Difference between revisions of "Talk:Creation vs. evolution debate"
HeartOfGold (talk | contribs) (→Very well done: Removing my own unnecessary discussion) |
(Evolution from monkeys) |
||
| Line 13: | Line 13: | ||
:Thanks. I do want to go over the article more to remove unfortunate use of tone that will appear to be forcing the reader to make up his or her mind in a certain way. On the other hand, I do not want to exclude aspects of the controversy that are glossed over by staunch evoluitionists, such as the less flattering motives and methods of some prominent Darwinian and Evolutionary promoters. [[User:HeartOfGold|HeartOfGold]] 02:28, 10 May 2007 (EDT) | :Thanks. I do want to go over the article more to remove unfortunate use of tone that will appear to be forcing the reader to make up his or her mind in a certain way. On the other hand, I do not want to exclude aspects of the controversy that are glossed over by staunch evoluitionists, such as the less flattering motives and methods of some prominent Darwinian and Evolutionary promoters. [[User:HeartOfGold|HeartOfGold]] 02:28, 10 May 2007 (EDT) | ||
| + | |||
| + | == Evolution from monkeys == | ||
| + | |||
| + | SimonA changed "...textbooks teaching that man evolved from monkeys in accordance with Charles Darwin's theory ..." to "...textbooks teaching that man evolved from monkeys, in ''what was believed to be'' accordance with Charles Darwin's theory ..." (my emphasis). | ||
| + | |||
| + | If he is saying that Darwin didn't teach that man evolved from ''monkeys'', per se, then I'll accept that he is probably correct. But did the textbooks say "''monkeys''"? The point is, I'm wondering if the edit was merely a technicality that would be better fixed in a different way. At the moment, it ''implies'' that Darwin's theory ''doesn't'' propose that man evolved from an ape-like creature, which it clearly does. | ||
| + | |||
| + | [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 02:47, 28 December 2007 (EST) | ||
Revision as of 07:47, December 28, 2007
Another article
Another article I worked on. It might still have some liberal bias, so feel free to flag this bias here and I will try to rework it. Please do not simply delete content, though, unless you have the source. But if you must delete content, please move the deleted content to this page so that I can have a chance to rework it. Thanks. HeartOfGold 01:20, 9 May 2007 (EDT)
Scopes Trial
The Scopes trial section needs to be reworked per Coulter's Godless and Larson's Summer for the gods, emphasizing that this farce trial was invented by liberials and attention cravers.
- Added Coulter and Larson to sources...done. HeartOfGold 03:13, 9 May 2007 (EDT)
Very well done
Heartofgold, I believe this is very well done. You pointed out the facts without instating to many POV issues. This is a great article.--TimS 11:24, 9 May 2007 (EDT)
- Thanks. I do want to go over the article more to remove unfortunate use of tone that will appear to be forcing the reader to make up his or her mind in a certain way. On the other hand, I do not want to exclude aspects of the controversy that are glossed over by staunch evoluitionists, such as the less flattering motives and methods of some prominent Darwinian and Evolutionary promoters. HeartOfGold 02:28, 10 May 2007 (EDT)
Evolution from monkeys
SimonA changed "...textbooks teaching that man evolved from monkeys in accordance with Charles Darwin's theory ..." to "...textbooks teaching that man evolved from monkeys, in what was believed to be accordance with Charles Darwin's theory ..." (my emphasis).
If he is saying that Darwin didn't teach that man evolved from monkeys, per se, then I'll accept that he is probably correct. But did the textbooks say "monkeys"? The point is, I'm wondering if the edit was merely a technicality that would be better fixed in a different way. At the moment, it implies that Darwin's theory doesn't propose that man evolved from an ape-like creature, which it clearly does.
Philip J. Rayment 02:47, 28 December 2007 (EST)