Difference between revisions of "Talk:Fall of man"

From Conservapedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Line 2: Line 2:
  
 
:Thanks for your thoughts, but that's not the evolutionary viewpoint.  Biologically, the concept of "primitive" has little meaning.  If we go by sophistication then plants are the ultimate life form having a much more complex genetic structure.  And the social evolution part is even worse and is by no means agreed upon among historians.  Only a small subset pushes it, but it is included in this article as having equal merit with overall scientific evolutionary theory, which isn't true. I hope this explanation is helpful for why I removed it. If you believe we should include an alternate perspective, we'll have to rewrite it. [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 12:34, 6 July 2007 (EDT)
 
:Thanks for your thoughts, but that's not the evolutionary viewpoint.  Biologically, the concept of "primitive" has little meaning.  If we go by sophistication then plants are the ultimate life form having a much more complex genetic structure.  And the social evolution part is even worse and is by no means agreed upon among historians.  Only a small subset pushes it, but it is included in this article as having equal merit with overall scientific evolutionary theory, which isn't true. I hope this explanation is helpful for why I removed it. If you believe we should include an alternate perspective, we'll have to rewrite it. [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 12:34, 6 July 2007 (EDT)
 +
 +
==Fall of man = Christian?==
 +
I'm pretty sure almost every culture has some sort of fall from grace myth... [[User:Barikada|Barikada]] 22:14, 31 January 2008 (EST)

Revision as of 21:14, 31 January 2008

even though evolution is wrong, shouldn't we at least include their viewpoint, fair is fair, we aren't biased like Wikipedia is.

Thanks for your thoughts, but that's not the evolutionary viewpoint. Biologically, the concept of "primitive" has little meaning. If we go by sophistication then plants are the ultimate life form having a much more complex genetic structure. And the social evolution part is even worse and is by no means agreed upon among historians. Only a small subset pushes it, but it is included in this article as having equal merit with overall scientific evolutionary theory, which isn't true. I hope this explanation is helpful for why I removed it. If you believe we should include an alternate perspective, we'll have to rewrite it. Learn together 12:34, 6 July 2007 (EDT)

Fall of man = Christian?

I'm pretty sure almost every culture has some sort of fall from grace myth... Barikada 22:14, 31 January 2008 (EST)