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.

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. {{unsigned|freyja}}

: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)

: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)