2
edits
Changes
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Line 866:
Line 866: + +
Conservapedia talk:Lenski dialog (view source)
Revision as of 14:23, June 26, 2008
, 14:23, June 26, 2008Fermat's Last Theorem, again
:::Bugler, if Andy was not assuming that Lenski's data was frauduflent, wouldn't that mean that he was being openminded about the possibility of the Bible being incorrect? [[User:RWilson|RWilson]] 13:52, 24 June 2008 (EDT)
:::Bugler, if Andy was not assuming that Lenski's data was frauduflent, wouldn't that mean that he was being openminded about the possibility of the Bible being incorrect? [[User:RWilson|RWilson]] 13:52, 24 June 2008 (EDT)
:::: I'm not sure what you are getting at there, but I ''think'' you are saying that either Lenski is a fraud or the Bible is incorrect, yet I see no reason for thinking it has to be one or the other. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 08:29, 26 June 2008 (EDT)
:::: I'm not sure what you are getting at there, but I ''think'' you are saying that either Lenski is a fraud or the Bible is incorrect, yet I see no reason for thinking it has to be one or the other. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 08:29, 26 June 2008 (EDT)
:: Once again, the above seriously misrepresents the situation with Fermat's Last Theorem. While I was very happy that he released his manuscript immediately after his lectures at the Newton Institute, the fact remains that the error was detected in conversations between Wiles and consummate insiders like Nick Katz [http://www.math.princeton.edu/~nmk/], not after general scrutiny by random people around the internet. --[[User:Npstrick|Npstrick]] 10:23, 26 June 2008 (EDT)
:Thanks, DLerner. "It seems" I've made my point anyway. No more accusations of malevolence from this gentleman, no sir! --Aaronp
:Thanks, DLerner. "It seems" I've made my point anyway. No more accusations of malevolence from this gentleman, no sir! --Aaronp