Archives

Index 2003–2005 Historical POV forks September 24, 2003–February 23, 2005 December 31, 2004–June 6, 2005 June 12–October 24, 2005 October 24–November 23, 2005 November 28–December 14, 2005 December 14, 2005–January 10, 2006 2006 January 2–February 6, 2006 February 6–March 23, 2006 March 3–April 5, 2006 March 31–May 4, 2006 April 20–July 7, 2006 June 24–August 25, 2006 June 27–August 26, 2006 August 18–October 2, 2006 October 1–November 16, 2006 November 6–27, 2006 November 26–December 20, 2006 December 11–23, 2006 December 19, 2006–January 6, 2007 December 20, 2006 December 26, 2006–January 6, 2007 2007 January 6–9 January 9–11 January 11–15 January 15–20 January 21–February 8 February 8–February 18 February 19–March 12 March 12–March 28 March 28–April 15 April 13–April 16 April 16–May 6 April 27–May 16 May 15–May 19 May 17–May 29 May 21–October 31 July 15–September 21 September 22–November 18 November 18–January 16, 2008 2008 January 16– March 12 March 12– April 8 April 8– June 16 June 16– Current

This page has archives. Sections older than 30 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 4 sections are present.

I was reading through the ‘earth’ page. unsurhprisingly, I was dissapointed because it only shows the beliefs of evolutionism. I am not here to dispute with anyone, however if Wikipedia wants to be a place where you can find information about everything, this should include a header for creationism’s opinion about the age of the earth. In this case there would be many more things that would have to be changed to make the site more inclusive for different pages. Not just creationism beliefs but others too, and in that also the different headers of 7 day creation, the gap theory, etc. There is enough proof to show that the world isn’t millions of years old and there are people who believe that to be the truth. So, if you want wikipedia to be a place where you can find accurate knowledge on different topics, include the different theories to make your case more plausible.

For ideas on how to make this happen, watch as an example: dr Kent Hovind, age of the eart and his creation seminars. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lovenialler79 (talk • contribs) 01:38, 19 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Lovenialler79: NO. Evolution isn't a belief, it's a scientific fact of which we have theories. Outside of American Conservative Evangelicalism, almost the entirety of Judaism and the majority of Christians accept Theistic evolution, which is not a scientific theory but a theological position about the scientific fact of evolution. Ian.thomson (talk) 01:50, 19 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Lovenialler79: There are other articles in Wikipedia that discuss in detail alternative beliefs about the age of the earth, for example Young Earth creationism. I don't think such repetition in this article would improve it. You could add any new discussion of the gap theory, for example, on those pages. Michael D. Turnbull (talk) 13:36, 29 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Also evolution doesn't deal with the origin and development of the Earth. Evolution is about how life changes over time. Questions about the age of the Earth are outside of evolution. 2600:1700:E660:9D60:BC73:FA4A:AE92:DC7F (talk) 16:05, 29 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia editors are not omniscient, nor are we experts equipped with a strong peer review system, so we cannot make edits based on our personal beliefs about what's true. Instead, what we try to do is report accurately and fairly the facts as presented by WP:Reliable sources. The current scientific consensus is heavily in favour of the modern evolutionary synthesis, so per WP:FRINGE we are not to create a false balance by inserting young-Earth creationist claims. This insistance on reliable sources and scholarly consensus is not a conspiracy against Christianity (see Resurrection of Jesus for a page where the consensus works out in favour of Christianity) but rather the proper way of gathering and presenting facts when we as Wikipedia editors do not have the authority needed to decide facts.

The fact is that the theory of evolution and an old Earth are well-supported by scientific studies and the observed scientific facts. To make it appear otherwise would be contrary to WP:NPOV and a form of WP:false balance. It would be akin to adding information about the flat earth hypothesis to the article on Earth. Jancarcu (talk) 17:56, 4 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Scientific theories cannot be proven and generally speaking cannot be true. Google K.R. Popper. Tgeorgescu (talk) 06:01, 10 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

In their book called "The Anthropic Cosmological Principle" they outline ten steps in human evolution that are so unlikely to have occurred that before ONE happened the Sun would have ceased to be a main sequence star and would have destroyed the Earth. I feel as though this should be included.--Phil of rel (talk) 02:13, 24 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The article is about biological evolution, and appeals to the Sharpshooter fallacy made by non-biologists who have no understanding of biological evolution have no place in this article.--Mr Fink (talk) 02:31, 24 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, I'm sorry, I thought they were reliable sources on evolution. My apologies if they aren't.--Phil of rel (talk) 02:35, 24 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

They don't seem very reliable in terms of sources if they're arguing against the plausibility of occurrence of a series of events that have already occurred.--Mr Fink (talk) 03:18, 24 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Are there any sources that mention that there is a consensus among scientists that evolution is real. Not saying evolution is wrong but, I think the article should mention there is a consensus. CycoMa (talk) 02:17, 26 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sure if we wanted to do that we could find something. I can't speak as to why there is no such statement in the article, or whether including such a statement would be appropriate. I'm sure there's a better answer to your question that could be given by someone who is more involved in writing the article.

For comparison, our article on climate change, another subject that shouldn't be controversial but it is anyway, has such a section. Maybe it's because the scientific consensus on evolution has been settled for a few decades longer? —pythoncoder (talk | contribs) 18:13, 8 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

It's a matter of the history of science: the only serious competition it ever had was Lamarckism. Creationism wasn't even part of the competition, same as Usain Bolt never competed in Special Olympics. tgeorgescu (talk) 01:17, 9 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Lots of sources already compiled at Level of support for evolution "Nearly all (around 97%) of the scientific community accepts evolution as the dominant scientific theory of biological diversity."Moxy- 01:22, 9 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I’m just saying it would be nice of there was a source that directly stated there is a consensus amount biologists that evolution is real. I’m not saying isn’t true, I just think it would be a good idea to have a source that directly states it.CycoMa (talk) 03:36, 9 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

There are many academic sources on the page presented above. However this page explains many aspects and is a good starting point .Moxy- 03:51, 9 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

But, is that cited in this article?CycoMa (talk) 04:05, 9 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Evolution#Social and cultural responses includes "the modern evolutionary synthesis is accepted by a vast majority of scientists" with a reference. More than that is not needed. Johnuniq (talk) 05:07, 9 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

https://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-55769269 109.166.139.141 (talk) 08:06, 21 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

1. A theory does not have to explain everything, just make useful predictions;
2. This article is about evolution as natural phenomenon, not about Darwin. tgeorgescu (talk) 12:10, 21 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

(Personal attack removed) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.122.250.223 (talk) 20:54, 30 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

About my English: native speakers have told me my English would be bad for a native speaker, but as a foreigner I have nothing more/new to learn about English. tgeorgescu (talk) 18:41, 30 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Issues with this article include: choppy paragraphing, inconsistent ref style, bloated and unhelpful further reading and external links sections... I have not evaluated the content or sourcing otherwise. (t · c) buidhe 07:40, 13 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

WP:URFA/2020

MOS:OVERLINK needs attention, and looking at the citation dates in this sample section (which references "recent" research) gives an idea that the article has not been kept current. A top-to-bottom fresh look is in order, particularly as the article is now 50% larger than what passed FAC in a period when FAC standards were low. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:54, 13 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]