|
 Awsome magazine!
A review of National Geographic Magazine, July 21, 2009
Submitted by: AJ from Crocker, Mo
Very educational, love the photographs. Couldn't be better!
What's wrong with this picture ??
A review of National Geographic Magazine, March 12, 2009
Submitted by: Daisy from Salina, Ks
I do not get the magazine, my sister sent me this picture cause she knows I love horses and and am interested in wild ones. I've had and been around horses for about 25 years. The horses in the picture " Photo of the day " Story of Wild Horses, Febuary 2009, ARE NOT STALLIONS. They are Mares ( females ) A Stallion is an unaltered male. Hey we all make mistakes !
A review of National Geographic Magazine, January 6, 2009
Submitted by: Claire
It's my favorite magazine.
Best presentation of empirical findings!
A review of National Geographic Magazine, March 13, 2008
Submitted by: Well-read Southerner from Atlanta, GA
Tom Special's review explains to me why the name of the magazine is not Bible Belt Geographic. I agree with the preceding review which finds Tom Special to be...well, special.
5 stars
A review of National Geographic Magazine, December 17, 2007
Submitted by: uncgkid
The guy below me is an idiot.
this magazine is very well presented. that is all you need to know. beautifully made and delivered!
 Pretty good
A review of National Geographic Magazine, December 11, 2007
Submitted by: Tom Special from Riviera Beach, Fl
I really like the magazine, but to be honest with you, I get sick of the evolution garbage that they try to push. 99% of people tend to believe whtat they're told on this subject. Evolutionists always say that they have "overwhelming evidence" regarding evolution, but they NEVER EVER PROVIDE THAT EVIDENCE. I work in the News Media and I know that at least in the case of TV reporters, they are totally dependant on "experts" and for the most part, do not investigate what the "experts" tell them.
You ALWAYS have to listen to both sides of an argument. One side always sounds good, until you hear the other side. The publisher and writers of National Geographic have NEVER heard the other side and don't care to, because they think it's "religion." Evolution is the religion and they don't realize it. Why not do a story on Creationism? Why not interview scientists who believe it? That's because National Geographic knows nothing about it and don't consider believers in Creationism to even be scientists. The people at National Geographic have already made up their minds yet they think that the Creationists are "close-minded."
There is a difference between "Macro" evolution and "Micro" evolution. THEY NEED TO LOOK INTO IT. If you were to forward my email to them, they'd have no idea as to what I'm talking about. THAT'S THE WHOLE POINT! They should know more on the subject than I do (BOTH SIDES) and they DON'T.
When you've got a magazine that is read all over the world, it's inexcusable to be uninformed on such an important subect that they write about all of the time. Do they remember the Chinese Chicken creature that they had on the front page a few years ago and it was supposed to be some sort of proof of evolution and it turned out to be a hoax? The reason N.G. fell for it, was because they believe in Evolution so much and they refuse to question it or consider other opinions. They're sucking up the opinions of "the experts" and don't realize that there are experts who realize Evolution is a fairy tale for adults.
If you're interested, type "Micro vs. Macro Evolution" into Google and see what comes up.
| 
