Безопасен ли trueorigin.org?

It is this stupidity which will render WOT worthless. Rating a site as unsafe because you disagree with the content merely demonstrates that you don't have a real argument to present to counter the content of the site. Calling names and making disparaging comments reveal more about those making the comments than about the site itself. By the way, if you have kept up with current, real science, you would know that the statement, that the ideas represented here have been proven false, is itself false. Most importantly, if you want WOT to continue to be accepted and used as a reliable resource then it needs to be used properly. Use it to indicate whether the site will cause harm to your computer by sending you spam or infecting your computer with malware, and so on. Read the guidelines for using WOT. Stop using it to attack sites you don't like.

No one can vote this site as being bad for any reason other than their own inability to accept that someone else has a different opinion. I'm sorry you think that intelligent design is stupid...or whatever.....but that doesn't mean the website is harmful in anyway. You idiots do have a clue what this site is even for.

The fact that opinions expressed in this site does not agree with your opinions, does not make it "untrustworthy" i.e. fraudulant in any way. Deciding for the public which theology or theories are right and which are wrong is beyond the scope of WOT's rating system .

WOT is supposed to warn people from spam and scams and people keep (stupidly) using it to flag anything they don't agree with. Those of us who actually read opposing views really hate it when the plugin that's supposed to protect against real problems is being abused by morons. Please stop.

This site has serious ethical issues. It declares it’s scientifically: “Exposing the Myth of Evolution.” Evolution isn’t a myth. It isn’t scientific theory. It’s scientific law. Evolution has been scientific law for at least 150 years. It’s overwhelming fossil record evidence proves it beyond scientific doubt. Twentieth century genetics reaffirms it. Within the scientific community, there’s no debate about evolution. That boat sailed a long time ago. But, within the religious community, there’s debate. It’s not based on science. It’s based solely on religion.

I have used this site on previous occasions and have found nothing harmful through a two-way firewall or anti-virus software. My guess is that there are those with an un-Christian agenda who will unfairly rate that which runs counter to their belief system.

Obviously getting a low rating based on people who simply don't agree with the views expressed. In effect, using a WOT in a dishonest and selfish manner. Censorship is bad no matter what the content folks, not just for the stuff you disagree with. Grow up.

Huh? What's the purpose of WOT? I thought it was this: Review sites for technical safety and help the average user avoid security threats. The first component reflects the overall trustworthiness of the site: Can it be trusted? Is it safe to use? Does it deliver what it promises? A poor rating may indicate Internet scams, identity theft risks, credit card fraud, phishing, viruses, adware or spyware. A rating of "unsatisfactory" indicates that the site may contain annoying advertisements, excessive pop-ups or content that makes your browser crash. A "poor" rating may also indicate that the site's content is not trustworthy. The above extracts pulled from the published various FAQ's. I have not experienced any of the above and have been on and off this site for a least 5 years. So basically it comes down to "content's trustworthiness" in this case the content is a highly contentious issue demonstrated on lots of websites geared towards this debate, eg. AIG, CMI etc, all of which come up green - do you rank all of these as poor/untrustworthy content? My goodness, where do you draw the line here? Religious/Evolution websites really? What would you expect here? You had better rate them all as poor and I mean all of them based solely on content. Vitriolic discourse plagues most of them and that's to be expected - watch any CNN lately? My computer doesn't care about the content only that it doesn't get badly infected or leads my to throw it through my window - you get the picture. Removing websites based on content i.e., sexually explicit etc. from my view for any reason I simply do it through OpenDNS or some other such service, like turning off a certain TV station - no problem. Has this site demonstrated any of the above outside of content? If so, please site experience and I will stand corrected, if not then the rating if this site by WOT is flawed. People who object to the content as in this case can go and debate this issue on other forums appropriate for this discourse. This is just my view with all due respect to all other posting here. I believe this site to be safe to use. Regards!

Utterly discredited pseudoscientific drivel from fundamentalist Christians who privilege a literal reading of the Bible over peer-reviewed scientific evidence. Useful only as an example of how bad human reasoning can degenerate to when motivated by dogma.

Very well laid out and accredited. *To the comments below Last time I checked, empirical study does show the least biased and most objective understanding. And non-intelligent design is just as much a theory as any other unobservable and unaccounted belief of origin.