Talk:Conservapedia: Difference between revisions
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
No edit summary |
No edit summary |
||
| Line 10: | Line 10: | ||
::::What you want Conservapedia to do is give evolution more validity than the other views which gives the impression that the other world views sould be disregarded. --[[User:Deborah|Deborah]] 17:23, 31 July 2008 (EDT) | ::::What you want Conservapedia to do is give evolution more validity than the other views which gives the impression that the other world views sould be disregarded. --[[User:Deborah|Deborah]] 17:23, 31 July 2008 (EDT) | ||
:::::[http://controversy.wearscience.com/ Teach the Controversy!] --[[User:Gulik|Gulik]] 20:21, 1 August 2008 (EDT) | :::::[http://controversy.wearscience.com/ Teach the Controversy!] --[[User:Gulik|Gulik]] 20:21, 1 August 2008 (EDT) | ||
:::::Deborah, firstly, it seems, by what you say, that you see something wrong with adding cited, verifiable facts to a wiki that claims to be an encyclopedia, which, frankly, I simply cannot comprehend at all. Secondly, applying your own reasoning and logic leads to the conclusion that, as things stand right now, the Christian young earth creationism point of view is given substantially more validity than any other (and not just on that article, but on the site as a whole), leading to the conclusion that all other views should be disregarded. Therefore, your own argument logically leads to the conclusion that Conservapedia is, indeed, a fundamentalist Christian site. [[User:92.2.172.142|92.2.172.142]] 22:53, 1 August 2008 (EDT) | |||
Revision as of 02:53, 2 August 2008
I replaced the text accidentally. I intended to press the preview button and must have pressed save accidentally. Sorry. Proxima Centauri 10:13, 10 June 2008 (EDT)
I'm new to WikiIndex, but I can't imagine that its tone is supposed to be so openly critical. Fishal 15:22, 25 June 2008 (EDT)
fundamentalist Christian? site partly devoted to homes schooled children? Sorry, more bias. Nowhere on the site is it described as such. Created by home schooled individuals yes. Wiki for all, not fundamentalists.--Jpatt 17:27, 30 July 2008 (EDT)
- How do you figure a wiki that says that Christian young-earth creationism is unquestionably the absolute truth, and censors and blocks anyone providing facts that dispute that is NOT a fundamentalist Christian site? 92.22.183.214 20:24, 30 July 2008 (EDT)
- On the Kangaroo article we list the evolution, dreamtime, and young earth creationism views, and give them equal validity, notice that wikipedia instead always give the evolution view and never any other views--Deborah 07:28, 31 July 2008 (EDT)
- The Kangaroo article is actually a prime example. The 'evolution' explanation, and the 'Dreamtime' explanation is one sentence each. Any attempt to expand that with facts and cites, such as here and here is reverted. The Talk page is also interesting reading. 92.23.39.38 16:46, 31 July 2008 (EDT)
- What you want Conservapedia to do is give evolution more validity than the other views which gives the impression that the other world views sould be disregarded. --Deborah 17:23, 31 July 2008 (EDT)
- Teach the Controversy! --Gulik 20:21, 1 August 2008 (EDT)
- Deborah, firstly, it seems, by what you say, that you see something wrong with adding cited, verifiable facts to a wiki that claims to be an encyclopedia, which, frankly, I simply cannot comprehend at all. Secondly, applying your own reasoning and logic leads to the conclusion that, as things stand right now, the Christian young earth creationism point of view is given substantially more validity than any other (and not just on that article, but on the site as a whole), leading to the conclusion that all other views should be disregarded. Therefore, your own argument logically leads to the conclusion that Conservapedia is, indeed, a fundamentalist Christian site. 92.2.172.142 22:53, 1 August 2008 (EDT)
- What you want Conservapedia to do is give evolution more validity than the other views which gives the impression that the other world views sould be disregarded. --Deborah 17:23, 31 July 2008 (EDT)
- The Kangaroo article is actually a prime example. The 'evolution' explanation, and the 'Dreamtime' explanation is one sentence each. Any attempt to expand that with facts and cites, such as here and here is reverted. The Talk page is also interesting reading. 92.23.39.38 16:46, 31 July 2008 (EDT)
- On the Kangaroo article we list the evolution, dreamtime, and young earth creationism views, and give them equal validity, notice that wikipedia instead always give the evolution view and never any other views--Deborah 07:28, 31 July 2008 (EDT)