nsTeam2RO, nsTeam2RW, nsTeam2_talkRO, nsTeam2_talkRW
13,254
edits
Changes
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Line 63:
Line 63: + + + +
→To be taken seriously: Evolution hasn't contributed much
:::Auld, I will admit that Philip takes the time out to learn about the science before writing , however I would disagree about conservative. He tends to quote and misunderstand the what he is writing against.--[[User:Tims|TimS]] 11:40, 7 May 2007 (EDT)
:::Auld, I will admit that Philip takes the time out to learn about the science before writing , however I would disagree about conservative. He tends to quote and misunderstand the what he is writing against.--[[User:Tims|TimS]] 11:40, 7 May 2007 (EDT)
::TimS, I assume that you are talking about reference 4. Surely the text under "Confusing ‘origins science’ with ‘operational science’; the real origins of science" of that link ''does'' cover what we are talking about?
::If it is true that germ theory and virology have grown out of evolution (which I would dispute), all that means is that ''those'' fields are 'operational science', not that evolution is. But I could show you quotes from evolutionists admitting that evolution has ''not'' contributed much to "real" science.
::[[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 11:55, 7 May 2007 (EDT)