2,732
edits
Changes
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Line 584:
Line 584: + +
→Creationist Scientists - Oxymoron
::::Philip, what part of it can be tested? Can be put through the Scientific Method? Seriously, I would like to know. Maybe I haven't heard about it. --[[User:Dave3172|Dave3172]] 11:11, 26 March 2007 (EDT)
::::Philip, what part of it can be tested? Can be put through the Scientific Method? Seriously, I would like to know. Maybe I haven't heard about it. --[[User:Dave3172|Dave3172]] 11:11, 26 March 2007 (EDT)
:::::Do a search for "11:56" on [http://www.conservapedia.com/User_talk:AmesG/Archive_1 this page] and you will find a post in which I listed a couple of examples of successful creationist predictions; i.e. they were testable. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 11:24, 26 March 2007 (EDT)
:::::Do a search for "11:56" on [http://www.conservapedia.com/User_talk:AmesG/Archive_1 this page] and you will find a post in which I listed a couple of examples of successful creationist predictions; i.e. they were testable. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 11:24, 26 March 2007 (EDT)
Philip, I should think this was obvious. A "few" predictions does not a scientist make. To turn one of Conservative's arguments on its head, medieval doctors had a couple of correct predictions, and so did alchemists. That does not justify their entire practice, though. Congratulations on making some actual predictions - though I questioned those same ones on my talk page - but it does nothing to prove the credibility of the entire field.-'''<font color="#007FFF">[[user:AmesG|Ames]]</font><font color="#FF0000">[[user talk:AmesG|G]]</font>''' 12:19, 26 March 2007 (EDT)