Originally posted by PenguinSomehow I think that if there were giant skeletons claimed to be found that were monkey-like ("ape"-like, if you prefer), most of you athiest evolutionist fruits would be all over that, touting it as obvious fact.
You posted the wikipedia article as an example of where wikipedia gets it wrong. However, you have failed to identify any part of the article that is actually wrong. Likewise, you have also failed to identify any part of the 'giant skeletons' article that is wrong.
And we have still not had any reliable reference to anything indicating these skeletons mig ...[text shortened]... any 'giant human skeletons'. Amazing.
[/i]
Now it is 6 pages. Stunning!
--- Penguin.
Originally posted by CLL53indeed. you should apply that to your bible.
To heck with it, some people just don't get it. Their own web sites state the obvious, per no claim to be the equivalent of authoritative information content. Read their information, the sites are operated entirely on the theory that information posted will be edited and re-edited, again and again, to finally converge on commonly accepted material. Note that even if the theory held, commonly accepted does not make something factual.
nobody is claiming that wikipedia is authoritative. yet, you still haven't presented any case for your demented allegations. you haven't found anything that's inaccurate (though i'm sure inaccurate things exist on it), and you haven't proven that absurd things can get on (and stay on by implication) wikipedia.
so the case remains open and you remain a douche.
Originally posted by CLL53Probably not, since most people whom you would consider 'atheist evolutionist fruits' would still want to verify that these skeletons actually existed before citing them as evidence.
Somehow I think that if there were giant skeletons claimed to be found that were monkey-like ("ape"-like, if you prefer), most of you athiest evolutionist fruits would be all over that, touting it as obvious fact.
Originally posted by VoidSpiritIt seems to me that the religion of the Flying Spaghetti Monster is an absurd thing that has been put on Wikipedia and remains on there. But I do agree that some good factual information is on there. I even filled in a missing reference, that they were asking for, once myself.
indeed. you should apply that to your bible.
nobody is claiming that wikipedia is authoritative. yet, you still haven't presented any case for your demented allegations. you haven't found anything that's inaccurate (though i'm sure inaccurate things exist on it), and you haven't proven that absurd things can get on (and stay on by implication) wikipedia.
so the case remains open and you remain a douche.
Originally posted by RJHindsWhether or not the religion is absurd, the article describing the religion is factual. Even the word 'absurd' appears in the Oxford dictionary, that doesn't make the dictionary absurd any more than an article describing absurd religions makes Wikipedia factually incorrect or absurd.
It seems to me that the religion of the Flying Spaghetti Monster is an absurd thing that has been put on Wikipedia and remains on there.
Originally posted by RJHindsyou've somehow missed the concept of an encyclopedia.
It seems to me that the religion of the Flying Spaghetti Monster is an absurd thing that has been put on Wikipedia and remains on there. But I do agree that some good factual information is on there. I even filled in a missing reference, that they were asking for, once myself.
if someone is banging their head on a brick wall as you and cll53 are doing here, and the media reports your absurd actions, it does not imply in any way that the reporting media is absurd.
Originally posted by VoidSpiritHowever, it would indicate that their report is incorrect if they described the actions absurd. 😏
you've somehow missed the concept of an encyclopedia.
if someone is banging their head on a brick wall as you and cll53 are doing here, and the media reports your absurd actions, it does not imply in any way that the reporting media is absurd.