nsTeam2RO, nsTeam2RW, nsTeam2_talkRO, nsTeam2_talkRW
13,254
edits
Changes
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Line 108:
Line 108: +
→This is supposed to be about the Book of Genesis: Not ''all'' research
::Nor, of course, is it an article to spout off every crank theory as to why Genesis should be believed. It should reflect the research - ''all'' of it. But I see that it has now been locked, presumably in order to prevent that. And so Conservapedia moves yet further down the inevitable path of self-discreditation... --[[User:Petrus|Petrus]] 05:47, 4 April 2007 (EDT)
::Nor, of course, is it an article to spout off every crank theory as to why Genesis should be believed. It should reflect the research - ''all'' of it. But I see that it has now been locked, presumably in order to prevent that. And so Conservapedia moves yet further down the inevitable path of self-discreditation... --[[User:Petrus|Petrus]] 05:47, 4 April 2007 (EDT)
:::It can't reflect ''all'' the research; it has to be selective and only reflect the most relevant and accurate research. Of course there will still be disputes about what qualifies, but a lot of the "research" is not worth including. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 06:30, 4 April 2007 (EDT)