Talk:Living Anomaly/@comment-24053170-20190520182038/@comment-27591597-20190520195735

With all due respect, I'm going to smack you downside the head.

How could you call yourself a peruser of the SCP wikia and still claim that most of the SCPs have been "explained"? Describing what they do is nowhere near close to explaining how and why they do it. Otherwise, they wouldn't be kept around the Foundation, would they?

Also, you contradict the article.

The origin, nature and range of their abilities vary greatly between users, but all demonstrate the same uncanny ability to casually shrug off and even break such rules, from the laws of physics to causality

From the way this is phrased, any rule that holds the universe together is grounds for breaking and thus being classified as a Living Anomaly. This includes the laws of physics oh-so-handily included in the power description--energy from nowhere is still creating energy out of nothing, so that would classify something as a living anomaly.

Not to mention I've gone 5 minutes into scouring the SCP database and already found a contradiction to your statement: a Safe-class SCP that defies the laws of thermodynamics (otherwise known as one of the laws of physics).

http://scp-wiki.wikidot.com/scp-1007

Undergoes the entire human life cycle in 75 minutes. Violates the First Law of Thermodynamics as it undergoes such intense growth (and regression of growth as a result of 1007-1) with mass coming out of and going to nowhere.

While I do agree that most SCPs are non-living and thus don't qualify, you can't just say "Some of the Euclid-class SCPs". If I found a Safe-class that qualifies that easily, there will certainly be a lot more within the bowels of the SCP wikia. (Not to mention, 343, a literally omnipotent creature, is classified as Safe. SCP-239, a girl who can bend reality itself to her whim simply by willing it, is a Keter-class.)

Wouldn't it be easy enough to just put "Some SCPs"?