Changes

:::::: I'm fine with including historical facts about opinions of scientists and others.  For example, an entry could say that it was the consensus of scientists in the 1970s that the world was becoming dangerously over-populated to the extent that mass starvation was likely (the widely taught [[population bomb]]), or that that until the 1990s it was the consensus of scientists that life existed in outer space, justifying the expenditure of billions of taxpayer dollars to find it.  But science is plainly not resolved by consensus, as those two examples illustrate.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 17:28, 11 February 2010 (EST)

:::::: I'm fine with including historical facts about opinions of scientists and others.  For example, an entry could say that it was the consensus of scientists in the 1970s that the world was becoming dangerously over-populated to the extent that mass starvation was likely (the widely taught [[population bomb]]), or that that until the 1990s it was the consensus of scientists that life existed in outer space, justifying the expenditure of billions of taxpayer dollars to find it.  But science is plainly not resolved by consensus, as those two examples illustrate.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 17:28, 11 February 2010 (EST)

:::::: Historical facts about the work of astronomers was deleted. What do you want to do, include the opinion of those 1920 scientists who did not believe that there were galaxies outside the Milky Way? If so, just add it. I just don't see the point of deleting good info on galaxies. If you think that it is wrong, explain why it is wrong. I don't see how the discovery of galaxies had anything to do with atheism or liberal politics. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 18:31, 11 February 2010 (EST)

::::::: Historical facts about the work of astronomers was deleted. What do you want to do, include the opinion of those 1920 scientists who did not believe that there were galaxies outside the Milky Way? If so, just add it. I just don't see the point of deleting good info on galaxies. If you think that it is wrong, explain why it is wrong. I don't see how the discovery of galaxies had anything to do with atheism or liberal politics. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 18:31, 11 February 2010 (EST)

::::::: This entry was stuffed with unverified claims about millions and billions of years.  One that I took out, which was then reinserted, and then I had to take out again claimed that the Andromeda galaxy would collide with Earth in billions of years.  That isn't science, but is atheism masquerading as science.  We're not fooled by it.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 18:58, 11 February 2010 (EST)

:::::::: This entry was stuffed with unverified claims about millions and billions of years.  One that I took out, which was then reinserted, and then I had to take out again claimed that the Andromeda galaxy would collide with Earth in billions of years.  That isn't science, but is atheism masquerading as science.  We're not fooled by it.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 18:58, 11 February 2010 (EST)

:::::::: The distance and relative velocity of Andromeda is based on scientific observations. Nobody said that it would collide with the Earth, but it is headed for a collision with the Milky Way. Are you saying that these distance and velocity estimates are wrong? If so, what is your basis? Is Andromeda inconsistent with a belief in God and Bible? [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 19:28, 11 February 2010 (EST)

::::::::: The distance and relative velocity of Andromeda is based on scientific observations. Nobody said that it would collide with the Earth, but it is headed for a collision with the Milky Way. Are you saying that these distance and velocity estimates are wrong? If so, what is your basis? Is Andromeda inconsistent with a belief in God and Bible? [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 19:28, 11 February 2010 (EST)

::::::::: My statement could not be any clearer:  it isn't science to talk about billions of years into the future.  It's atheism disguised as science.  You don't seem to want to address that, but I'm not going to repeat it again.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 19:42, 11 February 2010 (EST)

:::::::::: My statement could not be any clearer:  it isn't science to talk about billions of years into the future.  It's atheism disguised as science.  You don't seem to want to address that, but I'm not going to repeat it again.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 19:42, 11 February 2010 (EST)