Changes

2.  I looked at the evolutionists versions and there were many statements uncited by footnotes.

2.  I looked at the evolutionists versions and there were many statements uncited by footnotes.

3.  I have looked at creationists Ray Martinez's work in the past and I know that he can produce good work. However, I looked at Ray Martinez's version briefly and immediately ran across unencyclopedic language.  For example, I found this unencyclopedic:  A critical view of Darwinists '''in sheeps clothing'''      I also think you should have used footnotes instead of a bibliography since the evo/creo issue can be contentious.

3.  I have looked at creationists Ray Martinez's work in the past and I know that he can produce good work. However, I looked at Ray Martinez's version briefly and immediately ran across unencyclopedic language.  For example, I found this unencyclopedic:  "A critical view of Darwinists '''in sheeps clothing'''"     I also think you should have used footnotes instead of a bibliography since the evo/creo issue can be contentious.

: The first thing I said in ''Discussion'' was that all source cites would follow shortly. As far as terminology goes; the page was intended as sharp and blunt sword swings. I will not pursue this anymore. My work will appear on my own Wiki site in the near future - a site which will feature a topic and two views side by side. I realize that my hard line Creationism is too hot to handle and I am comforted that what I wrote made Darwinists see red and froth at the mouth.

: The first thing I said in ''Discussion'' was that all source cites would follow shortly. As far as terminology goes; the page was intended as sharp and blunt sword swings. I will not pursue this anymore. My work will appear on my own Wiki site in the near future - a site which will feature a topic and two views side by side. I realize that my hard line Creationism is too hot to handle and I am comforted that what I wrote made Darwinists see red and froth at the mouth.