1,185
edits
Changes
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Line 46:
Line 46: + +
→To be taken seriously
:Hey Ed, did you happen to look at the cite for that statement that Joshua changed? It has nothing to do with the differentiation of types of sciences. I believe Philip may have placed the wrong link in for his cite of the two different types. I am actually interested in this since I have never heard a distinction between what is considered "Operational science" and "Origins science" Have to say it is news to me but then again I have been in the sciences for 20+ years and could have missed it.--[[User:Tims|TimS]] 11:05, 7 May 2007 (EDT)
:Hey Ed, did you happen to look at the cite for that statement that Joshua changed? It has nothing to do with the differentiation of types of sciences. I believe Philip may have placed the wrong link in for his cite of the two different types. I am actually interested in this since I have never heard a distinction between what is considered "Operational science" and "Origins science" Have to say it is news to me but then again I have been in the sciences for 20+ years and could have missed it.--[[User:Tims|TimS]] 11:05, 7 May 2007 (EDT)
2 to 1, ED is winning. --[[User:Will N.|Will N.]] 11:06, 7 May 2007 (EDT)