1,136
edits
Talk:RationalWiki (en)/Archive2: Difference between revisions
Talk:RationalWiki (en)/Archive2 (view source)
Revision as of 04:31, 21 September 2009
, 21 September 2009→No, Wikipedia cannot, does not, and never will
Huw Powell (talk | contribs) |
|||
| Line 287: | Line 287: | ||
:Could you attempt to answers just one of these questions this time Huw, instead of making yet another section, for the same topic? [[User:Lumenos|Lumenos]] 21:21, 18 September 2009 (EDT) | :Could you attempt to answers just one of these questions this time Huw, instead of making yet another section, for the same topic? [[User:Lumenos|Lumenos]] 21:21, 18 September 2009 (EDT) | ||
::Have you even read the pages I posted above? Wikipedia has many doubtful articles from a skeptical perspective - that is, they are presenting things we disagree with in a non-critical manner. ''Yes'', wikipedia has far more content in their science articles, and in many areas there is simply no need for RW to bother writing them. But ''no'', they don't do what we do ''at all'', let alone "better". [[User:Huw Powell|Huw Powell]] 19:00, 20 September 2009 (EDT) | ::Have you even read the pages I posted above? Wikipedia has many doubtful articles from a skeptical perspective - that is, they are presenting things we disagree with in a non-critical manner. ''Yes'', wikipedia has far more content in their science articles, and in many areas there is simply no need for RW to bother writing them. But ''no'', they don't do what we do ''at all'', let alone "better". [[User:Huw Powell|Huw Powell]] 19:00, 20 September 2009 (EDT) | ||
:::"Better" is ambiguous, I changed it to "a far greater extent". [[User:Lumenos|Lumenos]] 00:31, 21 September 2009 (EDT) | |||
:::I think you mean naturalistic perspective, not skeptical. [[User:Lumenos|Lumenos]] 00:31, 21 September 2009 (EDT) | |||
:::What is more important or effective, Huw Powell and his friends emphatically stating their opinion, or this, "a statement by 68 national and international science academies lists the following as facts, established by numerous observations and independently-derived experimental results from a multitude of scientific disciplines, without any contradiction from scientific evidence: that the Earth is approximately 4.5 billion years old and has shown continuing change; that life appeared on Earth at least 2.5 billion years ago, and has subsequently taken many forms, all of which continue to evolve; and that the genetic code of all organisms living today, including humans, clearly indicates their common primordial origin.[10]" [https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/wiki/Young_Earth_creationism] [[User:Lumenos|Lumenos]] 00:31, 21 September 2009 (EDT) | |||
:::[http://rationalwiki.com/wiki/Evidence_against_a_recent_creation This article] has numerous sources listed. Do you believe this information could not be imported into the Wikipedia? For example in https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/wiki/Age_of_the_earth ? Where do you think it would be more effective at '''refuting''' YEC (not just affirming what you already believe)? Then all you have to do is link https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/wiki/Young_Earth_creationism#Age_of_the_Earth to that article or you could work that information into the YEC article. [[User:Lumenos|Lumenos]] 00:31, 21 September 2009 (EDT) | |||
== Put a comparisons of wikis section in the RationalWiki article == | == Put a comparisons of wikis section in the RationalWiki article == | ||