7
edits
Changes
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
mLine 65:
Line 65: + + + +
Liberal Bias in Wikepedia...Really?
:It's ''cute''. But I'd get rid of it. [[User:Cracker|Cracker]]<sup>[[User_Talk:Cracker|talk]]</sup> 15:27, 14 March 2007 (EDT)
:It's ''cute''. But I'd get rid of it. [[User:Cracker|Cracker]]<sup>[[User_Talk:Cracker|talk]]</sup> 15:27, 14 March 2007 (EDT)
:I'd say keep it. Given there's a section arguing for dinosaurs existing in biblical times, I think it's good that there's a picture that shows how absurd this would actually be! [[User:JamesK|JamesK]] 15:39, 14 March 2007 (EDT)
:I'd say keep it. Given there's a section arguing for dinosaurs existing in biblical times, I think it's good that there's a picture that shows how absurd this would actually be! [[User:JamesK|JamesK]] 15:39, 14 March 2007 (EDT)
== Liberal Bias in Wikepedia...Really? ==
Conservatives trying to teach about dinosaurs! This is like a construction company trying to build a modern building with a primitive hammer and wooden rivets, consulting from architectural plans interpreted through Aramaic, Greek, Latin and then English of whose origins you do not know and whose different pages contradict themselves. Personally I would much rather trust information that was obtained using only the soundest of scientific methods that was many times over peer reviewed and tested many times over accounting for as many variables as possible. Don't trust this method? You already do when you fly in a plane or drive your car (thermodynamics, aerodynamics, chemistry, metallurgy, physics, etc.) For peer reviewed information go back to school or consult wikepedia. For amusement, browse your heart away here!