Difference between revisions of "Talk:Andromeda galaxy"
From Conservapedia
(I found it astounding how much this entry pushed an old universe, atheistic ideology for no apparent scientific purpose.) |
(→Disclaimer) |
||
| Line 8: | Line 8: | ||
:::I don't think "compromises" as to the deceit of an editor here are within my purview, Jacob...that would be between the user and God. What is within my purview is the decision as to if CP should be an enabler for his deceit. Thanks for the suggestion, but I am certain I have the ability to decide this. ;-) --<big>[[User:TK|'''ṬK''']]</big><sub>/Admin</sub><sup>[[User_Talk:TK|/Talk]]</sup> 04:52, 11 February 2010 (EST) | :::I don't think "compromises" as to the deceit of an editor here are within my purview, Jacob...that would be between the user and God. What is within my purview is the decision as to if CP should be an enabler for his deceit. Thanks for the suggestion, but I am certain I have the ability to decide this. ;-) --<big>[[User:TK|'''ṬK''']]</big><sub>/Admin</sub><sup>[[User_Talk:TK|/Talk]]</sup> 04:52, 11 February 2010 (EST) | ||
| + | |||
| + | :::: Whoa, okay TK that was uncalled for. There is one small area that references to age in this article: "''From this the astronomers calcuated that the various stars of Andromeda's halo vary in age from 6 to 13 billion years, a much wider range then the halo population of the Milky Way that mostly consists of metal-poor stars some 11-13 billion years old.<ref>http://www.skyandtelescope.com/news/3307606.html?page=1&c=y</ref>'' ". | ||
| + | |||
| + | :::: That was placed in '''before''' the compromise JacobB and I reached in regards to talking about age of the universe and how they should be placed into an "Old Universe View" and "Young Universe View" section. No one just got around to this article yet in light of that compromise. No one is trying to be deceitful, and I resent the implication, what is worse is you know how to contact me directly live, you could have asked instead of assumed I am trying something "deceitful". --[[User:BMcP|BMcP]] 08:29, 11 February 2010 (EST) | ||
A disclaimer doesn't resolve logical flaws or over-reliance on assumptions or atheism-pushing. I found it astounding how much this entry pushed an old universe, atheistic ideology for no apparent scientific purpose. | A disclaimer doesn't resolve logical flaws or over-reliance on assumptions or atheism-pushing. I found it astounding how much this entry pushed an old universe, atheistic ideology for no apparent scientific purpose. | ||
I would oppose a disclaimer that said, for example, "this entry assumes that greenhouse gases are causing the world to become dangerously warmer."--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 06:26, 11 February 2010 (EST) | I would oppose a disclaimer that said, for example, "this entry assumes that greenhouse gases are causing the world to become dangerously warmer."--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 06:26, 11 February 2010 (EST) | ||
| + | |||
| + | == Stop.. wait== | ||
| + | |||
| + | Why is distance and size information being ripped out of this article, especially since it is virtually all cited? Why isn't it discussed first in the talk section here? What is disputed about distance? Distance to extra-galactic objects are not just guessed at and it doesn't imply age, it just implies distance. I mean how small do people think the universe is? As far as I know, but creationists and non-creationists agree the universe is very large and most galaxies are millions or billions of light years away. --[[User:BMcP|BMcP]] 08:29, 11 February 2010 (EST) | ||
Revision as of 13:29, February 11, 2010
Disclaimer
Perhaps at the top of each astronomy article we can put a disclaimer like "This article assumes a universe that is approximately 13,7 billion years old. This is just a theory and in no way has been proven." That way we can keep in the science. DaneW 00:15, 11 February 2010 (EST)
- How about you actually read the comment I left the other day on your talk page? I find you deceitful, stating one purpose for being here, and editing everything but. Did you follow the links to the other pages linked to the Commandments? The are adjunct to them, as clearly stated on their page. --ṬK/Admin/Talk 00:32, 11 February 2010 (EST)
- I've had a dispute with another editor here, BMcP, regarding this. The compromise we reached is that material which states or implies the universe is millions of years old or older should be placed in a "Old Universe View" section, while material that states or implies that universe is thousands of years old or younger should be placed in a "Young Universe Section." This agreement seems to me to satisfy all parties. JacobB 02:19, 11 February 2010 (EST)
- I don't think "compromises" as to the deceit of an editor here are within my purview, Jacob...that would be between the user and God. What is within my purview is the decision as to if CP should be an enabler for his deceit. Thanks for the suggestion, but I am certain I have the ability to decide this. ;-) --ṬK/Admin/Talk 04:52, 11 February 2010 (EST)
- Whoa, okay TK that was uncalled for. There is one small area that references to age in this article: "From this the astronomers calcuated that the various stars of Andromeda's halo vary in age from 6 to 13 billion years, a much wider range then the halo population of the Milky Way that mostly consists of metal-poor stars some 11-13 billion years old.[1] ".
- That was placed in before the compromise JacobB and I reached in regards to talking about age of the universe and how they should be placed into an "Old Universe View" and "Young Universe View" section. No one just got around to this article yet in light of that compromise. No one is trying to be deceitful, and I resent the implication, what is worse is you know how to contact me directly live, you could have asked instead of assumed I am trying something "deceitful". --BMcP 08:29, 11 February 2010 (EST)
A disclaimer doesn't resolve logical flaws or over-reliance on assumptions or atheism-pushing. I found it astounding how much this entry pushed an old universe, atheistic ideology for no apparent scientific purpose.
I would oppose a disclaimer that said, for example, "this entry assumes that greenhouse gases are causing the world to become dangerously warmer."--Andy Schlafly 06:26, 11 February 2010 (EST)
