Difference between revisions of "Talk:Modern science"
From Conservapedia
Aziraphale (Talk | contribs) m |
Aziraphale (Talk | contribs) m (→Needed?: fixed a tippity typo) |
||
| Line 17: | Line 17: | ||
:::Liberal, atheistic thought sneaks in the idea of an insane [[god]] (like [[Zeus]] in a bad mood when some earthly virgin turned him down). They impute insanity and unpredictability to God and His work. We need not accept this view. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] <sup>[[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]]</sup> 16:13, 21 March 2008 (EDT) | :::Liberal, atheistic thought sneaks in the idea of an insane [[god]] (like [[Zeus]] in a bad mood when some earthly virgin turned him down). They impute insanity and unpredictability to God and His work. We need not accept this view. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] <sup>[[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]]</sup> 16:13, 21 March 2008 (EDT) | ||
| − | ::::Neither Philip, nor HelpJazz, nor myself say anything about the truth | + | ::::Neither Philip, nor HelpJazz, nor myself say anything about the truth or falseness of the content of the article. We're all, I think, expressing the opinion that it doesn't need an article and, in fact, leads to confusion should anyone use this encyclopedia for its intended purpose. |
::::It has long been settled that the main article on any subject (on this site, that is) may contain the Christian point-of-view on the subject; many of them do so. Many of the ones that you've edited do so. Why deviate now? [[User:Aziraphale|Aziraphale]] 18:21, 21 March 2008 (EDT) | ::::It has long been settled that the main article on any subject (on this site, that is) may contain the Christian point-of-view on the subject; many of them do so. Many of the ones that you've edited do so. Why deviate now? [[User:Aziraphale|Aziraphale]] 18:21, 21 March 2008 (EDT) | ||
Revision as of 23:17, March 21, 2008
Demonstrate that it is orderly. BobCherry 17:28, 15 March 2008 (EDT)
- Prove that you're a human being with free will, and not just the result of deterministic material forces. --Ed Poor Talk 17:32, 15 March 2008 (EDT)
Needed?
We already have Natural science (which was Science, and was renamed Physical science. And then we got Science again as a separate article. Do we really need Modern science as well? Philip J. Rayment 01:50, 16 March 2008 (EDT)
- Er, and it's not so much an article, as a quotation. And there's no category, or bolding. HelpJazz 10:27, 17 March 2008 (EDT)
- Yes, but then Ed would only have 49 articles. Perspective, please, gents. Aziraphale 15:59, 21 March 2008 (EDT)
- Granted that we don't need three separate articles. But "science" is not the same as "physical science". Ever hear of the Category:Life Sciences?
- Liberals say that the material world is "all there is", and on that basis they contend that "science" must limit itself to study of the natural world. For those who entertain (for the sake of argument) that a supernatural world or a supernatural being might exist, they always insist that its/their operations would be chaotic and arbitrary. (You can't study random stuff, right?)
- This contradicts the (modern?) Christian view that "an orderly universe makes sense only if it were designed and created by an orderly Creator".
- Neither Philip, nor HelpJazz, nor myself say anything about the truth or falseness of the content of the article. We're all, I think, expressing the opinion that it doesn't need an article and, in fact, leads to confusion should anyone use this encyclopedia for its intended purpose.
- It has long been settled that the main article on any subject (on this site, that is) may contain the Christian point-of-view on the subject; many of them do so. Many of the ones that you've edited do so. Why deviate now? Aziraphale 18:21, 21 March 2008 (EDT)
