Difference between revisions of "Talk:Answers in Genesis"
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
(We should stop citing AiG as a source in articles) |
|||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
I think we all need to agree that AiG doesn't count as a valid source to cite for Conservapedia. Having read through its site pretty thoroughly, I can say that it's an extremely biased and opinionated organization with little to no actual scientific value.-[[User:AmesG|AmesG]] 22:45, 20 March 2007 (EDT) | I think we all need to agree that AiG doesn't count as a valid source to cite for Conservapedia. Having read through its site pretty thoroughly, I can say that it's an extremely biased and opinionated organization with little to no actual scientific value.-[[User:AmesG|AmesG]] 22:45, 20 March 2007 (EDT) | ||
| + | |||
| + | Yes we should use it! And of course it is biased - it has a conservative Christian bias! | ||
Revision as of 02:51, March 21, 2007
I think we all need to agree that AiG doesn't count as a valid source to cite for Conservapedia. Having read through its site pretty thoroughly, I can say that it's an extremely biased and opinionated organization with little to no actual scientific value.-AmesG 22:45, 20 March 2007 (EDT)
Yes we should use it! And of course it is biased - it has a conservative Christian bias!