Revision as of 22:48, 16 July 2005 edit RoyBoy (talk \| contribs) Extended confirmed users 39,646 edits →"Psudoscience" accusations are unencyclopedic ← Previous edit		Revision as of 00:29, 17 July 2005 edit undo Samboy (talk \| contribs) Extended confirmed users 7,668 edits →"Psudoscience" accusations are unencyclopedic: unscientific is a dangerous word and should be used with caution Next edit →
Line 437: :::While I appreciate your diligence in adhering to '''some''' Wikipolicies; unscientific is not an accusation, it is a fact and does not need referencing in the least. If it (creation science) hypothesizes supernatural causes; it does not follow a core tenet of science; which is [[Methodological naturalism\|naturalism]]. Repeating its unencyclopedic does not make it so and happens to be categorically wrong; whether its in line with Wikipolicy is debatable at best. - [[User:RoyBoy\|Roy]][[User talk:RoyBoy\|'''Boy''']] <sup>[[User:RoyBoy/The 800 Club\|800]]</sup> 22:48, 16 July 2005 (UTC) ::::The reason I'm being careful is because "unscientific" can be viewed as [[Power_word\|pejorative]] if the claim is not backed up. Blindly used, it's like religious conservatives using the word "unbiblical" or "moral decay". [[User:Samboy\|Samboy]] 00:29, 17 July 2005 (UTC)

Talk:Creation science/Archive 7: Difference between revisions