Who do you trust?
2007-03-04 12:12:22 · 10 answers · asked by Asilos Magdalena 1 in Society & Culture ➔ Religion & Spirituality
"There is no consensus among scientists about how evolution happened. Those who are dependent on the theory of evolution for grant money or academic support state that evolution must have happened, but cannot provided evidence for how it happened."
http://www.conservapedia.com/
2007-03-04 12:14:20 · update #1
Conservapedia is a site run by some thickhead who believes that liberals are mad and evil psychos, believes that the Renaissance was inspired by Christianity (dear god!), they say that most Englis-Speaking users are Americain?! I am Swiss for god's sake, I know many Polish users on the English Wikipedia, and countless other nationalities. Hapsburg isn't even a foreign word! Their article on the Theory of Evolution is so biased it would make any decent Wikipedian faint in horror!
This site is a heap of rubbish,
S.O.
2007-03-07 04:43:21 · answer #1 · answered by Jean-Paul J 5 · 0⤊ 1⤋
i do not. i do not see how all of us being gay would influence me except it become my husband. that would tick me off. i think that homosexuals must have a similar rights as all of us else. I also believe that if the states ever enable homosexuals and lesbians to marry, the church homes do no longer might want to finished such marriages. They nevertheless have the right to outline their sacraments and rituals, and the gov has to stay out. i'd quite see a magnificent Lesbian couple undertake a baby than have that youngster stay in foster care. i'm no longer afraid to have a gay guy be the trainer of my son's little league crew, anymore than i'd be afraid for someone's' daddy to trainer my daughter's crew. Having been fascinated about musical theatre for decades, i have time-honored a great number of gay adult men and women people. some were entire jerks, a twin of a few heterosexuals are, and some were advantageous people i think privileged to have time-honored, a twin of heterosexuals. Prejudice is prejudice, whoever the objective is. As for those communities on the internet web site, concentration on the family individuals et al...they don't communicate for all Christians, easily no longer for me.
2016-11-27 21:49:49 · answer #2 · answered by loveall 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Neither. Wikipedia is full of misinformation because anyone can edit it, and Conservapedia has a viewpoint. I would rather trust a real encyclopedia written by professional researchers and presented in a way that doesn't express any viewpoint.
2007-03-04 12:18:58 · answer #3 · answered by swordarkeereon 6 · 1⤊ 1⤋
http://www.conservapedia.com/Lamarck
lol
"Lamarck suggested that giraffes got long necks by stretching to reach trees, when clearly they got long necks because God wanted them to be long. Lamarck is now an object of derision amongst scientists, much like Darwin will be in a year or two."
2007-03-04 12:20:29 · answer #4 · answered by meee 2 · 0⤊ 1⤋
...and a scientist who could actually disprove evolution would be set for grant money for life.
Since only one Creationist has ever been honest, I'd go with Wikipedia.
2007-03-04 12:19:43 · answer #5 · answered by novangelis 7 · 3⤊ 1⤋
If it's a choice between the two, I choose Wikipedia. I didn't even know the other site existed. Thanks for the heads up, it should make for a great laugh.
2007-03-04 12:16:25 · answer #6 · answered by taa 4 · 2⤊ 1⤋
Both allow just regular people to write the definitions. I'd stick to the dictionary. Encarta is also relatively reliable.
2007-03-04 12:21:17 · answer #7 · answered by All 4 His Glory 3 · 0⤊ 1⤋
I go to Wikipedia or Religious Tolerance.org for my information.
2007-03-04 12:24:35 · answer #8 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 2⤋
Try uncyclopedia
wikipedia is gay and conservapedia was probably made by some republican "ayatollahs".
2007-03-04 12:15:10 · answer #9 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 2⤋
Thanks for the link. It made me laugh.
2007-03-04 12:17:50 · answer #10 · answered by SomeGuy 6 · 1⤊ 2⤋