1,019
edits
Changes
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Line 70:
Line 70: + +
no edit summary
:::::::I didn't say that ''all'' creatonist approaches did that; indeed, I specifically stated the opposite. [[User:Tsumetai|Tsumetai]] 15:00, 24 March 2007 (EDT)
:::::::I didn't say that ''all'' creatonist approaches did that; indeed, I specifically stated the opposite. [[User:Tsumetai|Tsumetai]] 15:00, 24 March 2007 (EDT)
::::::::Should there be a mention of "white hole cosmology" in the article as an example of falsifiable creationist science in the article in that case? Would it live?--[[User:British_cons|British_cons]] [[User_talk:British_cons|(talk)]] 15:06, 24 March 2007 (EDT)
::::::::Should there be a mention of "white hole cosmology" in the article as an example of falsifiable creationist science in the article in that case? Would it live?--[[User:British_cons|British_cons]] [[User_talk:British_cons|(talk)]] 15:06, 24 March 2007 (EDT)
<reduce indent> To be honest, there are probably better examples. WHC isn't exactly a coherent model. There could, in principle, be a coherent, falsifiable model along those lines, but I don't know of any at present. [[User:Tsumetai|Tsumetai]] 15:21, 24 March 2007 (EDT)