Difference between revisions of "Talk:Ice age"

Revision as of 04:09, April 30, 2007

Actually Sourcing the Article

Ames, we don't post opinion as fact here. If you would like to present factual evidence here on the talk page then we can work off it and improve this entry.

For starters, this entry should denate that the Ice Age is a relatively recent theory, and explain why it developed.--Aschlafly 11:12, 28 April 2007 (EDT)

Andy, National Geographic is a scientific journal. It's not opinion, and you can't call it opinion just because you don't like it. I'm reverting with explanation & categorization of the dispute.-AmesG_yo! 11:19, 28 April 2007 (EDT)

Ames, we've been round the track several times before on this. Journalists' opinions are not to be restated here as fact. National Geographic is journalism, if you didn't notice.--Aschlafly 12:14, 28 April 2007 (EDT)

National Geographic is popularized science - it's still science. I didn't see you having any citations for your statements. Please don't patronize me, either, by saying I didn't "discuss" it first - you deleted the comments that I made so it looked like I hadn't discussed it! If you actually want to settle this objectively, please add some real, scientific citations to your comments on the article. I'll wait until you've had a chance to do so until I revert or perform any other action.

I'd like to also note that you can't make the facts go away by calling the "opinions," reverting, locking & blocking. You can just make the facts go away from you. To think of an educator employing such draconian tactics to hide science from his students!-AmesG_yo! 12:38, 28 April 2007 (EDT)

I have to agree, if AiG is considered an acceptable source on this site, then the National Geographic has to be considered reliable as well: it's one of the most distinguished and respected scientific journals in the world.Middle Man

I wouldn't go quite that far. National Geographic's online masthead characterizes it as a magazine, not a journal; their style guide refers to the publication as "a magazine," or, "the magazine," etc. Insofar as it is a journal in the vernacular, it is just the journal of the National Geographic Society--not a scientific (=research) journal. Their articles are vetted by editors, not by masked review. Sometimes that has come back to bite them--look at the recent chicken dinosaur from China.

That said, I still think National Geographic is a more scholarly, reliable, authoritative source than many cited on this site.--All Fish Welcome 13:07, 28 April 2007 (EDT)

So do you think it's fair to revert it, MiddleMan?-AmesG_yo! 12:55, 28 April 2007 (EDT)

You mean putting the NGC link back? Yes, of course. If the linked article is relevant to this topic it should be included, even if it does not agree with Mr. Schlafy's view.Middle Man

AllFish's critique is correct (I shouldn't have called it a journal - not peer reviewed), but I think his conclusion is, too - the publication is still more scientific than the current "no publication" citations on the page. I'll add another citation.-AmesG_yo! 13:20, 28 April 2007 (EDT)

Andy, why'd you yell at me for removal without discussion, and then remove information without discussion?-AmesG_yo! 16:28, 28 April 2007 (EDT)

Geography

"[L]arge islands such as Cape Cod and Long Island" caught my attention. Cape Cod is not an island, it is, as the name implies, a cape, or a peninsula. Although one could technically argue that it is a man-made island due to the canal cut across it, that would make one silly. Perhaps it should read "large deposition formations such as Cape Cod and Long Island" Human 14:22, 28 April 2007 (EDT)

article locked to protect the young

It should be reverted all the way back to my original version. It was succinct and young earth-friendly. It also wasn't clunky and clumsy.

The current version spend more time explaining what one isn't than what one is. Human 18:38, 28 April 2007 (EDT)

An "Ice Age" is an age, not a theory

Can we at least have a version of this page which doesn't claim that an ice age is a theory? They're ages (time periods) which may or may not have occured. That first sentence just hurts my head. --Jtl 02:24, 29 April 2007 (EDT)

factual conflict with GW page

"The Earth has experienced numerous ice ages over the past two million years, during which global temperatures dropped approximately 6 degrees Celsius and then returned to normal." ^[1]

On eof the two articles needs to be substantially altered so they apply to the same planet. Human 18:53, 29 April 2007 (EDT)

Oh dear oh dear oh dear

Here we have Human writing an article which he describes as "young earth-friendly", despite his original version subtly mocking the YEC view. And we have AmesG trying to push the secular view using an appeal to popularity ("The overwhelming majority of the scientific community agrees..."). And we have Ed Poor (tentatively) and Aschlafly arguing that creationists don't believe in an ice age. Sorry, they do.

Sigh, another article that I'm putting on my to-do list for when I get time.

Philip J. Rayment 22:53, 29 April 2007 (EDT)

Sigh. If it seemed subtly mocking (and of course it is ancient history now), all it had to have done was a rewrite. I just get tired of the endless "creation scientists think..." phrasing. Why can't it simply be asserted? Anyway, the article has become chaotic now, by all means, when you get that copious free time (I asked for some for Christmas last year), I hope you can make it much better! Human 23:16, 29 April 2007 (EDT)

Umm, it got a rewrite, didn't it? I agree, however, about the "endless 'creation scientists think...' phrasing". Did Santa give you some free time like you asked? Philip J. Rayment 00:09, 30 April 2007 (EDT)