Difference between revisions of "Talk:Milky Way Galaxy"
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
This article seems to be extremely biased towards the big-bang/naturalistic worldview, giving the impression that such things as the age of the milky way being billions of years old is a fact. I would like to redress the balance here, and add not simply ignore the problems with these assumptions. [[User:TrondE|TrondE]] 19:34, 24 November 2009 (EST) | This article seems to be extremely biased towards the big-bang/naturalistic worldview, giving the impression that such things as the age of the milky way being billions of years old is a fact. I would like to redress the balance here, and add not simply ignore the problems with these assumptions. [[User:TrondE|TrondE]] 19:34, 24 November 2009 (EST) | ||
:Don't hold back! Fix the article, by all means. Earlier, I removed a passage about stars being millions of years old, but didn't see anything else blatant. But if you see something that needs correcting, get on it! [[User:JacobB|JacobB]] 19:41, 24 November 2009 (EST) | :Don't hold back! Fix the article, by all means. Earlier, I removed a passage about stars being millions of years old, but didn't see anything else blatant. But if you see something that needs correcting, get on it! [[User:JacobB|JacobB]] 19:41, 24 November 2009 (EST) | ||
| − | + | ::I used the available scientific information from various sources that I could find, what exactly do you disagree with? Many of my cited sources are actual science papers. If its "biased" it is so only to a scientific point of view based on the evidence at hand. --[[User:BMcP|BMcP]] 21:01, 24 November 2009 (EST) | |
| − | :I used the available scientific information from various sources that I could find, what exactly do you disagree with? Many of my cited sources are actual science papers. If its "biased" it is so only to a scientific point of view based on the evidence at hand. --[[User:BMcP|BMcP]] 21:01, 24 November 2009 (EST) | + | :::It's biased towards an Old Earth point of view, or it was before I removed the biased content. The "big science" point of view is Old Earth as well, which is why the article is being considered for revision. [[User:JacobB|JacobB]] 21:25, 24 November 2009 (EST) |
Revision as of 02:25, November 25, 2009
This article seems to be extremely biased towards the big-bang/naturalistic worldview, giving the impression that such things as the age of the milky way being billions of years old is a fact. I would like to redress the balance here, and add not simply ignore the problems with these assumptions. TrondE 19:34, 24 November 2009 (EST)
- Don't hold back! Fix the article, by all means. Earlier, I removed a passage about stars being millions of years old, but didn't see anything else blatant. But if you see something that needs correcting, get on it! JacobB 19:41, 24 November 2009 (EST)
- I used the available scientific information from various sources that I could find, what exactly do you disagree with? Many of my cited sources are actual science papers. If its "biased" it is so only to a scientific point of view based on the evidence at hand. --BMcP 21:01, 24 November 2009 (EST)
- It's biased towards an Old Earth point of view, or it was before I removed the biased content. The "big science" point of view is Old Earth as well, which is why the article is being considered for revision. JacobB 21:25, 24 November 2009 (EST)
- I used the available scientific information from various sources that I could find, what exactly do you disagree with? Many of my cited sources are actual science papers. If its "biased" it is so only to a scientific point of view based on the evidence at hand. --BMcP 21:01, 24 November 2009 (EST)