Fakenews site ! Claims that humans was created by good and not evolved alongside abes.
Review by ZenBasses Isingt3 years ago
A website supporting creationism. While there is nothing wrong with believing in creationism, it is not a science and evolution has overwhelming support.
Review by Peirson Nwadiogbu4 years ago
Good elaborate and factual articles, well reserched and critical of unfounded phiolosophical speculations lacking empirical evidence.
Review by Sciaia Girban4 years ago
The site uses scientific understandings to present forensic evidence in a way that is easy to understand. It does not belittle others who think differently, but does challenge them to think about how they interpret evidences.
Review by Enriquez Oujda4 years ago
This is a formal paper based on historical research and analysis. How can anyone in his or her right mind rated this web article at the lowest of rating in term of trust? Apparently people, such as those who are atheists and/or darwinian-evolutionists are very bias by their ideology. And clearly the reputation of WOT is gone with the winds.
Also, I thought rating for WOT is to help us identify websites that harbor malwares, trojans and hidden viruses, i.e. bad and risky websites. And not about articles in which the content of ideology some people disagree with.
Review by Slejpner4 years ago
Visitors are confusing their disagreement with this web site with both scientific quality and child safety. The site is very good and offers an alternative view to atheistic opinion and the theory of evolution.
Review by Manogna4 years ago
these arguments seem very rationally sound to me (even if i didn't already believe the bible as truth). they are genuinely trying to uncover the truth through sound reasoning and evidence, and that all gets voided when people see christianity mentioned. what a shame.
Review by Aljeana4 years ago
This site is being attacked by individuals and groups that don't agree with the truth on this website and therefore wants to discredit it by rating it negatively, because they are to lazy and judgmental to investigate the whole site and then take the easy way out by rating it on face value.
It is total unethical behavior to discredit a site just because you're own personal views is in direct opposite with the views portrayed within the contents of a website and you don't have answers to the challenges brought up by the website
The negative ratings and accusations for this site is therefore a dishonest and cowardess covering for personal insecurities.
By who's standards, ethical or otherwise, is sites judged anyway? Who is it that weighs the motives and agendas of the people who discredits scientific websites like this. What authority does each rating has?
The same people who discredits this site is also questionable in their own ethics and worldview that is not acceptable to many other. These critics judge this site while they self has a questionable ethos and worldview.
My view is that WOT should amend their criteria for rating websites only to point out the sites that really cause phisical and malware damage to computers while on the internet. Politics, religion, social and cultural subjects are for people to have the right to make their own responsible decisions and not decided for by ignorant websurfers who fears people away by negative ratings.
You have created a loophole through which peoples own worldviews can be openly attacked and discredited purely by clicking on a slider without properly considering the whole picture and thereby fear people away to not visit sites that carries a different color rating than green.
This ratings is becoming useless without any moderating authority that can delete brainless comments.
Review by Easlink5 years ago
Just another website promoting lies, ignorance, and hatred for free-thinking and science.
Review by Tejasvi5 years ago
Who is threatened by the free exchange of ideas? Science should not be afraid of exploring alternative theories as to the origin of teh Universe. People against this site are obviously afraid to have their pet theories challenged. Good science should welcome controversy and inquiry, not try to stifle dissenting opinions.
Review by Ponsiethia Safeer5 years ago
This website is a great tool for Christians to gather up information on the universe's origins and related subjects. Unfortunately, some people give hate to this site because it they are ignorant of the Truth. All in all, this is a good website.
Review by SayedMohammad Sbaragli5 years ago
No malware or virus's etc. Good science material refuting evolutionism pseudoscience.
Review by Mkclry Meinhart5 years ago
I have no problem veiwing and discussing different perspectives and oppinions. Great website.
Review by Andaç5 years ago
Rather than simply adhere to the religious dogma of the humanistic "science" of our day, this site raises the obvious (but unpopular) questions related to the overwhelming problems with said "science". The content authors attempt to point out the facts, rather than ignore them. Whether or not I agree with them (and occasionally I do not), I find them refreshing and thought provoking, rather than stale and dehumanizing, as is the case with most humanist scientists.
Review by Roshida5 years ago
Finally somebody tells the TRUTH.
Science has been crippled too many years by the fraudulent theory of evolution.
Time for Science to do the right job now!
Review by ThierryClient5 years ago
WOT is not a place to post political and secular views.
Review by Naasunnguaq6 years ago
Fantastic website. They have thousands of informative articles.
Review by DRodgers Derrow6 years ago
This is the other side of Evolution. People do not believe in Evolution can look here for facts and information regarding the reason to believe the Christian side of the argument, creation by a divine God. Evolution has had many blunder, lies and fraud in its past. Take for example Nebraska Man. A total society created from what started by a scientist deliberately modifying a jaw and attaching it to a skull. It is best to keep an open mind to all possibilities and remember science has yet to prove in any way that their belief is true.
Review by Tolle6 years ago
This site is one of the best if you want to learn more about creation science. Those who have chosen to mark this site as unsafe do so only because they don't agree with the content of the site not because the site is in any way dangerous or unsafe. They are abusing their ability to vote in order to discredit a site they don't like. Such behavior is despicable and inappropriate. This service is about flagging sites that are dangerous, not ones that you don't like. Such behavior also has the potential for destroying the utility of this tool. If the ratings cannot be trusted then this service will not be used and it will cease to exist.
Review by Zealander Sooriah6 years ago
If you believe in God this site has awesome information directly link with the creation theory.
This site provides very good information for Christians to express an objective apology about what we believe.
Review by Kouzma6 years ago
A good site for objective study of evidence against supporters of intolerant atheistic evolution dogma and those who worship the science that says nothing created everything.
Review by Lahad VanSchoyck6 years ago
The purpose of WOT is to tell others if a site is
safe (Malware, Adult content, Scams...)
not to tell others that you don't agree with a worldview a site promotes.
Review by Overvoorde Kralovec6 years ago
This site is safe, useful, and informative. The only reason why someone would flag this site is because they disagree with the viewpoint.
Review by DanteTheDevil6 years ago
Nothing harmful. No ads or spam. Clean website.
It's simply an alternate presupposition when examining the same evidence.
RE MOST NEGATIVE COMMENTS BELOW:
~Cookies... everyone has them! Surprise!
~And Swinog is not an authoritative source.
People please rate WOT sites according to INTERNET SECURITY!
Review by SueH Abughannam6 years ago
the "Internet atheist" will automatically brush the site off, claiming its bad for children, without really cross-checking to see if its claims are truthful or not. I side with the RTB creation model, so I don't agree with everything creation.com says, but i also know there is a lot of truth here.