Difference between revisions of "Talk:Vole clock"
(Perhaps Philip J Rayment can throw some light on this matter?) |
|||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
This article, and the article on the [[Vole]] itself, contradict a [[YEC]] viewpoint. Both articles mention the [[Pleistocene]], and this article explains that [[Vole]] teeth can be used to geologically date strata. There's a lot of confusion in CP in this area - one page tells you the Pleistocene existed millions of years ago and vole teeth can help date evolutionary species there, but another page tells the reader we don't believe in geologic time periods. It's very confusing for a student like myself. Can anyone throw some light on what we should do about this? [[User:Carefulnature|Carefulnature]] 14:05, 15 June 2007 (EDT) | This article, and the article on the [[Vole]] itself, contradict a [[YEC]] viewpoint. Both articles mention the [[Pleistocene]], and this article explains that [[Vole]] teeth can be used to geologically date strata. There's a lot of confusion in CP in this area - one page tells you the Pleistocene existed millions of years ago and vole teeth can help date evolutionary species there, but another page tells the reader we don't believe in geologic time periods. It's very confusing for a student like myself. Can anyone throw some light on what we should do about this? [[User:Carefulnature|Carefulnature]] 14:05, 15 June 2007 (EDT) | ||
| + | |||
| + | I don't think there's an official 'party line' on this, Carefulnature. Some people, like myself, accept the evidence that appears to show historical periods as described in this article. Others (Philip Rayment and Conservative spring to mind) believe that the Biblical account is a literal, historical one and put forward what they feel to be the evidence for that. Personally, I usually edit what I see as a viewpoint backed by scientific evidence into an article without deleting a YEC viewpoint that's already there, out of courtesy towards another person's sincerely-held viewpoint. I would like to think that those who hold such a viewpoint would extend the same courtesy to me, and allow students such as yourself to make their own minds up about the evidence they read. How much of a student would you be, after all, if you simply learned what you were told without evaluating it?--[[User:Britinme|Britinme]] 15:09, 17 June 2007 (EDT) | ||
Latest revision as of 19:09, June 17, 2007
This article, and the article on the Vole itself, contradict a YEC viewpoint. Both articles mention the Pleistocene, and this article explains that Vole teeth can be used to geologically date strata. There's a lot of confusion in CP in this area - one page tells you the Pleistocene existed millions of years ago and vole teeth can help date evolutionary species there, but another page tells the reader we don't believe in geologic time periods. It's very confusing for a student like myself. Can anyone throw some light on what we should do about this? Carefulnature 14:05, 15 June 2007 (EDT)
I don't think there's an official 'party line' on this, Carefulnature. Some people, like myself, accept the evidence that appears to show historical periods as described in this article. Others (Philip Rayment and Conservative spring to mind) believe that the Biblical account is a literal, historical one and put forward what they feel to be the evidence for that. Personally, I usually edit what I see as a viewpoint backed by scientific evidence into an article without deleting a YEC viewpoint that's already there, out of courtesy towards another person's sincerely-held viewpoint. I would like to think that those who hold such a viewpoint would extend the same courtesy to me, and allow students such as yourself to make their own minds up about the evidence they read. How much of a student would you be, after all, if you simply learned what you were told without evaluating it?--Britinme 15:09, 17 June 2007 (EDT)
