Wikihypocrisy - Darwinists Protect Their False god Darwin

Well did they bury my edits? A very openly gay moderator who instantly erased my edits based on his "doesn't appear to be constructive" feelings did so repeatedly, he even went so far as to delete my rebukes on his talk page. You can tell that this "moderator" (Allstarecho) is trolling because he literally will delete any condemning info about Darwin if he catches a change within seconds. No one is going to tell me this guy is making careful judgments with reasonless personal attacks like that. Ironically I was banned for supposedly attacking him by pointing out his hypocrisy and trolling. That's Darwin-worshipping pleasure-addicts for you. On top of that there was a blatant self-admitted troll who got rid of the criticism on the Origin of Species page. Did any Darwinists undo his dirty work? Nope, they sanction him. It's just like Yahoo Answers where the top moderators use stalkers and harassers to do their dirty work.

Wikipedia Still Dominated By Hypcoritical Snakeoil Scientists

I posted this rebuke on the discussion page on Venus of Wikipedia:

Unscientific Hypocritical Propaganda

Saidsoisms:

"Venus is thought to undergo periodic episodes of plate tectonics, in which the crust is subducted rapidly within a few million years, separated by periods of a few hundred million years of relative stability. This contrasts strongly with Earth's more or less steady state of ongoing subduction and continental drift, but is consistent with how geological processes operate without oceans, since oceans are believed to act as a lubricant in subduction. It is believed the surface rocks of Venus are only about a half-a-billion years old as impact crater analysis suggests that its surface dynamics have exchanged its surface for a clean face (wiping out old craters) sometime in the last billion years."

Where is the citation for even one of these statements? Where even a "citation needed"? Why hypocrites you evolutionists and panspermians are. It is also false as there are many scientists who believe it is about 6000 years old. SINCE WHEN IS EVIDENCELESS SPECULATION, "just trust me" "cuz I said so" objective fact? Is this the same as what so many anti-christians on wikipedia call weasel wording? It should be. It is weaseling in anti-biblical propaganda in the guise of science.

So this is what the wikipedia "community" (anti-christian propagandists) considers one of the best examples of their Wickedpedia work? They are right, it is one of the best examples of their subtle sneaking in of lies without immediately looking like hypocrites to the masses of gullible and deluded. I think you all should watch Tainted Evidence - Forensics On Trial and Forensics on Fire to get another dose of reality. Mere pretension does not make something scientific.

References:

http://media.gospelcom.net/aig/Volume_072/03.mp3
http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v23/i3/venus.asp
http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v19/i4/galileo.asp