Talk:101 evidences for a young age of the Earth and the universe/Archive1
Contents |
[edit] side by side
I'll run some regex's over the original and get it into the side-by-side format. - π 08:55, 7 June 2009 (UTC)
- OK. Cubic bastard Hoover! 09:14, 7 June 2009 (UTC)
- Right; now that that's done, we can get to debunking it. Cubic bastard Hoover! 11:15, 7 June 2009 (UTC)
- See, secular science has no responses! --GTac 11:37, 7 June 2009 (UTC)
- that's cos Pi got rid of my lame, sunday-moring-style attempts at rebuttal. And this afternoon I have to mow the lawn. With a fucking scythe. But i digress. I'll try to add "stuff" later. Totnesmartin 11:39, 7 June 2009 (UTC)
- With a motherfucking SCYTHE? Now that's going old-school on that grass! --GTac 11:52, 7 June 2009 (UTC)
- Also, can I just add some answers to it? I'm no expert on the matter and if other people already have material planned for it I'm sure it will be much better, but if not it could help a bit. --GTac 11:56, 7 June 2009 (UTC)
- feel free. i put a link in the dinosaur soft tissues one about it possibly being a bacterial deposit, so you may want to add that. </ed poor>Totnesmartin 12:00, 7 June 2009 (UTC)
- that's cos Pi got rid of my lame, sunday-moring-style attempts at rebuttal. And this afternoon I have to mow the lawn. With a fucking scythe. But i digress. I'll try to add "stuff" later. Totnesmartin 11:39, 7 June 2009 (UTC)
- See, secular science has no responses! --GTac 11:37, 7 June 2009 (UTC)
- Right; now that that's done, we can get to debunking it. Cubic bastard Hoover! 11:15, 7 June 2009 (UTC)
[edit] has anyone noticed...
Has anybody noticed that more than half their points are saying that since something can happen quickly, the earth is young? --
19:55, 7 June 2009 (UTC)
- Yes. Cubic bastard Hoover! 19:55, 7 June 2009 (UTC)
- Is anybody else slightly disappointed that we seem to be focusing on that logical fallacy rather than refuting the actual evidence? --
20:00, 7 June 2009 (UTC)
- if it's a logical fallacy, then we should adress that. where their evidence is flawed, as much of the geology section is, then we should address the evidence. Totnesmartin 20:02, 7 June 2009 (UTC)
- Is anybody else slightly disappointed that we seem to be focusing on that logical fallacy rather than refuting the actual evidence? --
[edit] Tea break
Just stopping now we've done half of them to say how nice it is to really ahve something to tear into. Almost every entry here justifies its own article, some of which (polonium halos or mitochondrial Eve) we already have. Totnesmartin 20:02, 7 June 2009 (UTC)
- Moreover, the final of The Apprentice is on. Cubic bastard Hoover! 20:03, 7 June 2009 (UTC)
- This is what we should be doing, not mucking about with CP. Cubic bastard Hoover! 20:05, 7 June 2009 (UTC)
- It most certainly is. I'll start on Age of the oceans. --
20:06, 7 June 2009 (UTC)
- Hope you don't mind me bypassing that redirect, A. Totnesmartin 20:53, 7 June 2009 (UTC)
- It most certainly is. I'll start on Age of the oceans. --
- This is what we should be doing, not mucking about with CP. Cubic bastard Hoover! 20:05, 7 June 2009 (UTC)
[edit] Old Earth Article
My timezone is sending me to bed but I've just been looking at Evidence against a recent creation. I suspect that there is some good investigation already there which could be incorporated into/explicitly referenced in this article.--Bobbing up 21:11, 7 June 2009 (UTC)
- I'm sticking that shit in where appropriate. You should too. It's well researched and well written stuff.

User:Nutty Roux/sigtalk 00:38, 8 June 2009 (UTC)
[edit] End tea break
Right, let's get back to work. Cubic bastard Hoover! 21:23, 7 June 2009 (UTC)
- You get back to work, I'm gardening. ħuman
06:42, 8 June 2009 (UTC)