Talk:Evidence against a recent creation

From RationalWiki
(Difference between revisions)
Jump to: navigation, search
(cover story)
(cover story)
Line 51: Line 51:
 
*I agree, as it is very high quality and well referenced. Might need some internal structure though. '''[[user:human|<font color="#DD00DD" face="comic sans ms">human</font>]]'''{{User:Human/sigtalk}} 20:08, 29 January 2008 (EST)
 
*I agree, as it is very high quality and well referenced. Might need some internal structure though. '''[[user:human|<font color="#DD00DD" face="comic sans ms">human</font>]]'''{{User:Human/sigtalk}} 20:08, 29 January 2008 (EST)
 
**I promoted it, due to the improvement in navigation/TOC. '''[[user:human|<font color="#DD00DD" face="comic sans ms">human</font>]]'''{{User:Human/sigtalk}} 22:45, 19 February 2008 (EST)
 
**I promoted it, due to the improvement in navigation/TOC. '''[[user:human|<font color="#DD00DD" face="comic sans ms">human</font>]]'''{{User:Human/sigtalk}} 22:45, 19 February 2008 (EST)
 +
 +
== Hot-rodding continents ==
 +
I can't help it, because of the ad-hoc YEC argument that things went faster in the old days (to account for such problems as the speed of light), I suddenly had this image of the continents speeding apart to get where they are in time to fit the Bible - India speeding across the Indian Ocean to collide with the Asian continent, the fender bender pushing up the Himalayas and everyone in India getting a collective case of whiplash.They'd have to sue god for that one.

Revision as of 17:29, 23 February 2008

PS, I know that while I whine about your endless typos, this is shaping up to be a really good article. And, ironically, your typos prove that this is original work. Funny, that. Knock youself out, dude. humanbe in 02:38, 9 October 2007 (EDT)

Yes, it really is shaping up. I do some edits from time to time as well. It seems quite comprehensive. Good going Ice.--Bobbing for apples 05:04, 22 October 2007 (EDT)

Contents

Merge into here...

..., perchance, Lower limit on the age of the universe? VirileSterileyawn! 18:33, 24 October 2007 (EDT)

Perhaps... maybe it was a red link? Or, maybe, someone intends to make it larger? Although, I agree, conceptually the two ideas are, well, the same in the end. humanUser talk:Human 18:34, 24 October 2007 (EDT)


Organization

Is there any reason for the order of arguments (date added, effectiveness at damning creationism, etc.)? If not, I feel like there should be. ThunderkatzHo! 21:03, 25 October 2007 (EDT)

If you must have O R D E R then just alphabetise 'em? Susanspeak your mind 21:38, 25 October 2007 (EDT)
How about in order of increasing or decreasing minimum age proved by the method? That ought to be confusing enough to do... humanUser talk:Human 13:41, 26 October 2007 (EDT)
If it needs order I'd go for that. Perhaps in sections - arguments demonstrating the earth is at least 10,000 years old, at least 100,000, at least 1,000,000. But it might be a lot more messy to do.--Bobbing for apples 13:46, 26 October 2007 (EDT)
How about we start by bolding the age proved in each section (ie, "over 700,000 years"), then start moving sections around? And add a short intro explaining how they are organized? Then maybe drop the headers one level and group them as you suggest? humanUser talk:Human 14:05, 26 October 2007 (EDT)
That's cool. It would enable us to tell at a glance if there were natural sections as well. We'll need to be consistent with the use of "over" and "at least". In theory all of them would go in a section "over 10,000 years for example.--Bobbing for apples 14:09, 26 October 2007 (EDT)
Haha, true. Should we go oldest first? Since the "oldest" ones are sort of "best"? humanUser talk:Human 14:19, 26 October 2007 (EDT)
But when you look at the articles, most of them are not written in a format which falls easily into this framework. :-( --Bobbing for apples 14:13, 26 October 2007 (EDT)

<-- I did a quick scan and most seemed to be - one or two will have to be edited? Or we add a "conclusion" line to each one in bold? humanUser talk:Human 14:19, 26 October 2007 (EDT)

