Talk:Evolution: A Christian's Faith

	This Creationism related article has been assessed as SIGNIFICANTLY PROBLEMATIC in one or more ways. See RationalWiki:Article rating for more information.
This article requires attention for the following reason(s): Article completely lacks an opening paragraph The formatting is ugly

Thinking...User:PalMD

One reason I was thinking of moving it to essay is that I tend to respond to these "first person" statements in the first person myself. But, others do seem interested in contributing. Still thinking... (and formatting) human^{be in} 23:27, 31 July 2007 (CDT)

If you make it a collaborative essay I'd be interested.--Bob_M (talk) 06:08, 1 August 2007 (CDT)

Cool. I think that will break up the sections in section "B" for ease of editing, and open it up. There is certainly no need for me to "own" this or work on it alone. I'll ping you when the headering is done. Oh, and I am also toying with the idea of putting the "original" in an easier to read format in a sub page appendix, since all that tabling breaks the flow a bit. Comments? human^{be in} 13:16, 1 August 2007 (CDT)

All of this wikitable formatting bewilders me - but I would quite like to help disassemble some of the arguments from religion. -- מְתֻרְגְּמָן וִיקִי ^{שְׁלֹום!}

It's not wiki, actually. I hate wikitable markup, the symbols can't be "read". This is html. tags open like this <tagname> and close like this </tagname>. <table> starts and finishes the table. <tr> starts and ends "rows", and <td> delimits cells in rows. The other stuff (width, align=top, etc) are just to make it prettier. The table won't work when previewing a section edit, since some of the tags are "missing". If you're gonna type, type after the "four equals sign" header number and that should work. I'll get the big middle section broken up later this evening. Also: for the intimidated, you can always put things here, as in, "reply to B6: foobar" and let someone else paste it in. I hope this helps a bit! human^{be in} 15:56, 1 August 2007 (CDT)

Problems in responding

Actually, it's a bit difficult to respond to all these statements of faith. The author gives no prof or evidence to back up anything, she simply asserts it to be true - but it gets a bit repetitive simply saying the same thing in response.--Bob_M (talk) 09:21, 4 August 2007 (CDT)

I know, I agree. It was such a howler, though, that I had to transcribe it here, and of course, it begs some minor level of refutation. But it is mostly the tautologies of a brainwashed (probably young) mind. That's where I got stuck on what to do with it - it's too dumb to trigger great RW responses (unlike that Behe thing, which was a goldmine) Perhaps many of "our" side bits could just be links to amusing RW articles. human^{be in} 13:08, 4 August 2007 (CDT)