read the papers before posting that?). Intelligent design proponents are old earth creationists, so they would state that the origins section as currently stands is incorrect. Nematocyte 06:58, 8 March 2007 (EST)
- While some ID proponents may have old-earth leanings, Intelligent Design Theory itself is neutral to the age of the earth and merely proposes to detect evidences of intelligent design in life, not the history of the earth and creation. Dr. Richard Paley 07:16, 8 March 2007 (EST)
- So you concede that "7790 peer-reviewed articles on intelligent design" is not an accurate statement? Nematocyte 08:26, 8 March 2007 (EST)