Changes

:The answer is simply that there are a number of editors who are unwilling or unable to accept that these ages are not factual, but based on a belief system, and persist in inserting them into articles, frequently despite being quite aware of Conservapedia's stance on that issue, and some of them remain undetected for some time.  [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 11:41, 29 May 2007 (EDT)

:The answer is simply that there are a number of editors who are unwilling or unable to accept that these ages are not factual, but based on a belief system, and persist in inserting them into articles, frequently despite being quite aware of Conservapedia's stance on that issue, and some of them remain undetected for some time.  [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 11:41, 29 May 2007 (EDT)

::No, there is no agreement. None at all. Conservapedia's editors have mostly succeeded in banning Evilutionists, but it is still split between young-earth and old-earth creationists, with a scattering of 'young earth, old universe' thrown in for good measure. Because of this, timescales often get changed back and forth until the point is reached where they are simply ommited to end the squabbling. That seems to be the easiest solution: If in doubt, cut it out. - [[User:NewCrusader|NewCrusader]].

::No, there is no agreement. None at all. Conservapedia's editors have mostly succeeded in banning Evilutionists, but it is still split between young-earth and old-earth creationists, with a scattering of 'young earth, old universe' thrown in for good measure. Because of this, timescales often get changed back and forth until the point is reached where they are simply ommited to end the squabbling. That seems to be the easiest solution: If in doubt, cut it out. - [[User:NewCrusader|NewCrusader]].