Difference between revisions of "Talk:Ardipithecus ramidus"
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
There's got to be a better way of acknowledging the conflict between [[young earth creationism]] and modern science than a crack like "atheistic science". --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] <sup>[[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]]</sup> 00:28, 3 October 2009 (EDT) | There's got to be a better way of acknowledging the conflict between [[young earth creationism]] and modern science than a crack like "atheistic science". --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] <sup>[[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]]</sup> 00:28, 3 October 2009 (EDT) | ||
:well, we have [[Atheistic Style]], [[Atheistic denial]] (which uses the term ""atheistic science"), [[Atheistic Logic]], [[Atheistic tools]] (which is associated with "Darwinian science," according to the article), and [[Atheistic Values]]. Why not "atheistic science" ? [[User:PeterF|PeterF]] 00:38, 3 October 2009 (EDT) | :well, we have [[Atheistic Style]], [[Atheistic denial]] (which uses the term ""atheistic science"), [[Atheistic Logic]], [[Atheistic tools]] (which is associated with "Darwinian science," according to the article), and [[Atheistic Values]]. Why not "atheistic science" ? [[User:PeterF|PeterF]] 00:38, 3 October 2009 (EDT) | ||
| + | ::How about 'secular science'? I will change it to that and add some cites as to why this dating is invalid.[[User:TESvestad|TESvestad]] 01:25, 3 October 2009 (EDT) | ||
Revision as of 05:25, October 3, 2009
There's got to be a better way of acknowledging the conflict between young earth creationism and modern science than a crack like "atheistic science". --Ed Poor Talk 00:28, 3 October 2009 (EDT)
- well, we have Atheistic Style, Atheistic denial (which uses the term ""atheistic science"), Atheistic Logic, Atheistic tools (which is associated with "Darwinian science," according to the article), and Atheistic Values. Why not "atheistic science" ? PeterF 00:38, 3 October 2009 (EDT)
- How about 'secular science'? I will change it to that and add some cites as to why this dating is invalid.TESvestad 01:25, 3 October 2009 (EDT)