25
edits
Changes
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Line 210:
Line 210: +
→Article plan
:: I accept that the pro-evolutionary view is not treated very favourably in the article. But unlike Wikipedia, we strive for ''accuracy'', not ''neutrality''. Is there anything in the article that is ''inaccurate''?
:: I accept that the pro-evolutionary view is not treated very favourably in the article. But unlike Wikipedia, we strive for ''accuracy'', not ''neutrality''. Is there anything in the article that is ''inaccurate''?
:: [[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)