2,732
edits
Changes
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Line 2:
Line 2: + + + +
no edit summary
For starters, this entry should denate that the Ice Age is a relatively recent theory, and explain why it developed.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 11:12, 28 April 2007 (EDT)
For starters, this entry should denate that the Ice Age is a relatively recent theory, and explain why it developed.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 11:12, 28 April 2007 (EDT)
:Andy, National Geographic is a scientific journal. It's not opinion, and you can't call it opinion just because you don't like it. I'm reverting with explanation & categorization of the dispute.-'''<font color="#007FFF">Ames</font><font color="#FF0000">G</font>'''<sub>[http://www.conservapedia.com/User_talk:AmesG yo!]</sub> 11:19, 28 April 2007 (EDT)
: Ames, we've been round the track several times before on this. Journalists' opinions are not to be restated here as fact. National Geographic is journalism, if you didn't notice.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 12:14, 28 April 2007 (EDT)
: Ames, we've been round the track several times before on this. Journalists' opinions are not to be restated here as fact. National Geographic is journalism, if you didn't notice.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 12:14, 28 April 2007 (EDT)
National Geographic is popularized science - it's still science. I didn't see you having any citations for your statements. Please don't patronize me, either, by saying I didn't "discuss" it first - you ''deleted'' the comments that I made so it looked like I hadn't discussed it! If you actually want to settle this objectively, please add some real, scientific citations to your comments on the article. I'll wait until you've had a chance to do so until I revert or perform any other action.-'''<font color="#007FFF">Ames</font><font color="#FF0000">G</font>'''<sub>[http://www.conservapedia.com/User_talk:AmesG yo!]</sub> 12:38, 28 April 2007 (EDT)