Talk:Dinosaur

Talk:Dinosaur/Archive1

Alternative version of the article

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

It's a bit hard to tell what's different about the alternative article. A comparison with the current article shows lots of differences, but much of that is due to some heavy editing of the current article recently. Comparing the first version of the alternative (presumably a straight copy of the then-current article) with the latest version of the alternative shows some differences, but most of them seem to have been incorporated into the current article anyway (although I haven't compared how closely the "history of dinosaur paleontology" sections match).

The other main change is the introduction, where the alternative version states matter-of-factly that the evolutionary view is based on "overwhelming scientific evidence" (which claim, as it goes on to say, creationists dispute of course). Naturally I'd object to this view being put as though it is correct.

Philip J. Rayment 01:53, 1 April 2007 (EDT)

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)

Here is what AmesG said regarding material he posted in regards to it's veracity:

"I honestly had no idea and just wanted to pick a fight." [1]

Do we really need users who care so little about whether their material is factual or not? Do we need users who are so pugnacious that the facts don't really matter?

I say we cannot afford to babysit AmesG anymore. Conservative 01:50, 1 April 2007 (EDT)conservative

Inappropriate edit here. See my reply on Andy's page. Stick to the point.-AmesG_yo! 01:51, 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 dictionary. That's my two cents. I will not start an edit war about it though! Conservative 01:42, 1 April 2007 (EDT)conservative

AmesG, I don't follow. I suspect that you were objecting to the term "evolutionary", but that you'd be happy if both "evolutionary" and "creationary" are used. Is that correct? Philip J. Rayment 01:55, 1 April 2007 (EDT)

That's right. If both sides sound ridiculous, no problem.-AmesG_yo! 01:58, 1 April 2007 (EDT)