134
edits
Changes
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Line 11:
Line 11: +
no edit summary
::::Yea, and I was blocked for it too. I guess there were too many sourced, inconvenient facts. [[User:Etaroced|Etaroced]] 12:12, 5 April 2007 (EDT)
::::Yea, and I was blocked for it too. I guess there were too many sourced, inconvenient facts. [[User:Etaroced|Etaroced]] 12:12, 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)
:::::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)