And Creationwiki is a neutral source of scientific info?Ã‚Â
You missed the whole point of the message.Ã‚Â I don't recommend using regular Wiki or Creationwiki as a primary source for scientific information because they both are subject to non-neutral entries from their biased editors.
For the same reason I won't use TalkOrigins or AIG or ICR as a primary source.Ã‚Â I stated clearly I prefer to reference the actual research papers with the raw data wherever possible.
Can you think of a better way to stay intellectually honest and eliminate the bias from both sides?
I totally agree with you assist24, because the raw data is truly what counts, and thats why I look for the original fossil dig sites. The actual places where paleontologist find their specimens, and it's that part of the documentation that will eventually lead to the recovery of truth.
Unfortunately no matter who uncovers the truth, they will be biased. I have never met an unbiased person in my life.
Oh, and one more thing, it is that tiny bias part of each person that makes them unique, and who they are.