Conservapedia talk:Evolution

If anyone want to remove red links use the template template:cpl. - User $\scriptstyle 2\int _{-1}^{1}{\sqrt {1-x^{2}}}dx$ 03:09, 4 November 2008 (EST)

When there's a lot, like here, it's better to remove them entirely using find & replace. Not find, replace & add like some sliced bread products do.

TOAST

^{and butter} 07:18, 4 November 2008 (EST)

The Fossil Record and the Evolutionary Position

I can find two of the quotes but the Solly Zuckerman is a little old an elusive. I can get the book but it means requesting it be brought out of storage. Can anyone else get it easier? - User $\scriptstyle 2\int _{-1}^{1}{\sqrt {1-x^{2}}}dx$ 08:10, 4 November 2008 (EST)

Tiresome

And boring. Also, full of red links. Anyone give a shit about saving this tripe? ħuman 04:38, 15 March 2009 (EDT)

Change the links on Ken's stuff to cp: links? --  Nx/talk  04:40, 15 March 2009 (EDT)

Red links

Same philo question I've asked before, but this time we are in an actual "side by side" quoted use, rather than just a "grab and dump". My question. Should we keep "red links" on the CP side? Should we direct them to Cp? give them a different color but not send them to our own links, etc. The one thing I don't think we should be doing, is redirecting links. If they are linking to something silly like "First evidence of the flood", I don't think we should edit their side to our link "flood". I'm leaving it alone till I see what other people's ideas are.--En attendant Godot_{"To-morrow, when I wake, or think I do, what shall I say of to-day?"} 17:49, 23 March 2009 (EDT)

Writing Similarities

Is it ironic or tongue-in-cheek that the phrases "which will be discussed shortly" and "in regards to" that CP uses are criticized just before RW uses "we will rebut this later"? It stuck out as odd to me. 76.106.251.87 (talk) 04:37, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

Hello

New here, but are you ever going to finish this page?