Block, Siteadmin, SkipCaptcha, Upload, Automoderated users, delete, edit, Moderators, move, protect, rollback, Administrators
27,336
edits
Changes
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
mLine 34:
Line 34: + + + − ::Ugh, you're still on about this. Give me a minute, and I'll get back to you. [[User:JacobB|JacobB]] 15:31, 29 November 2009 (EST)+ + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + +
Talk:Milky Way Galaxy (view source)
Revision as of 23:53, December 28, 2011
, 23:53, December 28, 2011Reverted edits by SmokeyBear (talk) to last revision by BMcP
:Well unless you have some peer reviewed astrophysics or cosmology papers that shows the Big Bang is "likely false", you will forgive my not believing you. It is not relevant wither if they are creationists or not (although some creationists believe their God created the universe through a Big Bang), but wither their papers and research on coming up with that age passes scientific scrutiny and peer review. The best objection found was the website TrondE located, and while I don't see that is an actual scientific objection personally, for the sake of fairness I didn't impeded his placing in the article. Everyone seemed satisfied until this need to try and paint the original scientific research as a bunch of assumptions, in essence maligning them. I wonder now if it is better off if I toss that entire section. --[[User:BMcP|BMcP]] 15:22, 29 November 2009 (EST)
:Well unless you have some peer reviewed astrophysics or cosmology papers that shows the Big Bang is "likely false", you will forgive my not believing you. It is not relevant wither if they are creationists or not (although some creationists believe their God created the universe through a Big Bang), but wither their papers and research on coming up with that age passes scientific scrutiny and peer review. The best objection found was the website TrondE located, and while I don't see that is an actual scientific objection personally, for the sake of fairness I didn't impeded his placing in the article. Everyone seemed satisfied until this need to try and paint the original scientific research as a bunch of assumptions, in essence maligning them. I wonder now if it is better off if I toss that entire section. --[[User:BMcP|BMcP]] 15:22, 29 November 2009 (EST)
It's quite relevant whether the "scientists" are creationists or not, in fact, it's the issue at hand. If you want to downplay the debate on your blog, to your peers, fine, but not here. You're right that I wasn't satisfied - I've explained why before, so I won't again.
You accuse me of trying to malign your point of view by pointing out that it relies on certain assumptions, but you seem to have no problem maligning the truth by calling your "big bang" theory "mainstream science" in the article - effectively implying that creation science is somehow less valid.
I was shocked at first when you said that you might "toss that section," essentially deleting your own point of view in order to censor the creationist point of view. Then, after looking at your user page and finding you were a liberal, my surprise faded - liberals hate free speech and creationism.
I'm going to change it back, and I'm going to keep this section in the article. I truly do appreciate your contributions to the astronomy articles here, you've done excellent work, but it is changes like this that were why Conservapedia was created, so please stop pushing evolution.[[User:JacobB|JacobB]] 15:45, 29 November 2009 (EST)
:::How about you don't intermix the Creationist and Science POV's? How about a seperate but equal presentation? There isn't a reason to turn this into a big whoop, guys. I have confidence you two can work together and actually make this article better than before! If not, I have the ability to impose a solution, but I doubt either one of you will be happy with that. ;-) -- --[[User:TK|'''ṬK''']]<sub><small><small>/Admin</small></small></sub><sup>[[User_Talk:TK|/Talk]]</sup> 15:36, 29 November 2009 (EST)
:::How about you don't intermix the Creationist and Science POV's? How about a seperate but equal presentation? There isn't a reason to turn this into a big whoop, guys. I have confidence you two can work together and actually make this article better than before! If not, I have the ability to impose a solution, but I doubt either one of you will be happy with that. ;-) -- --[[User:TK|'''ṬK''']]<sub><small><small>/Admin</small></small></sub><sup>[[User_Talk:TK|/Talk]]</sup> 15:36, 29 November 2009 (EST)
I think we got this, thanks. [[User:JacobB|JacobB]] 15:45, 29 November 2009 (EST)
::Well personally, I think TK's solution may be the best to go with. Spitting the POV on the origins of the Milky Way into "seperate but equal presentations". I can write what I accept as the age of the galaxy based on the research and papers I found, and you can write a YEC POV on the age of the galaxy using the sites and material you located. I am perfectly willing to go with his proposal as a good compromise and solution. It certainly beats tossing the section (which wasn't out of censorship but out of preventing a long drawn out, pointless edit war as it seems things we are not agreeing enough) What say you?
I imagine it would look something like this...
:'''Age of Milky Way''' - Main section name
::Secular - OEC Point of View (My info that I originally wrote) - subsection
::YEC Point of View (The materiel you want, plus perhaps TrondE site also) -subsection
--[[User:BMcP|BMcP]] 15:58, 29 November 2009 (EST)
:::That works fine for me, but I would need a stipulation - no addressing the other PoV in our sections. That includes using terms like "mainstream scientists" or something, which imply that the opposition is less valid. [[User:JacobB|JacobB]] 16:04, 29 November 2009 (EST)
::::That works for me, I will set up the sections and place in my info for the "Secular - OEC Point of View" and make a blank section for the "YEC Point of View" and leave it empty, I will leave it up to you to fill it with your YEC viewpoint as you deem fit. We good? --[[User:BMcP|BMcP]] 16:14, 29 November 2009 (EST)