Well, I guess if the number isn't there we should go and find it. Because if we're saying it shows the earth (or in some cases the universe) is over 6,000 years old then we should say what is the minimum age identified by the method.--Bobbing for apples 14:23, 26 October 2007 (EDT)
Draw a timeline graphic with points mrked for each minimum. (someone hoo can uplad graphics) Susansay something then! 14:17, 26 October 2007 (EDT)
Nice idea, but I'd say we'd need to look at after we have the numbers clear. Might be difficult to get the scale on as well. Some numbers in thousands - others in many millions.--Bobbing for apples 14:27, 26 October 2007 (EDT)
The timeline graphic is a good idea, but wouldn't it be best to order the entries by scientific discipline? One section for atronomy, one for geology, one for biology, etc. - to the extent that's possible? --AKjeldsenGodspeed! 14:29, 26 October 2007 (EDT)
That's a good idea too! humanUser talk:Human 14:48, 26 October 2007 (EDT)
Yes, it is. But I like the idea of increasing age. First mini article shows the earth is at least x thousands of years old. Next at least tens of thousands. Next hundreds of thousands etc etc. It just feels like a nice way to build the case.--Bobbing for apples 15:19, 26 October 2007 (EDT)
I personally don't like the idea of ordering by age. I like the idea of just presenting a block of the best and almost best evidence at the beginning and then having the weaker ones, interspersed with a few good arguments, at the end. But whatever, it does not really matter. - Icewedge 19:39, 26 October 2007 (EDT)

more

Here's an idea. First, the TOC is not very useful since it is so long I ignore it. So we need a better "guide" tot his article. People have suggested "by discipline", by "minimum age of earth", and by "strength of argument". I'm not sure how best to rearrange the sections, but we could NOTOC it and make a navigational aid or three to put at the top - that is, make one that lists the sections by discipline, one that is some sort of (logarithmic) timeline for them, and one that groups them by how compelling their arguments are. The first two could be done by anyone who can read English and has a computer. As far as the "importance" one, it's more of a judgment call, and requires some serious thought. Since it's Icewedge's idea, and largely his article, I suggest he should be the one to figure that out, and that should be the order they are presented in the article. Then there is no need for a nav box for "argument strength", just maybe 3 or 4 "super headers" grouping them. After that, I don't mind trying to cobble together a way to navigate them by discipline or by minimum age each section proves. I want to get this done so we can cover story this article. Thoughts? humanUser talk:Human 16:08, 7 February 2008 (EST)

That an interesting idea. I will try playing around with a new contents table and see if I can come up with anything any one likes. - Icewedge 12:11, 8 February 2008 (EST)
Ok, what about a sidebar like this? - Icewedge 16:42, 10 February 2008 (EST)
This is Icewedge's article? That's funny, I rarely see him edit... --Star of David.png Radioactive Misanthrope 17:40, 10 February 2008 (EST)
Check the fossil record. He doesn't "own" it, he just wrote almost all of it. humanUser talk:Human 18:54, 10 February 2008 (EST)
Hmmm, looks interesting. It could be narrower, right? And would list all the sections? I'd say, let's try it and see how it looks. humanUser talk:Human 19:00, 10 February 2008 (EST)
Looks good, Mr. Wedge! Do you mind if I try to squeeze it a bit narrower? And, I guess, one of us should pipe all those links to get rid of the visible "#" signs. But it's a great way to TOC this article. I take it that the sections themselves are physically arranged from stronger to weaker? humanUser talk:Human 19:42, 19 February 2008 (EST)
There just alphabetized, more or less. - Icewedge 19:58, 19 February 2008 (EST)

No

What a bunch of BS. I laugh at this.

Thanks :) I am glad you derived entertainment from our article! - Icewedge 23:27, 26 October 2007 (EDT)
In Sovet Russia, BS laughs at you!! Uchiha 23:53, 26 October 2007 (EDT)
Still it's nice to be appreciated. Sad the editor didn't stay to debate though.--Bobbing for apples 12:13, 27 October 2007 (EDT)
If he's like most Young Earth Believers, this is probably the entire argument he would put forth in the debate: GOD DID IT Zmidponk 18:56, 23 December 2007 (EST)

cover story

(Please do not archive this section)

  • Thunderkatz nominated it. 20:08, 29 January 2008 (EST)
  • I agree, as it is very high quality and well referenced. Might need some internal structure though. humanUser talk:Human 20:08, 29 January 2008 (EST)
    • I promoted it, due to the improvement in navigation/TOC. humanUser talk:Human 22:45, 19 February 2008 (EST)

Hot-rodding continents

I can't help it, because of the ad-hoc YEC argument that things went faster in the old days (to account for such problems as the speed of light), I suddenly had this image of the continents speeding apart to get where they are in time to fit the Bible - India speeding across the Indian Ocean to collide with the Asian continent, the fender bender pushing up the Himalayas and everyone in India getting a collective case of whiplash.They'd have to sue god for that one.

Personal tools
Namespaces

Variants
Actions
Navigation
Community
Tools
support