Talk:Evolution and science

From Conservapedia

Ed, I just wanted to know if you were going to put supporting evidence for the claims for both sides? I will be willing to help you with this article.--Able806 11:12, 17 April 2008 (EDT)

Just to be clear: the two sides are not liberals and conservatives but "Liberal claims about evolution" and "Science itself".

This requires careful winnowing out of real science from liberal claims about science.

The the following things are not science;

• A statement by a prominent, influential organization endorsing or condemning a particular theory (this is politics or PR)
• A public announcement of a refusal to address a critique of a scientific theory, on the grounds that the author of the critique holds offensive views (e.g., is a Christian)

I'm willing to collaborate, but only if this means working together. ;-) --Ed Poor ^Talk 12:06, 17 April 2008 (EDT)

I would agree. I am not a supporter of all talk and no proof. I would be willing to do the science part, considering background and all. Personaly, I believe there is a misconception caused by all of the talking without evidence that has caused a divergence of what is truly science and what is not. Science is a difficult area to understand but yet we have so many people making statements without the background or training to fully understand what they are speaking of.--Able806 12:11, 17 April 2008 (EDT)

I got good marks in science class. Try me. --Ed Poor ^Talk 14:18, 17 April 2008 (EDT)

I do not doubt your scores:) Sometimes though a person can be a little rusty when the topic is not used day to day. My example would be that I had a fairly high number of history courses, with high grades, in my time but I would not want to debate anyone in history. I know I have forgotten much of the history I learned.--Able806 14:31, 17 April 2008 (EDT)