User talk:Several ingredients

Abiogenesis/lightning

Is there a good reason for removing the "struck by lightning" theory? It's what my g-g-generation was taught so is probably worth keeping. Totnesmartin (talk) 10:23, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

Of course, this is an unscientific theory, thus it does not comply with the SPOV we uphold here. Just because your "g-g-generation" was "taught" this does not make it true, just as people are indoctrinated at faith schools. Just think about it, electricity of such high voltages would not create an organism from organic matter, but burn it! Several ingredients (talk) 07:21, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

"it was wrong" - ok, that sounds like a good reason! Totnesmartin (talk) 16:56, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

"it was wrong" is no more proven than the latest theories. While a lightning strike may scorch (unlikely to "burn" in the absence of oxygen) what it directly hits, it merely raises the energy levels of matter that is further away. Perhaps promoting complex molecule formation... ħuman 04:44, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

Citations

It's not really necessary to have citations for absolutely everything, we're not like wikipedia. Personally I wouldn't have removed them, but other users might react irrationally to anything that vaguely reminds them of wikipedia. -- Nx / talk 10:41, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

= Your username

Very original, in my opinion. Lord of the Goons ^{The official spikey-haired skeptical punk} 16:59, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

Sysop

After 48 edits without having the funny buttons, your free ride is over. Get to work. Blue (is useful) 01:55, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

Nice work, Blue. ħuman 02:45, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

Wangchao48‎

Is a spammer: frequent visitor under many similar alpha-numeric names. Just delete the spam, give 'em a block & ignore 'em. 08:00, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

I see, thanks for the info- I should remember that assuming good faith only goes so far.Several ingredients (talk) 08:01, 18 November 2010 (UTC)