Talk:Dinosaur

Note: an alternative version of this article is currently being written here. This is not an attempt to usurp Conservative's views, but rather add more factual information regarding the evolutionary view. --Hojimachong^talk

Talk:Dinosaur/Archive1

Let's Have this "Evolutionary" Debate Here & Now

Conservative, you have never rebutted my contention that "evolutionary," used as a qualifier to the entire field of science, is nothing more than a qualifier-word designed to make scientists sound less credible. There is a branch of science called "evolutionary biology," but they do not deal with dinosaurs. If you do not properly rebut this argument, I will change the article to not use the word "evolutionary" except where appropriate. -AmesG_yo! 01:16, 1 April 2007 (EDT)

"Creationary"

Conservative, that you've never heard the word "creationary" is not really the point, is it? That most haven't may be a point, but I dispute the relevance of that. It is perfectly legitimate in English to append standard prefixes and suffixes to words regardless of whether the resulting word has ever been used before, and "creationary" is just following that pattern.

"Creationary" is also a good balance to "evolutionary"; if the latter is acceptable, why not the former? At least it provides for consistency.

And it has in fact been in use for quite some time, and was included in a dictionary nearly 50 years ago. Please read here for more information, including why "creationist" is not the best word to use where an adjective is required.

Philip J. Rayment 01:34, 1 April 2007 (EDT)

I'm down with that compromise.-AmesG_yo! 01:36, 1 April 2007 (EDT)

I think we should not use the word "creationary" if it is not in more than one current very large dictionaries. That's my two cents. I will not start an edit war about it though! Conservative 01:42, 1 April 2007 (EDT)conservative