nsTeam2RO, nsTeam2RW, nsTeam2_talkRO, nsTeam2_talkRW
13,254
edits
Changes
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Line 211:
Line 211: + + + + + + + +
→Article plan: Partial acceptance
:: [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 06:19, 14 March 2008 (EDT)
:: [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 06:19, 14 March 2008 (EDT)
::: I have no doubt that you ''believe'' in your agenda. Just as I do in mine. My agenda, however, has the significant advantage of being accepted by the vast majority of scientists working in the field. Yours is a fringe view inspired by your faith, not science. In my view your claim to accuracy is laughable. However, I understand that your view is sincerely held and, as a result, I am happy to incorporate it into an even-handed article. It is not helpful for you to assert that that "we strive for ''accuracy'', not ''neutrality''" in circumstances where you have constructed an article that, as far as I can discern is almost entirely devoid of accuracy. I suggest that the article be divided into sections that set out first of all the evolutionary view of transitional forms (to be written by me) followed by the creationist criticisms (to be written by you). The reason that I suggest that particular order is that the concept is an evolutionary concept and the article ought to accurately explain what a transitional form is before stating why creationists say they don't exist. I would appreciate your assistance in uploading a picture or two to illustrate the article. How does that sound? --[[User:Merriweather|Merriweather]] 09:27, 14 March 2008 (EDT)
::: I have no doubt that you ''believe'' in your agenda. Just as I do in mine. My agenda, however, has the significant advantage of being accepted by the vast majority of scientists working in the field. Yours is a fringe view inspired by your faith, not science. In my view your claim to accuracy is laughable. However, I understand that your view is sincerely held and, as a result, I am happy to incorporate it into an even-handed article. It is not helpful for you to assert that that "we strive for ''accuracy'', not ''neutrality''" in circumstances where you have constructed an article that, as far as I can discern is almost entirely devoid of accuracy. I suggest that the article be divided into sections that set out first of all the evolutionary view of transitional forms (to be written by me) followed by the creationist criticisms (to be written by you). The reason that I suggest that particular order is that the concept is an evolutionary concept and the article ought to accurately explain what a transitional form is before stating why creationists say they don't exist. I would appreciate your assistance in uploading a picture or two to illustrate the article. How does that sound? --[[User:Merriweather|Merriweather]] 09:27, 14 March 2008 (EDT)
:::: Yes, your agenda is consistent with the majority view of scientists, but then science, and accuracy for that matter, is not decided by majority views, is it?
:::: My "fringe" view is not all that fringe, and it no more inspired by faith than is the atheistic origins myth believed by the majority of scientists. No, I guess my comment about accuracy over neutrality is not "helpful" if indeed the article is devoid of accuracy, but of course the former is dependent on the latter being true, and I reject that the latter is true. That is, I reject that the article is devoid of accuracy.
:::: What do you mean by "the evolutionary view of transitional forms"? Are you talking about the "evolutionary view" of what a transitional form ''is''? Or of their ''existence''?
:::: Evolutionists tend to change their definitions when it suits (see [[Definition of evolution]]), and I suspect the same applies to transitional forms. I don't mind defining the term up front, but if you are claiming precedence because evolutionists came up with the concept, then it should represent the concept that they came up with, not a recent redefinition of it (which is not to say that a recent redefinition can't be covered elsewhere in the article).
:::: [[user:Aschlafly|Andy]] abhors "[[placement bias]]", so it probably won't be feasible to put too much evolutionary stuff too close to the beginning, but please go ahead and write a more detailed explanation of what a transitional form is. The existing section before the first heading should be considered a summary introduction to the article, and there is already a definition there. So this can remain (perhaps with some small modification), but could be followed by a new section (before the "Identification problem" section) with a more detailed explanation.
:::: As for the rest of your suggestion of the article layout, this is supposed to be an article, not a debate, but how about we leave that until after you've written a more detailed explanation of what a transitional form is?
:::: I'd be happy to help with uploading pictures, as long as they are free for Conservapedia to use. I would tend to err on the side of caution with such things.
:::: [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 03:17, 15 March 2008 (EDT)