1,660
edits
Changes
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Line 12:
Line 12: + + +
no edit summary
:::::Really?! My word. I do however have a question. You state, "Creationist scientists assert that pseudogene analysis used to argue to validity of the theory of evolution is invalid." I'm afraid that I can't quite grasp this one. I tried to think of some way to make it clearer, but I'm afraid that I can't understand it. Can you clarify?--[[User:British_cons|British_cons]] [[User_talk:British_cons|(talk)]] 13:41, 5 April 2007 (EDT)
:::::Really?! My word. I do however have a question. You state, "Creationist scientists assert that pseudogene analysis used to argue to validity of the theory of evolution is invalid." I'm afraid that I can't quite grasp this one. I tried to think of some way to make it clearer, but I'm afraid that I can't understand it. Can you clarify?--[[User:British_cons|British_cons]] [[User_talk:British_cons|(talk)]] 13:41, 5 April 2007 (EDT)
::::::I have NO idea, that little tid bit was added by one of our more...........peculiar.........sysops. I think its a knee jerk response to inconvenient facts. Its a line that he pastes into articles and then link spams the reference. My main hypothesis is that he is not intelligent enough to write a section that actually addresses the claim, or can not allow himself to actually READ it and THINK about it because it might shake his faith. So he just does a search on the term on AIG and pastes that in the article. [[User:Etaroced|Etaroced]] 13:44, 5 April 2007 (EDT)
::::::I have NO idea, that little tid bit was added by one of our more...........peculiar.........sysops. I think its a knee jerk response to inconvenient facts. Its a line that he pastes into articles and then link spams the reference. My main hypothesis is that he is not intelligent enough to write a section that actually addresses the claim, or can not allow himself to actually READ it and THINK about it because it might shake his faith. So he just does a search on the term on AIG and pastes that in the article. [[User:Etaroced|Etaroced]] 13:44, 5 April 2007 (EDT)
:I have noticed a tendency that occurs in articles that "don't toe the line" to dispute/ask for citations for facts not requiring special treatment. This has been of the variety of "the sky is blue? What is your source?" This only seems to happen in article that are disliked by certain sysops. The entire above statement is unsourced as "obvious observation".--[[User:palmd001|PalMD]]<sup>[[User_talk:palmd001|talk]]</sup> 15:12, 5 April 2007 (EDT)