nsTeam2RO, nsTeam2RW, nsTeam2_talkRO, nsTeam2_talkRW
13,254
edits
Changes
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Line 218:
Line 218: + + + + + + + + + +
Talk:Young Earth Creationism (view source)
Revision as of 14:45, April 23, 2007
, 14:45, April 23, 2007→Misinformation: Reply to allegation of misinformation
He's being misquoted, with the apparent intent of making it seem like a respected zoologist is saying the opposite of what he actually means.--[[User:M|M]] 09:45, 23 April 2007 (EDT)
He's being misquoted, with the apparent intent of making it seem like a respected zoologist is saying the opposite of what he actually means.--[[User:M|M]] 09:45, 23 April 2007 (EDT)
:Most of what you list there is not ''misinformation'' per se, but ''omission of information'' that you think should be there. That's something quite different.
:I'd say that the reason that the article doesn't have the fossils that you mention (whales, early-mammals, elephants, horses, hominids) is that there are no such transitional fossils between different kinds of creatures. (That is, for example, there are fossils that appear intermediate between different types of horses, but not between horses and something else.)
:You say that it dismisses ''Archaeopteryx'' for no good reason, but you are wrong for several reasons. (1) It is not dismissing ''Archaeopteryx'', it is quoting Alan Fedducia dismissing ''Archaeopteryx''. (Admittedly the footnote does not make that clear, but if you look at the reference, you can see that. I'm in the process of improving the footnotes.) (2) So what that it had teeth? Some other extinct birds had teeth; that doesn't make it transitional. (3) It ''did not'' have a reptilian tail—it had the tail of an ''Archaeopteryx''! That it might have some similarities to a reptilian tail doesn't make it a reptilian tail and doesn't make it transitional. Besides, I don't know of any reptile that had feathers on its tail!
:As for ''Tiktaalik'', you haven't explained what is 'not good' about the reasons.
: Discrimination is not "assumed"; it is well documented.
: "''There's also the tasty little bit at the end of that section where it claims on several points that the Bible was more accurate than popular opinion...and completely fails to note, even in a footnote, any of the points on which it is not''". As do you. Perhaps there are none?
: Conservapedia is supposed to be about an accurate viewpoint; I'm not so sure about the balanced bit. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 10:45, 23 April 2007 (EDT)
: How is the quote out of context? It is being used to show that ''fossils'' do not support evolution, not that there is no support at all for evolution. The "missing" part of the quote is talking about ''other'' evidence; it doesn't change the first part where he talks about ''fossil'' evidence, at least by my quick reading.
: [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 10:45, 23 April 2007 (EDT)