2 replaced http://skeptics.stackexchange.com/ with https://skeptics.stackexchange.com/
source | link

On the "Is the Earth 6000 years old?Is the Earth 6000 years old?" question, there are a few deleted answers which, while wrong, are, technically speaking, supported by references.

The issue is that they are supported by unreputable references and that they are consequently heavily downvoted.

The intent in deleting them is to avoid promoting the sites they link, however there's also value in showing both sides and letting people judge.

Please share your thoughts below, thanks.

Here is the list of the ones I'm talking about:

  1. this needs the whole "questions for evolutionists" section removed if undeletedthis needs the whole "questions for evolutionists" section removed if undeleted
  2. not sure because it doesn't really explain anythingnot sure because it doesn't really explain anything
  3. this should be OK as isthis should be OK as is
  4. this probably needs a little more explanationthis probably needs a little more explanation

On the "Is the Earth 6000 years old?" question, there are a few deleted answers which, while wrong, are, technically speaking, supported by references.

The issue is that they are supported by unreputable references and that they are consequently heavily downvoted.

The intent in deleting them is to avoid promoting the sites they link, however there's also value in showing both sides and letting people judge.

Please share your thoughts below, thanks.

Here is the list of the ones I'm talking about:

  1. this needs the whole "questions for evolutionists" section removed if undeleted
  2. not sure because it doesn't really explain anything
  3. this should be OK as is
  4. this probably needs a little more explanation

On the "Is the Earth 6000 years old?" question, there are a few deleted answers which, while wrong, are, technically speaking, supported by references.

The issue is that they are supported by unreputable references and that they are consequently heavily downvoted.

The intent in deleting them is to avoid promoting the sites they link, however there's also value in showing both sides and letting people judge.

Please share your thoughts below, thanks.

Here is the list of the ones I'm talking about:

  1. this needs the whole "questions for evolutionists" section removed if undeleted
  2. not sure because it doesn't really explain anything
  3. this should be OK as is
  4. this probably needs a little more explanation
1
source | link

Should we undelete these answers?

On the "Is the Earth 6000 years old?" question, there are a few deleted answers which, while wrong, are, technically speaking, supported by references.

The issue is that they are supported by unreputable references and that they are consequently heavily downvoted.

The intent in deleting them is to avoid promoting the sites they link, however there's also value in showing both sides and letting people judge.

Please share your thoughts below, thanks.

Here is the list of the ones I'm talking about:

  1. this needs the whole "questions for evolutionists" section removed if undeleted
  2. not sure because it doesn't really explain anything
  3. this should be OK as is
  4. this probably needs a little more explanation