1,792
edits
Changes
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Line 15:
Line 15: + + +
Sources needed
Evolution is a valid theory, and I know this. It is not a good theory though. I give it as an example of a theory that does not have a good solid base of fact into which it can support itself. The theory of the flying spaghetti monster is a valid theory also. it's just not a very good one. --[[User:BillOReillyFan|BillOReillyFan]] 22:21, 14 March 2007 (EDT)
Evolution is a valid theory, and I know this. It is not a good theory though. I give it as an example of a theory that does not have a good solid base of fact into which it can support itself. The theory of the flying spaghetti monster is a valid theory also. it's just not a very good one. --[[User:BillOReillyFan|BillOReillyFan]] 22:21, 14 March 2007 (EDT)
==Sources needed==
This article gives a definition of "theory" that differs sharply from common dictionaries, popular usage, and the rest of Conservapedia. Just one dubious reference is provided. If this is really a good definition, then there should be some citations to people who use the word this way. Otherwise, the article should be scrapped and rewritten to conform to common usage. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 05:17, 25 March 2007 (EDT)