Difference between revisions of "Talk:Creation and evolution compared"
(→Be encyclopedic: Phil help me keep it objective?) |
(Why the revert? The new design bad?) |
||
| Line 9: | Line 9: | ||
I realise that it's early <s>days</s> ''minutes'' so far, so I won't change anything just yet, but keep in mind that this should be encyclopedic, not argumentative. You are describing different views, not preaching one view over another. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 09:12, 14 June 2007 (EDT) | I realise that it's early <s>days</s> ''minutes'' so far, so I won't change anything just yet, but keep in mind that this should be encyclopedic, not argumentative. You are describing different views, not preaching one view over another. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 09:12, 14 June 2007 (EDT) | ||
:Sorry Phil! Will you help me try to keep it objective? I'm just... not a big evolution fan, I guess? Anyways, I do need your help, but I'll try to keep it objective.-[[User:Phoenix|Phoenix]] 19:45, 14 June 2007 (EDT) | :Sorry Phil! Will you help me try to keep it objective? I'm just... not a big evolution fan, I guess? Anyways, I do need your help, but I'll try to keep it objective.-[[User:Phoenix|Phoenix]] 19:45, 14 June 2007 (EDT) | ||
| + | Why the revert? I liked the new design...-[[User:Phoenix|Phoenix]] 20:07, 14 June 2007 (EDT) | ||
== Science can be wrong == | == Science can be wrong == | ||
Revision as of 00:07, June 15, 2007
Looks good. This needs, of course, close monitoring. --Sysop-TK /MyTalk 08:15, 14 June 2007 (EDT)
Table width
Can the table width be set to something static? Like 10% topic, 45% creation, 45% evolution? If it changes topic by topic it might look ugly. I'll look up wiki coding when I get home.-Phoenix 09:03, 14 June 2007 (EDT)
- The column widths can be fixed, but as long as it is one table with multiple rows and not multiple tables, it won't change topic by topic. I'd suggest leaving it as it is for now at least, and see how it goes. Philip J. Rayment 09:08, 14 June 2007 (EDT)
Be encyclopedic
I realise that it's early days minutes so far, so I won't change anything just yet, but keep in mind that this should be encyclopedic, not argumentative. You are describing different views, not preaching one view over another. Philip J. Rayment 09:12, 14 June 2007 (EDT)
- Sorry Phil! Will you help me try to keep it objective? I'm just... not a big evolution fan, I guess? Anyways, I do need your help, but I'll try to keep it objective.-Phoenix 19:45, 14 June 2007 (EDT)
Why the revert? I liked the new design...-Phoenix 20:07, 14 June 2007 (EDT)
Science can be wrong
That's the whole point of science. They're willing to rework their theories when presented with hard evidence. If you've been to the Museum of National History in Washington, D.C., there are many notices on the dinosaur/caveman displays, saying some of the information is now outdated, thanks to new discoveries. If science can be wrong, can creation science? Maestro 09:47, 14 June 2007 (EDT)
Creation science is science. You seem to be making a distiction. Yes it can be wrong, but only where it tries to speculate beyond what the bible specificly says.--Ben Talk 09:53, 14 June 2007 (EDT)
