Siteadmin, Check users, nsTeam1RO, nsTeam1RW, nsTeam1_talkRO, nsTeam1_talkRW, oversight, Administrators
30,650
edits
Changes
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Line 36:
Line 36: + + + + + +
→"Gibberish": Let's clear this up, shall we?
:::::Oh, I see now. That must be some weird Australian way to write it. Americans should have no trouble understanding the clause if you put "so they reject these dates."--[[User:Conservateur|Conservateur]] 12:51, 8 August 2007 (EDT)
:::::Oh, I see now. That must be some weird Australian way to write it. Americans should have no trouble understanding the clause if you put "so they reject these dates."--[[User:Conservateur|Conservateur]] 12:51, 8 August 2007 (EDT)
Gentlemen, I've been staying out of this area a lot, but I offer one observation. We need to make the articles ''intelligible'' both to the 45 percent of Americans who believe that God created plants, animals and Human Beings in their present form around 10,000 years ago - as well as to the 50 percent who believe that life "evolved" (with or without God's help) over a period of millions of years.
Perhaps our editorial direction could be to state (all in one place?) what mainstream geologists posit as the various eras, such as Jurrassic and Cretaceous. We can also point out that due to the [[origins debate]] there is controversy over whether the Earth actually was in existence that long ago. Americans are roughly split on this, and we cannot wish the split away; see [[Elephant in the living room]].
If you can read the above without being able to tell where I stand on the evolution-ID-creationism spectrum, then maybe I've got a good point? --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] <sup>[[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]]</sup> 13:04, 8 August 2007 (EDT)