Changes

::: 1. Where did Ed Poor say that he sees no reason to remove it?  2. conservapedia rules require citations, not just belief.  3. the quote <b>is talking about evolution of molecules</b>, not about biological evolution.  4. even if he doesn't believe in biological evolution, that doesn't make him a creationist under the definition here as it existed when the category was first put in place.  5. the current definition of 'creationism' is so loose as to be almost meaningless, and I expect it to be reverted sometime soon.  Even if 1-4 don't convince you, will you at least agree to remove the category if and when the definition of creationism reverts to one claiming a belief in a literal reading of the Bible? --[[User:Jtl|Jtl]] 01:21, 10 April 2007 (EDT)

::: 1. Where did Ed Poor say that he sees no reason to remove it?  2. conservapedia rules require citations, not just belief.  3. the quote <b>is talking about evolution of molecules</b>, not about biological evolution.  4. even if he doesn't believe in biological evolution, that doesn't make him a creationist under the definition here as it existed when the category was first put in place.  5. the current definition of 'creationism' is so loose as to be almost meaningless, and I expect it to be reverted sometime soon.  Even if 1-4 don't convince you, will you at least agree to remove the category if and when the definition of creationism reverts to one claiming a belief in a literal reading of the Bible? --[[User:Jtl|Jtl]] 01:21, 10 April 2007 (EDT)