2,732
edits
Changes
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Line 79:
Line 79: + +
→RSchlafly
: I described a distinction that evolutionists make. Are you saying that the distinction does not exist? That it is not noteworthy? Or what? Please explain. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 19:00, 28 March 2007 (EDT)
: I described a distinction that evolutionists make. Are you saying that the distinction does not exist? That it is not noteworthy? Or what? Please explain. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 19:00, 28 March 2007 (EDT)
:: You described a distinction and said that it's invalid because only "scientists" support it, who can't be trusted because they're scientists. If you don't see something wrong in that sentence, then you may be a lost cause. Setting that aside, isn't it true that we should care about what scientists mean when they say "theory" if they're the ones drafting the theory in the first place? Shouldn't we NOT care what random-guy-on-the-street things that "scientific theory" means?-'''<font color="#007FFF">Ames</font><font color="#FF0000">G</font>'''<sub>[http://www.conservapedia.com/User_talk:AmesG yo!]</sub> 19:04, 28 March 2007 (EDT)