Difference between revisions of "Talk:Theory"
| Line 4: | Line 4: | ||
This very website has been popularly quoted because it accepts the true, Biblical origin of species on this planet. If this really is a conservative knowledgebase, is it not reasonable to present the conservative view on a subject, given that there are many reputable conservative creation scientists that agree with my work as I presented it? My edit should be reinstated, in line with the philosophy of this website.--[[User:BillOReillyFan|BillOReillyFan]] 21:52, 14 March 2007 (EDT) | This very website has been popularly quoted because it accepts the true, Biblical origin of species on this planet. If this really is a conservative knowledgebase, is it not reasonable to present the conservative view on a subject, given that there are many reputable conservative creation scientists that agree with my work as I presented it? My edit should be reinstated, in line with the philosophy of this website.--[[User:BillOReillyFan|BillOReillyFan]] 21:52, 14 March 2007 (EDT) | ||
| + | |||
| + | :Now, now, play nice, [[User:BillOReillyFan|BillOReillyFan]] and [[User:ColinR|ColinR]]. | ||
| + | ::::: [[User:Cracker|Cracker]]<sup>[[User_Talk:Cracker|talk]]</sup> 22:04, 14 March 2007 (EDT) | ||
Revision as of 02:04, March 15, 2007
This definition isn't consistent with other usage here, since other pages refer to the "Theory of Evolution" for example. Or look at Global warming which talks about "The theory that we are currently in a period of rapid climate change consisting of increasing temperature". But the definition of "Theory" here is "A hypothesis that has been tested with a significant amount of data,[1] for which a sufficient amount of evidence (and a lack of disconfirming evidence) has been found that it would be perverse to withhold assent." So to call global warming a "theory" in this sense would be to say that it would be perverse not to agree! Something wrong here .... Bwilliston 02:14, 10 March 2007 (EST)
How can one state that evolution is a good theory on a website that accepts bibilican creation as fact?
This very website has been popularly quoted because it accepts the true, Biblical origin of species on this planet. If this really is a conservative knowledgebase, is it not reasonable to present the conservative view on a subject, given that there are many reputable conservative creation scientists that agree with my work as I presented it? My edit should be reinstated, in line with the philosophy of this website.--BillOReillyFan 21:52, 14 March 2007 (EDT)
- Now, now, play nice, BillOReillyFan and ColinR.