2,657
edits
Changes
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Line 73:
Line 73: + + + + + +
→Warning
I'm not happy with the [[Jurassic]] article either, but the problem that I have with your edits to it is that they present the evolutionary view as fact, with the contrary creationist view as an also-ran afterthought. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 22:53, 25 April 2007 (EDT)
I'm not happy with the [[Jurassic]] article either, but the problem that I have with your edits to it is that they present the evolutionary view as fact, with the contrary creationist view as an also-ran afterthought. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 22:53, 25 April 2007 (EDT)
:I do not consider myself sufficiently knowledgeable to accurately represent the creationist position on geological time periods. However I would welcome a detailed statement of the creationist view written by somebody with a suitable level of expertise. However, as I've said elsewhere, the stub that [[User:Conservative]] has pasted into all these articles is of no value whatever, and indeed, is in breach of Conservapedia Commandments 1,2 and 5.
:Since you seem to insist on removing, without demonstrating any valid basis for your actions, my factual accounts (and those of other editors) of the scientific position, and since the current pro-creationist material (such as it is,) is utterly unfit for purpose, this leaves the section dealing with geological time periods '''entirely devoid of content'''.
:Is this what you want for Conservapedia? --[[User:Jeremiah4-22|Jeremiah4-22]] 10:27, 26 April 2007 (EDT)