11
edits
Changes
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Line 13:
Line 13: +
→Creation Science
:I agree, as well as [[baraminology]]. [[User:WesleyS|WesleyS]][[User Talk:WesleyS|<sup>Hello!</sup>]] 23:05, 21 February 2009 (EST)
:I agree, as well as [[baraminology]]. [[User:WesleyS|WesleyS]][[User Talk:WesleyS|<sup>Hello!</sup>]] 23:05, 21 February 2009 (EST)
::I'd agree with both of the above. If aspects of "exact" science the the validity of radiological dating is to be called into question on CP, then I don't see how anyone can consider creation science or baraminology to be "exact" sciences either. They don't have to be dismissed out of hand, but they certainly aren't as exact as mathematics or basic chemistry. --[[User:DinsdaleP|DinsdaleP]] 23:38, 21 February 2009 (EST)
::I'd agree with both of the above. If aspects of "exact" science the the validity of radiological dating is to be called into question on CP, then I don't see how anyone can consider creation science or baraminology to be "exact" sciences either. They don't have to be dismissed out of hand, but they certainly aren't as exact as mathematics or basic chemistry. --[[User:DinsdaleP|DinsdaleP]] 23:38, 21 February 2009 (EST)
:::I see that creation science and baraminology have both been removed from the exact sciences list. I regard that as an error. There is nothing fuzzy at all about creation. It is based on scripture and is as precise as any of the listed items. In fact it is probably more precise than any of them. It is in no way comparable to evolution which consists of guesses and speculation. If any of you can provide a cogent reason for the exclusion of creation science and baraminology then please do so. If not I intend to replace them. --[[User:EdmundB|EdmundB]] 18:49, 12 March 2009 (EDT)
== Meteorology ==
== Meteorology ==
I'm not sure that this belongs in the "fuzzy" category, despite the qualification that this refers to global warming theories. Meteorology involves a lot of hard science in terms of data collection, record keeping and analysis, and this part of it is good science despite the inability of it to be used to predict future weather with perfect accuracy. Trying to shoehorn this in as fuzzy science to criticize global warming theory is a stretch. --[[User:DinsdaleP|DinsdaleP]] 09:41, 26 February 2009 (EST)
I'm not sure that this belongs in the "fuzzy" category, despite the qualification that this refers to global warming theories. Meteorology involves a lot of hard science in terms of data collection, record keeping and analysis, and this part of it is good science despite the inability of it to be used to predict future weather with perfect accuracy. Trying to shoehorn this in as fuzzy science to criticize global warming theory is a stretch. --[[User:DinsdaleP|DinsdaleP]] 09:41, 26 February 2009 (EST)