User talk:Rodsgarden

I noticed a misleading claim in the article on Creation Science. It claimed that Creation Science rejects Uniformitarianism. I clarified the paragraph by identifying it as a claim by opponents and included two quotes from "The Genesis Flood" to clarify their actual view: that they only reject the claim by Hutton and Lyell that the rates of geological processes has never changed. David Souza quickly undid my revision claiming that I put "undue weight on a deceptive fringe source" "The Genesis Flood" published in 1961 is recognized as the foundational book of the modern creation science movement. How can you have an intelligent discussion of creation science if you will not consider the actual views of its founders? How can you evaluate the truth of their position if you only allow their opponents to put words in their mouths? My revision did not distort the original meaning of the paragraph. It only added clarifying details which were direct quotes from the original source book. Rodsgarden (talk) 19:48, 10 November 2010 (UTC)


 * Hi Rodsgarden. If you have concerns about an edit you've made, you should take it to the discussion page of that article. (Go to the article, and click on "Talk" at the top left). No other editors will see this comment you've posted; I only can because the page was added to my watchlist when I welcomed you to the site. All the best, Jess talk&#124;edits 20:03, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

On uniformitarianism
Thanks for this comment, this is something you should take up on the article talk page, as suggested above. Also, please add new topics at the bottom of the page, as I've done here: new topics added at the top of a talk page will just be moved to the bottom. . . dave souza, talk 20:38, 10 November 2010 (UTC)