Changes

:::::Ah yes, I'll be careful of that. Thanks for all the help. [[User:Jcw|Jcw]] 14:29, 7 June 2011 (EDT)

:::::Ah yes, I'll be careful of that. Thanks for all the help. [[User:Jcw|Jcw]] 14:29, 7 June 2011 (EDT)

Can you explain why the statement 'The motivation for atheists to insist on falsely teaching that the Earth is old is to pull students away from God's immediate presence, and to turn them away from Jesus Christ' is factual enough to appear on the main page of 'Counterexamples to an Old Earth', while the additional statement 'The motivation for non-atheists to teach that the Earth is old remains unknown.' is only allowed on the discussion page? Both are equally uncited, contentious, over-generalized and irrelevant to the topic at hand. <small>—The preceding unsigned comment was added by [[User:Freyja|Freyja]] [[User talk:Freyja|(talk)]]</small>

Can you explain why the statement 'The motivation for atheists to insist on falsely teaching that the Earth is old is to pull students away from God's immediate presence, and to turn them away from Jesus Christ' is factual enough to appear on the main page of 'Counterexamples to an Old Earth', while the additional statement 'The motivation for non-atheists to teach that the Earth is old remains unknown.' is only allowed on the discussion page? Both are equally uncited, contentious, over-generalized and irrelevant to the topic at hand.

:Well, that isn't quite what I'm saying - I'm not asserting that the one statement should stay or that the other shouldn't be added, only that adding something like that ought to be discussed first. Quite apart from the factual question, your edits were single sentences tacked on in an artless way, rather than integrated into the article coherently. Also, the article is about something quite specific: counterexamples to an old Earth. If a page about counterexamples to a young Earth existed, it would be appropriate to link to it from [[counterexamples to an Old Earth]], but again I'd advise discussing such a page before creating it. If you think you have some possible counterexamples, produce them somewhere in your userspace and invite discussion. However, the fact that you've clearly joined CP specifically to argue over this article doesn't inspire confidence. There are lots of places on the web where you can argue about these sorts of issues, but CP is an encyclopedia. [[User:Jcw|Jcw]] 18:45, 7 June 2011 (EDT)

:For starters, "non-atheists" is a meaningless term. Moreover, "non-atheists" are aberrations rather than the norm with respect to what constitutes science education. They are simply not representative of anything.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 19:49, 7 June 2011 (EDT)