43
edits
Changes
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Line 103:
Line 103: + + + + + + + + + + +
→Article Length: new section
For some reason my computer is not allowing me to edit the Richard Dawkins article, so I'd like to make a suggestion for a small correction to it here on the talk page. Under the "Biography of Richard Dawkins" heading, there's a sub-heading titled "Daily Mail declared that Richard Dawkins' family fortune came from the slave trade." "''Daily Mail"'' should be italicized. Just a small correction — hopefully I'll fix this glitch and not have to suggest a small correction on the talk page again. Thanks! [[User:PaulDiFoglio|PaulDiFoglio]] 20:58, 20 June 2012 (EDT)
For some reason my computer is not allowing me to edit the Richard Dawkins article, so I'd like to make a suggestion for a small correction to it here on the talk page. Under the "Biography of Richard Dawkins" heading, there's a sub-heading titled "Daily Mail declared that Richard Dawkins' family fortune came from the slave trade." "''Daily Mail"'' should be italicized. Just a small correction — hopefully I'll fix this glitch and not have to suggest a small correction on the talk page again. Thanks! [[User:PaulDiFoglio|PaulDiFoglio]] 20:58, 20 June 2012 (EDT)
== Article Length ==
There's something that sits rather uncomfortably with me: the article on Richard Dawkins is longer than the article on Jesus. I'm sure, in Jesus life of over 2000 years (in human form, anyway) - he must have amassed more worth discussing than in Richard's significantly shorter existence. I mean, Jesus is God. Surely he should be more important and have more time and space devoted to him? This is where it gets really ironic. Wikipedia's article on Jesus is longer than their article on Dawkins. The ratio of their lengths is about the same on Wikipedia and Conservapedia, but flipped.
On a related note, the article on Cowardice and Atheism is just a descent into unsubstantiated rambling that serves no real purpose. Sure, discuss the general refusal of secular scientists to debate creationists/ID proponents - but don't suggest there is merely one motive, and that it is cowardice. It is no different than claiming all Hindus are cowards if some Hindus refused to debate some Christians (without any real treatment of their motives). Conservapedia would better serve its purpose by refraining from tiresome attacks.
Let me offer a different perspective: as most scientists regard ID as pseudoscience (Conservapedia's words, not mine), the most typical reason for refusal is in fact a desire not to lend credence to the notion of ID as science or as something that may viably be considered an alternative to evolution. Whether this position is agreed with or not is irrelevant - the fact of the matter is, this is the position they take. Youtube has plenty of videos of atheists debating creationists, both in filmed debates and back-and-forth video submissions from YouTube users.
I would be interested to hear the creationist/ID position on bacterial integration into human cells. For instance, mitochondria are bacteria that have integrated with every cell in our bodies. This is not conjecture - the genome is there, separate from our own, and its release from cells results in an immune response as the mitochondria are recognised as foreign and not self. The evolutionary take is generally that this is a form of rather extreme symbiosis - we gain significantly increased efficiency in producing ATP, the energy currency of the cell (and the bacteria get an easy ride). Is there an ID position on this? I presume there must be. [[User:LucoDaw|LucoDaw]] 23:06, 5 July 2012 (EDT)