Talk:Outline of the creation–evolution controversy

message: Are the italics at the bottom of this a violation of Wikipedia:No disclaimer templates given that one of the five includes "Wikipedia's current policy is to include such content, provided it breaches neither any of our existing policies (especially Neutral point of view)..." Hipocrite - «Talk» 20:19, 2 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Sorry, I don't understand that. I'm not trying to ignore you, but I'm going to go on and paste a quote below. Uncle Ed 21:01, 2 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Untitled

message: On the PFAW web site:
:"Earlier polls have really only scratched the surface of this very complex and nuanced issue," said Daniel Yankelovich, president of the polling firm DYG, Inc. "Three or four survey items are not enough to understand how the public really thinks about evolution and creationism in the classroom. We developed an entire, comprehensive survey to exploring the numerous and critically important facets involved in public opinion on this issue." 
I would like Wikipedia to express accurately how the American public thinks about evolution and creationism in the classroom. Is there a policy against this? Or is there a policy which says that if a dozen people don't want Wikipedia to include a topic that they have a right to delete any article which includes this information? That would be a missapplication of deletion policy. Uncle Ed 21:01, 2 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks. Good luck with this. Don't get stressed! Hipocrite - «Talk» 21:40, 2 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Difficulty of understanding what "evolution" is

message: We need to take this article out of a creationist view trying to be PC in front of evolutionists.  You have made this article about polls and not about actual terms and their use by either side.  
:Both sides in the creation-evolution controversy claim that a majority of Americans support their point of view on "evolution".
:Although just about all Americans have heard of Evolution, less than half say they are very familiar with it. Further, roughly one in three hold an incorrect definition of Evolution. [1]
It appears as if it is only an introduction into your preferred article listed below the intro: 
:Public opinion polls show that Americans are apt to give significantly different answers to the question "Do you believe in evolution" depending on the definiton of the term.
:See:
:* evolution poll
The only definition you chose to add was the most useless in this article.  Please pardon me if you consider "useless" as an attack but it is meant as a criticism since it does not help anyone coming to this page.  I came here hoping to see the terms used in the debate and found only "evolution" a term that is the sole focus of the debate, and thus useless to debater or audience in deciding the issue.  Where are the actual terms used by each side to explain their opinions regarding evolution? - Tεxτurε 21:55, 2 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Good criticisms; thank you. I will add those terms bit by bit over the coming days, provided that no one deletes this article! Uncle Ed 22:08, 2 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  POV issues 

message: Joshua has done an excellent job of listing terms, each of which is a blue link because there's an entire article about each term. I had thought he just copied this from the evolution (disambiguation) page, but he says not - and I believe him. Even without glancing back and studying the differences, it's plain that Joshua's new work goes far beyond distinguishing different uses of the word "evolution".
But none of the these Terms used in the creation-evolution controversy are defined in the present article. It is precisely and merely a list of Articles related to the creation-evolution controversy. Hence the page move. Uncle Ed 11:49, 5 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: List of articles vs. definitions of terms

message: *The term evolution is often invoked by creationists to represent science in general.
If many articles at Wikipedia make this claim, it should be easy to provide a reference for it. Can anyone point me to a source outside of Wikipedia in which a Creationist equates "evolution" with science in general? --Uncle Ed (talk) 18:45, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Deleted, together with some other unreferenced editorializing. - 7-bubёn >t 16:02, 26 March 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Evolution equals science?

message: please note science tries to unfold he blue prints of nature and it has grossly affected a well oiled and researched creation, each stage has been an experiment of God and it fails he destroys and starts again take for example dinosaurs they were too big and were eating up everything he destroyed them and moved on to something smaller what scientists call evolution. life is a cycle of which God(nature) is the core. i have evidence of how minerals make up for knowledge and how lack of a mineral makes us mortal the mineral we lack is out of reach of plants which bring up to surface what animals need for nutrition. the flaming sword refered in the bible is the molten lava below us if plants could grow their roots that deep living things could get that element which gives eternal life197.69.26.139 (talk) 17:31, 26 August 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  new evidence exist on creation 

message: "Outline" is short for "hierarchical outline". There are two types of outlines: sentence outlines (like those you made in school to plan a paper), and topic outlines (like the topical synopses that professors hand out at the beginning of a college course). Outlines on Wikipedia are primarily topic outlines that serve 2 main purposes: they provide taxonomical classification of subjects showing what topics belong to a subject and how they are related to each other (via their placement in the tree structure), and as subject-based tables of contents linked to topics in the encyclopedia. The hierarchy is maintained through the use of heading levels and indented bullets. See Wikipedia:Outlines for a more in-depth explanation.  The Transhumanist 00:11, 9 August 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Quick explanation of Wikipedia outlines