Quote:
Originally Posted by Simmy
I have checked both the pro and con side of this subject. Like the many samples I pointed out in my last post, none of which seem to have caught any ones eye. One the con side most who don't believe it simple state they don't believe it because they don't trust the bible to begin with or because the head of their church tells they not to believe it. More power to them. But as usual they can't really put up much of discussion but only finds ways of attacking what you say with little thought attached to it.
|
Not so fast. Wikipedia, however you feel about it, annotates and links it's sources. It has been
you that has been doing the attacking what has been said. Thus far, the only proof that you have to back up your claims is your word. Now, it is fine if you don't think the conversation is worth continuing, but don't go trying to flip things around on your way out the door, because that is simply not true.
Quote:
If a source is of little value...Or do we just believe anything in print?
That US News report you listed says right up front "Professors don't want students using it as a main source but admit it might be a good starting point"
I would agree with that, not everything in wikipedia is wrong. The trouble is many simply believe what's on the page.
|
You're doing exactly the same thing with the books that you mentioned, constrasted with your stated attitude toward wikipedia and National Geographic. You discard the evidence that does not support your view.