Changes

::With respect I was simply offering a explanation of events that is consistent with a biblical interpretation and providing a appropriate reference.  I fail to see the problem.

::With respect I was simply offering a explanation of events that is consistent with a biblical interpretation and providing a appropriate reference.  I fail to see the problem.

:::The problem is that outside a very small subset of people, even a small subset of conservatives, it is not taken seriously in the least. Do we want to turn the "speed of light" article into a small definition followed by a big back and forth involving age of universe disputes? I removed not only your material but the material that made the claim that it proved the age of the Universe was at least 2.5 million years old. I think the preferred solution for this kinds of articles (evolution, creationism, age of the earth, ect. are hopeless) is to just stick to basic science and not worry about the ramifications of age. To do otherwise will simply prove your critics right.[[User:Tmtoulouse|Tmtoulouse]] 12:58, 9 March 2007 (EST)

:::The problem is that outside a very small subset of people, even a small subset of conservatives, it is not taken seriously in the least. Do we want to turn the "speed of light" article into a small definition followed by a big back and forth involving age of universe disputes? I removed not only your material but the material that made the claim that it proved the age of the Universe was at least 2.5 million years old. I think the preferred solution for this kinds of articles (evolution, creationism, age of the earth, ect. are hopeless) is to just stick to basic science and not worry about the ramifications of age. To do otherwise will simply prove your critics right.[[User:Tmtoulouse|Tmtoulouse]] 12:58, 9 March 2007 (EST)