Poll: Americans skeptical of "Big Bang"

[Guest shiloh357]

 

 

wikipedia is pretty accurate. look at all the references.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_Bang

it's a pretty waterclosed theory.

and i can tell you that the most smartest and greatest geniusses of the last centurty mostly approved the theory, like werner heisenberg, erwin shrödinger, stephen hawking, higgs, ... and so many others.

and they studied and developped the very core of physics and know everything about it. 

i would rather believe them over a bunch of little scientists who would say different.

and with proof i mean accepting proof. it's only proof for you if you believe it's correct. otherwise it's no proof for you.

Wikipedia is a very questionable source for information as it can be edited any time by anyone on the user end.

 

 

if you doubt all the refereneces, go ahead. 

wikipedia is pretty accurate and neutral. it just describes the theory, and it adds the criticism about it.

if you search for creationsm, it's accurate too. and neutral. it just describes, it doesn't judges or choses sides.

 

Wikipedia is the lazy man's encyclopedia.

[Schouwenaars]

now you totally neglect my point.

and the digitalising of an encyclopedia isn't lazyness, but advantage of technology and possibilities.

i'm sure many people on this forum approve the positives about wikipedia.

wikipedia is also larger than any encyclopdia can ever be, and it is in many different languages.

[Guest shiloh357]

now you totally neglect my point.

and the digitalising of an encyclopedia isn't lazyness, but advantage of technology and possibilities.

i'm sure many people on this forum approve the positives about wikipedia.

wikipedia is also larger than any encyclopdia can ever be, and it is in many different languages.

Wikipedia can be edited by anyone, including someone who doesn't know anything about science.  it can be edited by me I can go in and erase entries that someone else has put there.  For that reason, I can't look at Wikipedia as a reliable source since there are no real safeguards for accuracy.

[Schouwenaars]

i just checked to be sure, and no, you cannot just add something randomly.

go to the link i gave to wikipedia and add something. i challenge you to prove me wrong

 

and we are not following the original subject anymore.

[Guest shiloh357]

i just checked to be sure, and no, you cannot just add something randomly.

go to the link i gave to wikipedia and add something. i challenge you to prove me wrong

 

and we are not following the original subject anymore.

Well you didn't check good enough.  The source material and be edited and changed by registered uses on that page, but most of Wikipedia can still be edited by most people.   And by the  way, just because it is only edited by registered uses, it doesn't necessarily mean it is limited to registered users with a knowledge of science.  Wikipedia is not a peer-reviewed scientific journal and is subject to immense error and personal bias.

[Schouwenaars]

if wikipedia is full of errors, then please point some out in this article: 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_bang

i would be very very suprised if you found some.

i would even bet if i could.

 

and we are not following the original subject anymore.

[Guest shiloh357]

if wikipedia is full of errors, then please point some out in this article: 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_bang

i would be very very suprised if you found some.

i would even bet if i could.

 

and we are not following the original subject anymore.

I didn't say that Wikipedia is full of errors.  

 

I am saying that because it is generally a site that can be altered or changed by people reading, there is no safeguard against erroneous information.  The potential for error is huge.  That is why Universities don't recognize Wikipedia as an acceptable research tools.  Most university professors will count off on your research paper or give it failing grade in some cases, if it is based at all Wikipedia citations.

[Schouwenaars]

Here at school wikipedia is the most trusted website we can citate.

and if someone finds an error, he can correct that and informate the people of wikipedia.

we are discussing this because you thought the page on wikipedia i gave was not correct. again, i challenge you to find an error on that page, to prove me that page on wikipedia is not to trust.

 

and we are not following the original subject anymore.

[Guest shiloh357]

Here at school wikipedia is the most trusted website we can citate.

and if someone finds an error, he can correct that and informate the people of wikipedia.

we are discussing this because you thought the page on wikipedia i gave was not correct. again, i challenge you to find an error on that page, to prove me that page on wikipedia is not to trust.

 

and we are not following the original subject anymore.

Here in the US, we have better and higher standards for research quality, apparently.

[Schouwenaars]

If someone wants to search something on the internet, wikipedia is the most safest possible source. I'm sure i can find americans here on this forum who also think wikipedia is to trust.

and for the tirth time: if you think the article on wikipedia is not correct or neutral, please point it out!! Just find something incorrect, just something!