Changes

::::Before I get bogged down in explaining the fundamentals of the scientific method all over again, may I suggest you read in more detail what it is and how it works. The article on this site actually has some rather good details on this. [[User:DWiggins|DWiggins]] 17:03, 5 November 2009 (EST)

::::Before I get bogged down in explaining the fundamentals of the scientific method all over again, may I suggest you read in more detail what it is and how it works. The article on this site actually has some rather good details on this. [[User:DWiggins|DWiggins]] 17:03, 5 November 2009 (EST)

:::::DWiggins, if you look at the history of that article, you'll discover the fact that I wrote it...[http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Scientific_method&diff=188946&oldid=168951]  :)  [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 18:06, 5 November 2009 (EST)

:::::DWiggins, if you look at the history of that article, you'll discover the fact that I wrote it...[http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Scientific_method&diff=188946&oldid=168951]  :)  [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 18:06, 5 November 2009 (EST)

With all due respect, I would not consider 3 edits out of around a 100 to in anyway constitute a claim to having 'wrote it'. I said ''some'' rather good details, insofar as it gives a reasonable overview of the scientific method but is rather clumsy in addressing more specific aspects, omitting several key points. [[User:DWiggins|DWiggins]] 18:28, 5 November 2009 (EST)

With all due respect, I would not consider 3 edits out of around 100 to in anyway constitute a claim to having 'wrote it'. I said ''some'' rather good details, insofar as it gives a reasonable overview of the scientific method but is rather clumsy in addressing more specific aspects, omitting several key points. [[User:DWiggins|DWiggins]] 18:28, 5 November 2009 (EST)