Talk:Endogenous retrovirus

From Conservapedia

Jump to: navigation, search

Creationists assert that endogenous retroviruses are invalid as proofs for the theory of evolution.

The article says nothing about the theory of evolution. Why is it necessary to insert this? Is it necessary to put statements about "this does not support the theory of evolution" in haiku? --Mtur 23:46, 3 April 2007 (EDT)

I changed it to common descent that way its at least a tangentially related tangent :).Etaroced 23:47, 3 April 2007 (EDT)
It still looks silly to have. Maybe every page needs a template that has if liberals attempt to use this information to support one of: abortion, pornography, homosexuality, welfare and the associated Answers in Genesis links to refute it. Would make it easier on Conservative - he could just dump that into the page instead and then protect it. The only way for this to look not silly is for the article itself prior to the last sentence to explain why the last sentence is relevant. --Mtur 23:51, 3 April 2007 (EDT)
Added a little he/she said per your suggestion, any better? Etaroced 23:54, 3 April 2007 (EDT)
Prior to the mangling of the grammar, it was reasonable. --Mtur 23:58, 3 April 2007 (EDT)
And then this edit removed the comment which made the last bit silly again. If there is 'no source' as is claimed, then there is no reason to put the bit about creationism in. --Mtur 23:59, 3 April 2007 (EDT)
Tried again to get it in. Lets see. Etaroced 00:03, 4 April 2007 (EDT)
Personal tools