Talk:Ardipithecus ramidus

There's got to be a better way of acknowledging the conflict between young earth creationism and modern science than a crack like "atheistic science". --Ed Poor ^Talk 00:28, 3 October 2009 (EDT)

well, we have Atheistic Style, Atheistic denial (which uses the term ""atheistic science"), Atheistic Logic, Atheistic tools (which is associated with "Darwinian science," according to the article), and Atheistic Values. Why not "atheistic science" ? PeterF 00:38, 3 October 2009 (EDT)

How about 'secular science'? I will change it to that and add some cites as to why this dating is invalid.TESvestad 01:25, 3 October 2009 (EDT)

I created this article with the appropriate references so it would be a reliable source of information. I welcome any additional scientific information, not pseudo-science. I also request that all edits be fully referenced. For this reason the addition concerning the claims of creationists needs to be removed unless a reputable scientific source that specifically details why this fossil find is not over 4 million years old can be posted. General statements like, "creations disagree" will not suffice and the reference provided gives no evidence about the inadequacy of radiometric dating methods that show a fossil is millions of years old.

Please provide references and justification for any claims of atheism amongst the scientists that are studying this find and why such a claim is relevant. Anything else just detracts from the article. --MichaelJB 14:28, 3 October 2009 (EDT)