1,106
edits
Changes
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Line 1:
Line 1: +
no edit summary
I understand that basic paradigm of the site, but nowhere is it clearly defined to be that the purpose of this site is to provide a young earth creationist view point on every article that might be remotely applied. Try the creationwiki for that. I think that most articles that are not DIRECTLY related to the subject at hand should may just bypass the ramifications of "age". Sticking a "this is a problem but YEC organization Answers in Genesis has this press release to describe why its not really problem" on the end of a bunch of random articles will look silly. Yes having silly articles got this site attention, but the hope is to eventually prove the mockers WRONG not right. [[User:Tmtoulouse|Tmtoulouse]] 12:03, 9 March 2007 (EST)
I understand that basic paradigm of the site, but nowhere is it clearly defined to be that the purpose of this site is to provide a young earth creationist view point on every article that might be remotely applied. Try the creationwiki for that. I think that most articles that are not DIRECTLY related to the subject at hand should may just bypass the ramifications of "age". Sticking a "this is a problem but YEC organization Answers in Genesis has this press release to describe why its not really problem" on the end of a bunch of random articles will look silly. Yes having silly articles got this site attention, but the hope is to eventually prove the mockers WRONG not right. [[User:Tmtoulouse|Tmtoulouse]] 12:03, 9 March 2007 (EST)
::With respect I was simply offering a explanation of events that is consistent with a biblical interpretation and providing a appropriate reference. I fail to see the problem.
::With respect I was simply offering a explanation of events that is consistent with a biblical interpretation and providing a appropriate reference. I fail to see the problem.
:::The problem is that outside a very small subset of people, even a small subset of conservatives, it is not taken seriously in the least. Do we want to turn the "speed of light" article into a small definition followed by a big back and forth involving age of universe disputes? I removed not only your material but the material that made the claim that it proved the age of the Universe was at least 2.5 million years old. I think the preferred solution for this kinds of articles (evolution, creationism, age of the earth, ect. are hopeless) is to just stick to basic science and not worry about the ramifications of age. To do otherwise will simply prove your critics right.[[User:Tmtoulouse|Tmtoulouse]] 12:58, 9 March 2007 (EST)