Originally posted by Penguin 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.
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 CLL53 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 CLL53 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.
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.
Originally posted by CLL53 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.
Probably 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.
Originally posted by VoidSpirit 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.
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.
Originally posted by avalanchethecat Probably 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.
You said it -- most -- but we have some of those others on here. 😏
Originally posted by RJHinds 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.
Whether 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.
Originally posted by RJHinds 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.
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.
Originally posted by VoidSpirit 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.
However, it would indicate that their report is incorrect if they described the actions absurd. 😏
Originally posted by VoidSpirit okay, it looks like you've entered super stupid mode. i'll talk to you again in a week or so after you've settled down to normal stupid.
It would be both absurd and incorrect. How is that?
What about those giant human skeletons?
31 Aug '12 23:20
Back to Top