Difference between revisions of "Talk:Old Earth Creationism"
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
(Gould Quote) |
|||
| Line 4: | Line 4: | ||
== Gould Quote == | == Gould Quote == | ||
| − | The quote from Stephen Jay Gould is both incorrect (there should be an elipsis, which I've added), and highly misleading. Gould's claim is not that transitional fossils are *missing*; he felt that they were too rare to justify the gradualism, and instead justified punctuated equilibrium. | + | The quote from Stephen Jay Gould is both incorrect (there should be an elipsis, which I've added), and highly misleading. Gould's claim is not that transitional fossils are *missing*; he felt that they were too rare to justify the gradualism, and instead justified punctuated equilibrium. [[User:Nedlum|Nedlum]] 12:41, 8 July 2007 (EDT) |
Revision as of 16:41, July 8, 2007
What an economical article this is! How concise in argument, how clean in execution! It contains 3 links to Old Earth Crationism, 1 to New, and some 30 or so words to paste it all together. And this little note of mine is the first in the Discussion Page of same. Marvellous. If only all entries could follow this lead, the entire Conservapedia would fit on a floppy disk. --MylesP 06:09, 8 April 2007 (EDT)
Gould Quote
The quote from Stephen Jay Gould is both incorrect (there should be an elipsis, which I've added), and highly misleading. Gould's claim is not that transitional fossils are *missing*; he felt that they were too rare to justify the gradualism, and instead justified punctuated equilibrium. Nedlum 12:41, 8 July 2007 (EDT)