Difference between revisions of "Talk:Gravity"

From Conservapedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search
(thanks for your observation, please improve)
Line 4: Line 4:
  
 
:Thanks for pointing this out.  I think vandals are responsible for the above, which I removed.  Then I read further and removed more.  Please improve.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 02:02, 7 March 2007 (EST)
 
:Thanks for pointing this out.  I think vandals are responsible for the above, which I removed.  Then I read further and removed more.  Please improve.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 02:02, 7 March 2007 (EST)
 +
::Do we need an article for the topics that don't disagree with wikipedia?  We're basically just duplicating wikipedia's [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gravitation entry] with far less research and editing time.--[[User:Jesusina|Jesusina]] 22:50, 7 March 2007 (EST)

Revision as of 03:50, March 8, 2007

"The considerable disagreement between scientists about the theory of gravity suggests that, like evolution, the theory will eventually be replaced with a model which acknowledges God as the source of all things, the Prime Mover, and the only real fundamental force in the universe."

Where should I start? It's all commentary (no sources), and there is no reference to the widely accepted big bang theory, which suggests that all things in the universe are moving further away.. --Hojimachong 01:53, 7 March 2007 (EST)

Thanks for pointing this out. I think vandals are responsible for the above, which I removed. Then I read further and removed more. Please improve.--Aschlafly 02:02, 7 March 2007 (EST)
Do we need an article for the topics that don't disagree with wikipedia? We're basically just duplicating wikipedia's entry with far less research and editing time.--Jesusina 22:50, 7 March 2007 (EST)