Block, SkipCaptcha
8,517
edits
Changes
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Line 66:
Line 66: +
Debate:Who feels that scientific related articles should only reference published research papers instead of websites when dealing with research instead of application? (view source)
Revision as of 19:20, January 4, 2009
, 19:20, January 4, 2009cat
I think we should reference any scientific source, whether it's a peer reviewed scientific paper, a popular book written for laymen, or a newspaper or blog article. Whatever gets the point across with accurate, reliable information is good enough for me. Any theory worth considering is worth comparing with the facts. So if evolution is all it's supposed to be, its supporters ought not to mind close scrutiny. After all, there is no way to disprove a true theory! --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] <sup>[[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]]</sup> 09:37, 18 April 2008 (EDT)
I think we should reference any scientific source, whether it's a peer reviewed scientific paper, a popular book written for laymen, or a newspaper or blog article. Whatever gets the point across with accurate, reliable information is good enough for me. Any theory worth considering is worth comparing with the facts. So if evolution is all it's supposed to be, its supporters ought not to mind close scrutiny. After all, there is no way to disprove a true theory! --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] <sup>[[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]]</sup> 09:37, 18 April 2008 (EDT)
[[Category:Debates about Conservapedia]]