nsTeam2RO, nsTeam2RW, nsTeam2_talkRO, nsTeam2_talkRW
13,254
edits
Changes
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Line 50:
Line 50: + + + + +
→To be taken seriously: I said it CAN be, not that it IS.
:: Ed You assert that calling a source unreliable is " sounds like what Wikipedian POV-pushers say, when they want to censor ideas they personally dislike". Why then is the Talk Origins Archive is so frowned upon on a source here? Note that even creationwiki by the way agrees that the distinction between operational and historical science is one used by creationists: [http://creationwiki.org/Science | this entry says "Creationists, unlike many anticreationists, differentiate between operational science with origins science" At minimum, to take Sarfati's claim uncritically is uncalled for. In fact, if Conservapedia accepted all claims as uncritically this wiki would quickly become a free for all. Suggested rewording "according to [[Young Earth Creationist]] [[Jonathan Sarfati]] there are two types of sciece: operational science and historical science" And I again invite you to look for any serious philsci that makes this distinction. Its even more unworkable than strict Popperism. [[User:JoshuaZ|JoshuaZ]] 11:10, 7 May 2007 (EDT)
:: Ed You assert that calling a source unreliable is " sounds like what Wikipedian POV-pushers say, when they want to censor ideas they personally dislike". Why then is the Talk Origins Archive is so frowned upon on a source here? Note that even creationwiki by the way agrees that the distinction between operational and historical science is one used by creationists: [http://creationwiki.org/Science | this entry says "Creationists, unlike many anticreationists, differentiate between operational science with origins science" At minimum, to take Sarfati's claim uncritically is uncalled for. In fact, if Conservapedia accepted all claims as uncritically this wiki would quickly become a free for all. Suggested rewording "according to [[Young Earth Creationist]] [[Jonathan Sarfati]] there are two types of sciece: operational science and historical science" And I again invite you to look for any serious philsci that makes this distinction. Its even more unworkable than strict Popperism. [[User:JoshuaZ|JoshuaZ]] 11:10, 7 May 2007 (EDT)
:TimS, can you clarify what you mean about the citation?
:I deliberately did not write that section to say that "science '''is''' subdivided into two types, but that it '''can be'''. Does anyone dispute that it '''can be'''? I would consider it self-evident that there is a distinction between the two, which means that it ''can be'' subdivided according to that distinction. The fact that most evolutionists refuse to recognise a distinction that clearly exists only shows them in a bad light.
:In fact, tonight I watched the DVD of a [http://www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/4978/ debate between a creationists and an evolutionist], and the evolutionist, whilst not using those terms, did acknowledge that with evolution one can't reproduce the results like one can with other fields of science, thus tacitly admitting that such a distinction exists.
:[[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 11:20, 7 May 2007 (EDT)