Talk:Origins debate

Your requested feedback

Ed,

I took quite a bit of time to try to respond to your request for feeback. Unfortunately, it was all lost due to a computer snafu.

Here is the Reader's Digest version.

1. I suggest having User:Philip J. Rayment a Sysop so he can edit the page which will probably get protected as this page will likely be a edit war battlezone and the panel will decide its direction. He may know more about the history of the debate than I do.

2. I think you need more footnotes.

3. I don't think this page should become a Theory of evolution article. We already have one.

4. I am against a Aspects of evolution article as it seems by its title to assume that macroevolution occurred. Maybe its just a title problem.

5. I suggest reading these links and reading the WSJ article:

http://members.shaw.ca/mark.64/hcib/whowins.html

http://www.ankerberg.com/Articles/science/SC0104W1E.htm

Here are some links which show that biblical creationism is growing around the world and gives some history of the debate:

http://www.biol.andrews.edu/issues/Hist.Creat.Lec

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/evolution/religion/revolution/1980.html

http://www.cbn.com/spirituallife/BibleStudyAndTheology/Perspectives/colson020722.asp

Conservative 08:55, 2 April 2007 (EDT)conservative

I'm sorry for your lost typing. It happens to me every once in a while, and it's terribly frustrating.

Philip sounds like a good sysop choice.

Footnotes have always been my weak spot, ever since 8th grade. *sigh* I gotta work on that.

One ToE article is all we need. My suggestion is only to have a page where the debate itself is outlined. Or not. I'm an "easily led Christian". Just tell me what to do. By "aspects of evolution" I meant something else. I will explain at length later. I'm posting this before a computer glitch eats this long reply.

I have 5 links to read, and I still haven't finished entering the handwritten corrections I made on a printout of American Civil War. One thing about this project, is, there's no shortage of volunteer opportunities! :-) --Ed Poor 16:41, 2 April 2007 (EDT)

How can there be a debate?

How can there be a debate when each time an article is created, it is filled with selective, out of context quotes and then locked? A debate requires that each side be allowed to contribute. Anything else is simply a staged show. --Mtur 16:09, 2 April 2007 (EDT)

Well, Conservapedia is not neutral to all points of view (only to facts), and (to quote our Webmaster) "[t]here is no such thing as a 'consensus document' on Conservapedia", anyway. This is a debate where (Young Earth) Creationism is obviously right, so why waste space with giving a just account of what the other side has to say? Any screentime we give those atheist liberals might potentially corrupt good Christians into doubting their views. Surely you don't want that.

On a more serious note (I swear, I lost dozens of IQ points writing that), I agree. It's extremely disturbing that an article with THREE edits (incl. the creation) mentions locking and owning in the very first Talk page comment. Is that the official practice by now? How many locked-and-owned articles are there already? --Sid 3050 16:51, 2 April 2007 (EDT)

The origins debate article is not protected, and has no history of being protected. It is, however, a kind of joint project between me and user:Conservative. You might say I am writing it under C's editorial direction. I am comfortable with that.

This article is not intended to be a place to conduct a debate: there are 2 or more other places at Conservapedia for that. This article should only outline what the last two centuries of scholarly debate has been about.

I'm only going to put published views in here. I'm going to describe the sides so well that each side will say, "Yup, that's what we believe all right." (Scientists would probably word that as, "Yes, that is a factual representation of the current understanding of the modern synthesis . . . blah, blah, blah.) For me it all comes down to positions. X says Y about Z. --Ed Poor 11:17, 3 April 2007 (EDT)

We were talking about Conservative's musing up at the top of the page (point 1). And while this article doesn't have a history of being locked (yet), Conservative (among others) has a history of locking articles and editing them to reflect only his PoV. If this article somehow becomes an exception to this practice, that's awesome. --Sid 3050 13:03, 3 April 2007 (EDT)