Talk:Wombat

Once again, it would be helpful to have actual evidence to back up the creationist ideas here. Evidence does not mean quoting an opinion from creationist books, but actual physical, observable evidence. Thanks. Palmd001 17:51, 21 March 2007 (EDT)

It's interesting to note that Reference 4 does not in any way support the assertion that it is supposed to be verifying - that there was a land bridge between Australia and Europe. Chrysogonus 05:52, 7 May 2007 (EDT)

Thanks for pointing that out. I've provided a different reference. Philip J. Rayment 09:45, 7 May 2007 (EDT)

Evolution of the wombat

If anyone has proof that the wombat evolved, please present it. Merely saying that some scientists "asserts" or "speculates" something tells our readers nothing.

I've heard speculation that the earth is hollow and we're all walking around on the inner surface of a sphere, with gravity pulling us outward. But without a theoretical explanation (which is falsifiable), I would dismiss such a notion as pseudoscience. --Ed Poor 11:08, 7 May 2007 (EDT)

Ed, so under that logic why did you leave in the creationist section? Heck, we should remove any mention of origins related issues from all articles. I'm not going to do that since I appreciate the point of a WP:POINT sort of guideline even if we dont have one here. JoshuaZ 11:13, 7 May 2007 (EDT)

Joshua, I appreciate your respect of the golden rule ("do as you would be done by"). In general, you can follow Wikipedia rules here, and "using disruption to make a point" is pretty much frowned upon here (as there). I'm glad you stopped your disruption after only one article.

Perhaps you'd like to explain why you feel the creationist section should be deleted. That is the usual "wiki" thing to do: explain one's intent or rationale, rather than engaging in an edit war. --Ed Poor 11:22, 7 May 2007 (EDT)