nsTeam1RO, nsTeam1RW, nsTeam1_talkRO, nsTeam1_talkRW
26,487
edits
Changes
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Line 15:
Line 15: + + +
Conservapedia talk:Neutrality (view source)
Revision as of 23:20, April 2, 2007
, 23:20, April 2, 2007no edit summary
::You tell me, I'm not senior staff. Just a newly minted first-level supervisor. It's in favor of American English and is certainly being "nice" to YECism. Can you point to an article which endorses the inerrency of the Bible? --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 19:07, 2 April 2007 (EDT)
::You tell me, I'm not senior staff. Just a newly minted first-level supervisor. It's in favor of American English and is certainly being "nice" to YECism. Can you point to an article which endorses the inerrency of the Bible? --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 19:07, 2 April 2007 (EDT)
Same here. However once I read about this place, I did a simple Google on who was running it. Since I have been familiar with Andy's Mom for twenty years, and reading what information there was available about Andy, I had a pretty good idea of what the guiding ideas would be. I think it is a fair comment to say Conservapedia will always be on the side of Christianity, since as Andy has said to the majority of Americans claim it as their belief. From its very name, one would not be wrong in assuming most articles, while noting opposing ideas, would be from the Conservative point-of-view. Given all of that, it would still be seen as fairer than most online sources and the MSM. Why, because they usually fail to provide Conservative and Christian points of view without attaching some slander or tone of incredulity. This does not trouble me as much as some contributors here, because I know in researching subjects, people will most likely source from several sites. And that is a good thing. ''No one site should be used by people to inform themselves.'' --~ [[User:TK|TerryK]] <sup>[[User_talk:TK|MyTalk]]</sup> 19:20, 2 April 2007 (EDT)
::: One need only look for conservative's edits. Every time he links to AiG it is about the truth is in the Bible and any science that contradicts that is wrong. I bet you can't do an article on [[radiocarbon dating]] with sources from[http://www.c14dating.com/] [http://science.howstuffworks.com/carbon-14.htm] [http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/nuclear/raddat2.html] without getting some AiG references that claim those methods are wrong because they give a date older than 4004 BC. --[[User:Mtur|Mtur]] 19:17, 2 April 2007 (EDT)
::: One need only look for conservative's edits. Every time he links to AiG it is about the truth is in the Bible and any science that contradicts that is wrong. I bet you can't do an article on [[radiocarbon dating]] with sources from[http://www.c14dating.com/] [http://science.howstuffworks.com/carbon-14.htm] [http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/nuclear/raddat2.html] without getting some AiG references that claim those methods are wrong because they give a date older than 4004 BC. --[[User:Mtur|Mtur]] 19:17, 2 April 2007 (EDT)