For example, up to the standard of, say, the Apollo 4, 5 and 6 missions, which demonstrated that the Saturn rockets were indeed ready to be seriously used as a form of propulsion.
The apollo 4, 5 and 6 were not tests. They were actual missions, and the F1 and J2 engines had already been tested and were already taken seriously. Further, the apollo spacecraft isn't a form of propulsion.
Are you referring to the Saturn booster? It isn't a form of propulsion either. It's form of propulsion is cryogenic liquid fueled rocket engines, of 4 types. Your statements make no sense in this context.
The J2 engines used on the upper stages of the Saturn 5 had already been flown (they were the main engines of the saturn 1B).
Taken seriously by whom? I assure you that we always took them seriously, but then we actually designed and built them...and used them to get to the moon. Our atomic engines worked too, and would have taken us to mars had it been allowed.
And when I asked for references as to why Wikipedia is such a bad source of information, I was directed to Conservapedia, of all things. People who donṫ even believe in biological evolution... :no:
Conservapedia is a more reliable source than wikipedia: for example, it has not been found to contain lots of falsified entries. Also, you think that conservapedia (which is a website and has no beliefs in itself) does not somehow 'believe' in evolution? You have proof of this, and if so , how would that prove that their sources that point out the inaccuracy of wikipedia are somehow therefore not valid?
Also, Evolution isn't a religion: if you believe in it, it's not science. Do you think if you wish and believe hard enough you'll evolve, too?
Let's see what it actually says, shall we?
>The theory of evolution is a naturalistic theory of the history of life on earth (this refers to the theory of evolution which employs methodological naturalism and is taught in schools and universities).
Seems accurate to me.
I don't see anywhere where it states: 'we at coservapedia don't believe in it'.
If you don't like that particular reference, there are many, many others.
Wikipedia has been proved to be a worthless, biased and misleading by multiple studies and it has been reported widely. You can't change that by trying to cast aspersions with unsubstantiated claims.
Sorry, you'll have to do better than that.
Also, it's extremely strange that someone from the other side of the earth is concerned with the politics of a country not his own...very weird. For example, who runs your government now? I have no idea.
I also have no idea what conservative or liberal might mean to you in your country in your context. I suspect that your point of view about politics in your own country hardly has any relevance here.
'Fraid your reaching pretty hard now. You should just give up, it's starting to get rather silly.