Siteadmin, Check users, nsTeam1RO, nsTeam1RW, nsTeam1_talkRO, nsTeam1_talkRW, oversight, Administrators
30,650
edits
Changes
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Line 82:
Line 82: + + + + +
→Uncle Ed's two cents: writers clamoring and carping about the supposed "bias" of this site
Sorry I don't have all the details at hand - I'm not a card-carrying scientist - but I think I've captured the essentials. Can we work together as "[[science writer]]s" to fix up the [[Conservapedia:article|article]]? --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 09:45, 6 April 2007 (EDT)
Sorry I don't have all the details at hand - I'm not a card-carrying scientist - but I think I've captured the essentials. Can we work together as "[[science writer]]s" to fix up the [[Conservapedia:article|article]]? --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 09:45, 6 April 2007 (EDT)
----
It has been nearly 3 weeks, and '''none''' of the writers clamoring and carping about the supposed "bias" of this site re: [[theory of evolution]] have bothered to comment on [[scientific methodology]] here. Does this mean that evolution is indeed a matter of [[dogma]] to them, as [[Ann Coulter]] claims in ''[[Godless]]''?
[[Psychology]] studies invisible events which cannot be measured by any "[[natural]]" means. We can only ask people to report to us, in their own words, what they were thinking or feeling. Yet it is considered a [[science]]. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 06:52, 24 April 2007 (EDT)