nsTeam2RO, nsTeam2RW, nsTeam2_talkRO, nsTeam2_talkRW
13,254
edits
Changes
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Line 37:
Line 37: + + + + + + + +
→Flagrant propaganda: An anti-Christian bias?
::It wasn't even a popular belief. It was brought to light in a fictitious novel based loosely around Columbus's journey and thereafter blown out of all proportion with regards historical significance. The article as it stands does not portray these facts and what is more, it appears to slander evolutionists. [[User:MatteeNeutra|MatteeNeutra]] 11:48, 4 April 2007 (EDT)
::It wasn't even a popular belief. It was brought to light in a fictitious novel based loosely around Columbus's journey and thereafter blown out of all proportion with regards historical significance. The article as it stands does not portray these facts and what is more, it appears to slander evolutionists. [[User:MatteeNeutra|MatteeNeutra]] 11:48, 4 April 2007 (EDT)
:::Two quotes from MatteeNeutra:
:::*''Evolutionists need not promote fake theory to slander christians, YEC's do that quite admirably themselves.''
:::*''The article ... appears to slander evolutionists.''
:::Ever heard, "if the cap fits..."? You accuse YECs of being self-slandering, but seem to overlook that perhaps this is a case where the evolutionists are self-slandering, with the article simply documenting that.
:::*''The sources for this information are '''ALL''' from christian websites''
:::True, but does that automatically make them wrong? Of course not, unless you have an anti-Christian bias. Note that the link I added was to an article written by a "Professor of History, Emeritus, at the University of California, Santa Barbara"[http://www.veritas-ucsb.org/library/russell/home.html] Does that count for nothing simply because the article was republished on a Christian web-site?
:::[[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 12:02, 4 April 2007 (EDT)