Changes

::::: I don't take much notice of American politics, and I wouldn't know for sure whether any of the sysops support the Democratic Party (although I suspect not).  As for liberals more generally, Conservapedia has had a few, but they've ended up being demoted or banned for things they did (i.e. not simply because they were liberals) or left of their own accord.  But if you're trying to make an argument that Conservapedia is not balanced, you're right: we don't claim to be.  We claim to be trying to be ''accurate'', not balanced between truth and falsehood.  As for ''Time'', one thing that I do know about it is that it has taken a very pro-evolutionary line, which is hardly balanced.  [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 03:07, 5 June 2008 (EDT)

::::: I don't take much notice of American politics, and I wouldn't know for sure whether any of the sysops support the Democratic Party (although I suspect not).  As for liberals more generally, Conservapedia has had a few, but they've ended up being demoted or banned for things they did (i.e. not simply because they were liberals) or left of their own accord.  But if you're trying to make an argument that Conservapedia is not balanced, you're right: we don't claim to be.  We claim to be trying to be ''accurate'', not balanced between truth and falsehood.  As for ''Time'', one thing that I do know about it is that it has taken a very pro-evolutionary line, which is hardly balanced.  [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 03:07, 5 June 2008 (EDT)

Whether or not Time has a liberal/conservative bias is one thing (of which I have no concern) but just because it reports on evolution is not to say its not balanced scientifically. It reports on current affairs and some of those current affairs may be about evolution. Are you suggesting that anytime, in any publication, that says something about evolution of 'old earth' that it should also say that it may not be true? It would take a lot of magazine space to put both sides of the story. Dont they have other religious magazines for that purpose? Time, New Scientist, SA, what have you, all express the accepted scientific posistion (which is '''not''' YEC or creation). That doesnt make it bias.

Whether or not Time has a liberal/conservative bias is one thing (of which I have no concern) but just because it reports on evolution is not to say its not balanced scientifically. It reports on current affairs and some of those current affairs may be about evolution. Are you suggesting that anytime, in any publication, that says something about evolution of 'old earth' that it should also say that it may not be true? It would take a lot of magazine space to put both sides of the story. Dont they have other religious magazines for that purpose? Time, New Scientist, SA, what have you, all express the accepted scientific posistion (which is '''not''' YEC or creation). That doesnt make it unbalanced.

[[User:AdenJ|AdenJ]] 05:51, 5 June 2008 (EDT)

[[User:AdenJ|AdenJ]] 05:51, 5 June 2008 (EDT)