1
edit
Changes
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Line 12:
Line 12: + + + + + + + +
Absolutely, and a civil discussion doesn't involve deleting people's comments before those they are addressed to have time to respond. No harm can come from people reading what has been written.
==Freyja==
==Freyja==
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}}
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}}
: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)
: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)
:::Andy, I have to say I found [[User:Jcw|Jcw]]'s response somewhat more informative than yours. He must be as disappointed as I that you chose to delete it.
:::It's pretty clear what the term "non-atheists" mean. There is a set of people within the population who (I'm fairly sure you'd agree) are atheists. There must therefore be a set of people not in the set "atheists" (technically this is the complement of the set "atheists"). You may have a better name, but I think most people will understand that the term "non-atheists" applies to this latter set. It's fairly basic mathematics.
:::What confuses me more is that having asserted that the term "non-atheists" is meaningless, you then go on to use the term as the basis for further assertions. If "non-atheists" is a meaningless term then "non-atheists are an aberration" is a meaningless statement. I'm sure you're not in the habit of making meaningless statements, but in this case is does seem indicative of a somewhat incoherent chain of thought. -- [[User:Freyja|Freyja]] 07:44, 8 June 2011 (EDT)