Changes

::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)

:::If you can successfully prove God doesn't exist, then I'll revert your edits.  If not, Wikipedia is down the street.  [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 08:12, 4 April 2007 (EDT)

:::I've seen too many edits from people doing their best to discredit the Bible, but all they have is opinion, and not science.  The "letters" theory within the "Authorship" subheading is the only one allowed here, as it is this theory that nearly all debunkers have claimed as evidence against Genesis; this theory was also thoroughly debunked as being the opinions of the men who postulated it.  They had no hard evidence backing up their claims. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 09:00, 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)

:::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)