Changes

Jump to navigation Jump to search
253 bytes added ,  16:21, May 9, 2007
→‎Joke article?: See here and here.
Line 269: Line 269:     
While I wouldn't be so bold as to edit the personal sandbox of certain sysops here, I can't help but point out that the statement: "They use overwhelming archaeological, fossil, and documentary evidence to argue that dinosaurs co-existed with mankind until at least relatively recent times. "  is incredibly biased towards creationism.  Use of the word "overwhelming" when describing the evidence of human-dinosaur co-existence is at best an overstatement, at worst an outright lie.  Perhaps one of the Favored-Ones who hold some pretense of semi-neutrality might consider removing the word overwhelming?  [[User:QNA|QNA]] 11:53, 9 May 2007 (EDT)
 
While I wouldn't be so bold as to edit the personal sandbox of certain sysops here, I can't help but point out that the statement: "They use overwhelming archaeological, fossil, and documentary evidence to argue that dinosaurs co-existed with mankind until at least relatively recent times. "  is incredibly biased towards creationism.  Use of the word "overwhelming" when describing the evidence of human-dinosaur co-existence is at best an overstatement, at worst an outright lie.  Perhaps one of the Favored-Ones who hold some pretense of semi-neutrality might consider removing the word overwhelming?  [[User:QNA|QNA]] 11:53, 9 May 2007 (EDT)
 +
 +
:See [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Dinosaur&diff=141796&oldid=141780 here] and [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Dinosaur&diff=141810&oldid=141796 here].  [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 12:21, 9 May 2007 (EDT)
nsTeam2RO, nsTeam2RW, nsTeam2_talkRO, nsTeam2_talkRW
13,254

edits

Navigation menu