333
edits
Changes
no edit summary
:: Common descent is a ''hypothesis'', not a fact. There is no "overwhelming evidence", and I personally know biologists who do ''not'' agree with it, so that claim is also wrong. Gravity is ''observed'' every day, and is ''testable'' at any time. 99.999% of common descent is supposed to have happened before there was anyone around to observe it, and is not directly testable. So that analogy is quite inappropriate. And since when does an encyclopedia that in many cases reports ''both'' the evolutionary view and the YEC view become a "YEC wiki"? It seems that evolutionists are so bigoted that the only "neutral" view is the evolutionary view and any view that is actually neutral (i.e. gives both evolutionary and creationary viewpoints) is biased! That's nothing short of twisting the meaning of words, and this encyclopedia, unlike the biased and bigoted Wikipedia, won't stand for that. Your comment about being a resource for home-schooled students ''presumes'' your viewpoint to be correct, but if your viewpoint is ''not'' correct, that statement is nonsense. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 07:53, 28 March 2008 (EDT)
:: Common descent is a ''hypothesis'', not a fact. There is no "overwhelming evidence", and I personally know biologists who do ''not'' agree with it, so that claim is also wrong. Gravity is ''observed'' every day, and is ''testable'' at any time. 99.999% of common descent is supposed to have happened before there was anyone around to observe it, and is not directly testable. So that analogy is quite inappropriate. And since when does an encyclopedia that in many cases reports ''both'' the evolutionary view and the YEC view become a "YEC wiki"? It seems that evolutionists are so bigoted that the only "neutral" view is the evolutionary view and any view that is actually neutral (i.e. gives both evolutionary and creationary viewpoints) is biased! That's nothing short of twisting the meaning of words, and this encyclopedia, unlike the biased and bigoted Wikipedia, won't stand for that. Your comment about being a resource for home-schooled students ''presumes'' your viewpoint to be correct, but if your viewpoint is ''not'' correct, that statement is nonsense. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 07:53, 28 March 2008 (EDT)
:: I don't see anything wrong with "closest in genetic makeup" either. Do you want to make that change, TheGySom? [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 07:59, 28 March 2008 (EDT)
:: I don't see anything wrong with "closest in genetic makeup" either. Do you want to make that change, TheGySom? [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 07:59, 28 March 2008 (EDT)
:::I will soon, and would also like to recommend that the heading be changed to "Zoological Similarities" or something along those lines rather than "Similar Species", if only for sounding more formal. That said, it seems that there are physical similarities as well, so the more appropriate phrase may be "closest in genetic makeup and physical qualities", but I'd like Igor nz's opinion to avoid any edit clashes. [[User:TheGySom|TheGySom]] 08:03, 28 March 2008 (EDT)