Two questions were asked earlier today by the same user:
The first has been closed as a "list question" and "argumentative". The second question remains open, and has received upvotes.
To me this smacks of censorship. Is a group of young earth creationists trying to squelch any discussion of views other than their own? I suspect this may be the case, but I could be wrong.
However, even if I am wrong, this is a double standard that should not be tolerated here. If the first question is argumentative, then the second is too. But if the second question is valid, then the first is also.
I've voted to reopen "What popular arguments are there against Young Earth Creationism?" because I think it is good to provide space for both points of view.
Thanks for the feedback, everyone. I appreciate the reasons for closing, but I'm still struggling to see any consistency. If these two questions should be closed as "lists" and "argumentative", then what about other questions like:
I don't see how that's a different category from the closed questions above. And yet, some of the same people who voted to close "arguments against YEC" not only did not vote to close the "global flood" question, but actually gave answers for it.
So I'm trying to understand what the standard is here. Is the difference that the flood question asked for "evidence for", while the other questions asked for "evidence against"?
And if that's the case, should this one be closed?
I guess I'm looking for a rule to determine what is acceptable, and have not found it.