1,066
edits
Changes
→To be taken seriously: reply to Ed
:Hey Ed, did you happen to look at the cite for that statement that Joshua changed? It has nothing to do with the differentiation of types of sciences. I believe Philip may have placed the wrong link in for his cite of the two different types. I am actually interested in this since I have never heard a distinction between what is considered "Operational science" and "Origins science" Have to say it is news to me but then again I have been in the sciences for 20+ years and could have missed it.--[[User:Tims|TimS]] 11:05, 7 May 2007 (EDT)
:Hey Ed, did you happen to look at the cite for that statement that Joshua changed? It has nothing to do with the differentiation of types of sciences. I believe Philip may have placed the wrong link in for his cite of the two different types. I am actually interested in this since I have never heard a distinction between what is considered "Operational science" and "Origins science" Have to say it is news to me but then again I have been in the sciences for 20+ years and could have missed it.--[[User:Tims|TimS]] 11:05, 7 May 2007 (EDT)
2 to 1, ED is winning. --[[User:Will N.|Will N.]] 11:06, 7 May 2007 (EDT)
:: 2 to 1, ED is winning. --[[User:Will N.|Will N.]] 11:06, 7 May 2007 (EDT)
:: Ed You assert that calling a source unreliable is " sounds like what Wikipedian POV-pushers say, when they want to censor ideas they personally dislike". Why then is the Talk Origins Archive is so frowned upon on a source here? Note that even creationwiki by the way agrees that the distinction between operational and historical science is one used by creationists: [http://creationwiki.org/Science | this entry says "Creationists, unlike many anticreationists, differentiate between operational science with origins science" At minimum, to take Sarfati's claim uncritically is uncalled for. In fact, if Conservapedia accepted all claims as uncritically this wiki would quickly become a free for all. Suggested rewording "according to [[Young Earth Creationist]] [[Jonathan Sarfati]] there are two types of sciece: operational science and historical science" And I again invite you to look for any serious philsci that makes this distinction. Its even more unworkable than strict Popperism. [[User:JoshuaZ|JoshuaZ]] 11:10, 7 May 2007 (EDT)