Talk:Mammary glands

From Conservapedia
This is the current revision of Talk:Mammary glands as edited by MylesP (Talk | contribs) at 19:37, 21 February 2008. This URL is a permanent link to this version of this page.

(diff) ← Older revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)
Jump to: navigation, search

Oh for crying out loud, this is what makes turns this place into a laughing stock: "In humans, the mammary glands are generally not refered to directly." Is this really necessary. I mean what kind of sex-obsessed weirdo would come up with that. And what does an "indirect reference" amount to.

This is obviously one of those parody articles designed to make CP into a joke. Teresita 13:27, 6 April 2007 (EDT)

Myles here. Well, do you think it has improved now? A two line definition which would be less than a $1 dictionary in the remainder stacks gives you, which spends fully HALF its time on telling you male bats have got 'em. What on Earth would be the point in having this. If the super-holy evangelists here can't bring themselves to face this gopic, then just perhaps the women here might hopefully be able to put togeether a couple of pars in a reasonable and mature way. As it is, the current text is more of a joke than any amount of satire would be. --MylesP 19:53, 12 April 2007 (EDT)
Family friendly is one thing, but are we allowed to say for forbidden word here? Its BREAST everyone... say it... go on... its not *that* unmentionable a term. I will see what I can do... - BornAgainBrit
Or not... I tried, I failed, I just cant improve this any more. Cant bring myself to use the word breast either, and if I try to be indirect it just looks rediculously prudish and silly.
I did cut out the bit about evolving from sweat glands though... milk from sweat glands? Darwinists have produced some nonsense to support their theory before, but that has to be one of the strangest claims ive heard, but turning sweat (Water/salt/some slight impurities) into such a complicated medium for nutrition as milk... no, I just cant see how anyone could believe that. Also, if half our pages are written by creationists and half by darwinists, we are going to look very contradictory. One or the other has to go, and this wouldn't be conservepedia if we followed darwinian orthodoxy.- BornAgainBrit

It might not seem so weird if you were to examine the Australian platypus, regarded by ‘evolutionists’ (if we MUST use that silly term) as a ‘living fossil’ with both reptilian and mammalian characteristics. This animal suckles its young, but the milk oozes out through (you guessed it) specialised pores in the skin. “Evolutionists” argue that as time went on, such pores were fine-tuned until they became the nipples that we all know and love today. Sounds pretty sensible to me. Uh oh, I hear the sound of wasps’ nest that has been furiously stirred with a great big stick, and ahhma getting’ oudda here! MylesP 19:37, 21 February 2008 (EST)