Talk:History of evolutionism

Inappropriate
''What have I added that was inappropriate? I did extend a quote by adding back one sentence to the original, but that was out of fairness - without the extra sentence, the quote was out of context and clearly intended to given an impressiont that the author meant something that he didn't.''


 * You added religious affiliation information to a page where we were only specifying degrees and positions. Even on their biographies we havent been adding such information. Secondly - you edited our definition of vandalism on an administrative page.

''Why was my edit removed? I reordered them to a more chronological order (it seemed rather bizarre that isaac asimov, a science fiction author was listed first, above darwin and huxley?)''

-If you reverse my actions again - you will be banned.

The people on that list were obviously in alphabetical order - thats why I changed it back. Many of my reverts up until now have been due to the fact that you are not following suit with the existing scheme on the page. On several pages already you have added stuff that simply did not belong or was inappropriate.

Of course you are going to find omissions when you search for documents in the "recent changes" file. Those are the pages that people are currently working on. On such pages it is only appropriate to fix typos and review them using the talk pages. Editing such pages will step on toes.

If you want to help, there are suggestions on the CreationWiki:Community_Portal. Generally speaking, we dont want people bouncing around making minor changes to dozens of pages, with the exception of typos. Work on one specific page at a time until its finished. There is a list of Special:Wantedpages and Special:Shortpages. Short pages would include ones like Alfred Russel Wallace, which are incomplete.

--Chris Ashcraft 22:10, 16 Oct 2005 (GMT)

Purpose
What's the significance of this statement? The evolutionary theory has been around for a long time and has undergone many changes, but it tries to undermine the beauty of God's creation. Kind of obvious, don't you think? What about how it is wrong scientifically? I'm going to revise it slightly. Scorpionman 20:56, 19 February 2007 (EST) I'm not trying to be rude or impolite, I'm just pointing out something I thought needed changing. Scorpionman 20:57, 19 February 2007 (EST)

It should be removed but not for the reason you think it should be. Not all forms of evolution are for that purpose. They may all have that result. That does not mean they have that purpose. Caleb 14:06, 21 February 2007 (EST)

More information on the Greek Phiosphers would be usefull
For starters we know little about Thales, it may be undfair to goup him in wiht the other Milesians. There is one quote that shows he certianlty belived in a God.--MithirandirOlorin 04:02, 30 May 2011 (PDT)

An AIG article has allot of good information on the Epcurians and thier conflcit wiht the Stopics, as does Chapter 1 of Bill Cooper's after the Flood.--MithirandirOlorin 04:02, 30 May 2011 (PDT)