Difference between revisions of "Talk:Atom"
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
(New page: This entry clearly illustrates the inconsistency of the Conservapedia approach to science. The theory of evolution, which has an enormous range of experimental and observational support i...) |
(Who are the quark skeptics?) |
||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
This entry clearly illustrates the inconsistency of the Conservapedia approach to science. The theory of evolution, which has an enormous range of experimental and observational support is reported skeptically. But the theory of quarks (QCD) is reported as simple fact though it has little experimental support. It would be easy to fill the page with quotes from quark skeptics at major universities as they do with evolution. | This entry clearly illustrates the inconsistency of the Conservapedia approach to science. The theory of evolution, which has an enormous range of experimental and observational support is reported skeptically. But the theory of quarks (QCD) is reported as simple fact though it has little experimental support. It would be easy to fill the page with quotes from quark skeptics at major universities as they do with evolution. | ||
| + | |||
| + | : Who are the quark skeptics? I never heard of any serious dispute about the theory of quarks. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 13:48, 28 March 2007 (EDT) | ||
Revision as of 17:48, March 28, 2007
This entry clearly illustrates the inconsistency of the Conservapedia approach to science. The theory of evolution, which has an enormous range of experimental and observational support is reported skeptically. But the theory of quarks (QCD) is reported as simple fact though it has little experimental support. It would be easy to fill the page with quotes from quark skeptics at major universities as they do with evolution.
- Who are the quark skeptics? I never heard of any serious dispute about the theory of quarks. RSchlafly 13:48, 28 March 2007 (EDT)