42
edits
Changes
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Line 18:
Line 18: + +
no edit summary
:::::::: You are getting way off-topic here. I have no problem saying evolution is a fact. I don't know who funds the Discovery Institute, and I wouldn't try to read their minds anyway. I am not saying that those funders are scientists; they probably are not. They do seem to have a different opinion about evolution, but so what? They are entitled to their opinions. And none of this has anything to do with atoms. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 21:44, 29 March 2007 (EDT)
:::::::: You are getting way off-topic here. I have no problem saying evolution is a fact. I don't know who funds the Discovery Institute, and I wouldn't try to read their minds anyway. I am not saying that those funders are scientists; they probably are not. They do seem to have a different opinion about evolution, but so what? They are entitled to their opinions. And none of this has anything to do with atoms. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 21:44, 29 March 2007 (EDT)
:::::::::It may have nothing to do with atoms, but it has much to do with the conservapedia. Sometimes they dredge up uncertainty where there is none (evolution). In other places, they report more certainty than there is (quarks).
::::::::At the level of support the central theories of modern science enjoy, I'm not entirely sure attempting to rank them in terms of strength is even particularly meaningful. [[User:Tsumetai|Tsumetai]] 11:30, 30 March 2007 (EDT)
::::::::At the level of support the central theories of modern science enjoy, I'm not entirely sure attempting to rank them in terms of strength is even particularly meaningful. [[User:Tsumetai|Tsumetai]] 11:30, 30 March 2007 (EDT)