Difference between revisions of "Talk:Ice age"
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
(New page: Ames, we don't post opinion as fact here. If you would like to present factual evidence here on the talk page then we can work off it and improve this entry. For starters, this entry sho...) |
|||
| Line 2: | Line 2: | ||
For starters, this entry should denate that the Ice Age is a relatively recent theory, and explain why it developed.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 11:12, 28 April 2007 (EDT) | For starters, this entry should denate that the Ice Age is a relatively recent theory, and explain why it developed.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 11:12, 28 April 2007 (EDT) | ||
| + | |||
| + | :Andy, National Geographic is a scientific journal. It's not opinion, and you can't call it opinion just because you don't like it. I'm reverting with explanation & categorization of the dispute.-'''<font color="#007FFF">Ames</font><font color="#FF0000">G</font>'''<sub>[http://www.conservapedia.com/User_talk:AmesG yo!]</sub> 11:19, 28 April 2007 (EDT) | ||
Revision as of 15:19, April 28, 2007
Ames, we don't post opinion as fact here. If you would like to present factual evidence here on the talk page then we can work off it and improve this entry.
For starters, this entry should denate that the Ice Age is a relatively recent theory, and explain why it developed.--Aschlafly 11:12, 28 April 2007 (EDT)
- Andy, National Geographic is a scientific journal. It's not opinion, and you can't call it opinion just because you don't like it. I'm reverting with explanation & categorization of the dispute.-AmesGyo! 11:19, 28 April 2007 (EDT)