Talk:Fred Hoyle

Although the edit I made changed Aschlafly's original edit, the reference he cited does not explain anything about an "obvious punishment", that the Nobel Prize was awarded to "underlings", nor any correlation that he was not given the Nobel Prize for "uncovering" the Archaeopteryx was a fraud. Since even YIC sites claim the Archaeopteryx is presently real, I would assume Hoyle's thesis on it would be a claim now. It would be misleading to purport his thesis as a fact still, without offering any counterclaim. LardoBolger 23:42, 1 January 2008 (EST)

I just changed the "fraud" bit. I didn't take it out but turned it into a report on what Hoyle was doing, rather than a finding of whether his claim was correct or not. Let readers know the facts, and let's not all argue over the conclusions. FACT: Hoyle called it a fraud. CONCLUSIONS: He was right/ He was wrong. LowKey 19:45, 14 January 2009 (EST)

I think Andy's point was that Hoyle made himself unpopular by questioning the most important "missing link" fossil. Those who strongly believed in Evolution did not take kindly to an attempt to undermine their faith. --Ed Poor ^Talk 19:58, 14 January 2009 (EST)

...and it still shows that. Although, I am pretty sure that his earlier direct criticism had something do with it as well :).LowKey 20:07, 14 January 2009 (EST)

Reversion explained

Don't delete factual information like that. This is not Wikipedia.--Aschlafly 00:11, 2 January 2008 (EST)

"Reversion explained"? You didn't explain anything! I explained why I changed it, the least you can do is the same. LardoBolger 00:14, 2 January 2008 (EST)