nsTeam2RO, nsTeam2RW, nsTeam2_talkRO, nsTeam2_talkRW
13,254
edits
Changes
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Line 93:
Line 93: + + + + + + + +
Talk:Definition of evolution (view source)
Revision as of 15:16, April 9, 2007
, 15:16, April 9, 2007→[[Conservapedia:Avoid personal remarks]]: and that's all from me for now.
I blotted out a few remarks which seemed to be more about personalities than about the topic at hand. I hope no one minds. :-) --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 10:32, 9 April 2007 (EDT)
I blotted out a few remarks which seemed to be more about personalities than about the topic at hand. I hope no one minds. :-) --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 10:32, 9 April 2007 (EDT)
:I reverted mine, because it was not insulting and it was appropriate. If you want to spend time doing this, Ed, I could point you to plenty of others, such as on the [http://www.conservapedia.com/Conservapedia_talk:Is_the_Bible_Inerrant%3f Conservapedia talk:Is the Bible Inerrant?] page. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 11:16, 9 April 2007 (EDT)
== My cleanup is finished ==
I've extensively rewritten much of the article, and that's about all I can do for now. The '''Use of different definitions''' section could still do with a cleanup, and some other parts could do with more in them. Two specific suggestions are:
* The '''Development of life''' section could mention that this is the popular view, and supporting citations might be polls where the questions about evolution were consistent with this definition.
* The '''Scientific theory, philosophy, or religion''' section could do with some more work. I've reincorporated most of the section that RSchlafly wanted back in, but not quite all of it. Perhaps some quotes from evolutionists on what evolution means to them could go in here, along with some references claiming that evolution is nothing more than a dispassionate scientific theory.
[[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 11:16, 9 April 2007 (EDT)