121
edits
Changes
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Line 55:
Line 55: + +
Debate:Who feels that scientific related articles should only reference published research papers instead of websites when dealing with research instead of application? (view source)
Revision as of 19:14, February 11, 2008
, 19:14, February 11, 2008→No
::Also the problem of who publishes the research. Which religious POV published it? Evolutionism or Creation? Also scientific related? Or just pure physical science? Sounds more like this is a fishing expedition then a sound query. Well you can always set up enough rules and regulations on anything to get a desired affect.--[[User:Roopilots6|Roopilots6]] 12:16, 20 December 2007 (EST)
::Also the problem of who publishes the research. Which religious POV published it? Evolutionism or Creation? Also scientific related? Or just pure physical science? Sounds more like this is a fishing expedition then a sound query. Well you can always set up enough rules and regulations on anything to get a desired affect.--[[User:Roopilots6|Roopilots6]] 12:16, 20 December 2007 (EST)
:::I'm all for stating both sides to an issue, so long as both sides are explained ACCURATELY! I am sick and tired of people going around preaching that Evolution says that there is no god, science can not prove or disprove the existance of god. I've also heard that Evolution says that life originated on it's own, it does not, that is the study of abiogenesis. Facts must plainly stated on there own. I don't rant about false claims about Creation, because anybody with half a brain cell can type in "Genesis" on [http://www.google.com google], and get the entire statement. Confusion about facts is bad, the bible even says so. --[[User:Capercorn]] <small> [[User Talk:Capercorn|Talk]] [[Special:Contributions/Capercorn|contribs]] </small> 14:14, 11 February 2008 (EST)