Talk:Nebraska Man

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The "Evolution Cruncher" is not an authoritative source for information on academic/scientific topics. Of all the available sources on this mistake, I don't see any reason to reference a book full of patent nonsense.

[edit] AiG

Is the AiG link really necessary? It basically just expounds upon the falsities already debunked in the main Wikipedia article. I'm removing it; if anyone has a good idea why it should stay, bring it up here. --Cyde Weys 00:33, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

It's being fair. You would have no objection to the truths in the main Wikipedia article being repeated and expounded upon elsewhere (as indeed they are). Let people decide for themselves.

No, the AiG link nor the EvolutionDeceit.com link gave anymore information than what is already provided in the reference section. As well, the ultimate design of the AiG and ED websites beg the question of whether they are reliable sources. They seem to be overtly opinionated and not objective concerning the issue (e.g. taking the stance of evolution as an evil on the world). The TalkOrigins site, however, gives a more objective approach to the history of Nebraska Man. I'm willing to discuss the reliability of the TO article linked in the external links section, however. For reference: Wikipedia:Reliable sources. Rec Specz 04:00, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Drawings

The two drawings published in Illustrated London News on June 24, 1922 should be shown here. Nebraska man's tooth Drawings and Nebraska Man illustration of two humanlike creatures I hope those drawings is not copyrighted. --OnlyHuman 13:00, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Possible references

I found these, thought they might be useful._Dragon Helm 07:08, 13 July 2007 (UTC)