1,695
edits
Changes
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Line 586:
Line 586: + +
→Creationist Scientists - Oxymoron
Philip, I should think this was obvious. A "few" predictions does not a scientist make. To turn one of Conservative's arguments on its head, medieval doctors had a couple of correct predictions, and so did alchemists. That does not justify their entire practice, though. Congratulations on making some actual predictions - though I questioned those same ones on my talk page - but it does nothing to prove the credibility of the entire field.-'''<font color="#007FFF">[[user:AmesG|Ames]]</font><font color="#FF0000">[[user talk:AmesG|G]]</font>''' 12:19, 26 March 2007 (EDT)
Philip, I should think this was obvious. A "few" predictions does not a scientist make. To turn one of Conservative's arguments on its head, medieval doctors had a couple of correct predictions, and so did alchemists. That does not justify their entire practice, though. Congratulations on making some actual predictions - though I questioned those same ones on my talk page - but it does nothing to prove the credibility of the entire field.-'''<font color="#007FFF">[[user:AmesG|Ames]]</font><font color="#FF0000">[[user talk:AmesG|G]]</font>''' 12:19, 26 March 2007 (EDT)
Look, the easiest test for creation science is "is it falsifiable?" <font color="FFD700">[[User:ColinR|ColinR]]</font><sup><font color="000000">[[User_talk:ColinR|talk]]</font></sup> 12:29, 26 March 2007 (EDT)