nsTeam2RO, nsTeam2RW, nsTeam2_talkRO, nsTeam2_talkRW
13,254
edits
Changes
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Line 288:
Line 288: + + + + + + +
Talk:Young Earth Creationism (view source)
Revision as of 01:41, November 11, 2008
, 01:41, November 11, 2008→Reversion of Rotskep's edits: new section
There are definitely problems with the term "bogus". The Reactions to Criticism section states the evolutionist argument against YEC as questionable the poses the YEC rebuttal as indisputable fact. Both views are, in fact, opinion. The word bogus would only properly be used to describe something that has been absolutely proven to be false. - [[User:highbrow|highbrow]]
There are definitely problems with the term "bogus". The Reactions to Criticism section states the evolutionist argument against YEC as questionable the poses the YEC rebuttal as indisputable fact. Both views are, in fact, opinion. The word bogus would only properly be used to describe something that has been absolutely proven to be false. - [[User:highbrow|highbrow]]
: "absolutely" proven? How about proven beyond reasonable doubt? And how do you know that it hasn't been proven to be false? The evolutionist arguments ''are'' questionable, and I note that you have not disputed any of the YEC rebuttals. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 22:34, 21 October 2008 (EDT)
: "absolutely" proven? How about proven beyond reasonable doubt? And how do you know that it hasn't been proven to be false? The evolutionist arguments ''are'' questionable, and I note that you have not disputed any of the YEC rebuttals. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 22:34, 21 October 2008 (EDT)
== Reversion of Rotskep's edits ==
I've reverted [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Young_Earth_Creationism&diff=554031&oldid=547552 these] edits of Rotskep for the following reasons.
* Rotskep may have been trying to insert some arguments for evolution to discredit creation, in which case the argument should be removed because it is incorrect.
* Alternatively, Rotskep was trying to provide an example of the silly arguments that evolutionists sometimes use, in which case it would only serve to confuse the flow of the text in having two different arguments in the one point, and refutations would need to be provided for both.
[[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 20:41, 10 November 2008 (EST)