Changes

:If you read the section above, this was already resolved when TrondE placed in the creationist section.  Also why would the methods of how scientists came to this conclusion be removed, when it is very relevant?  After all, it wasn't just some guess but a particular study and the how is important.  Calling them creationist or not is also wrong, because we do not know anything about how they believe the universe itself is started.  After the Creationist section was added (by TrondE), you decided to start some sort of edit war to rewrite what the rest of us already agreed upon, without any consensus or raising objections or anything. --[[User:BMcP|BMcP]] 14:34, 29 November 2009 (EST)

:If you read the section above, this was already resolved when TrondE placed in the creationist section.  Also why would the methods of how scientists came to this conclusion be removed, when it is very relevant?  After all, it wasn't just some guess but a particular study and the how is important.  Calling them creationist or not is also wrong, because we do not know anything about how they believe the universe itself is started.  After the Creationist section was added (by TrondE), you decided to start some sort of edit war to rewrite what the rest of us already agreed upon, without any consensus or raising objections or anything. --[[User:BMcP|BMcP]] 14:34, 29 November 2009 (EST)