Rational wiki is surely not biased in any way. Would you, I wonder, read articles I posted from creation.com?
That's why I posted a second source, which you either ignored or did not see.
It's technically used to differentiate between things that are provable and unprovable. For example...
It's funny. You try to imply that Rational Wiki is somehow inaccurate and then you just go right ahead and prove it to be completely accurate on every point.
I was hoping not to have to define it, because arguments like that are very uninformed, and I don't like to waste my time except to say that you should learn more.
Yes, I should
learn more. Absolutely. We should all
learn more. And you should probably learn when to shut your big, fat yap and not be such an arrogant dick.