Talk:101 evidences for a young age of the Earth and the universe/Archive2

Astronomy section
This needs some work; very few of the points are rebutted. 21:34, 7 June 2009 (UTC)
 * I've looked up a few points, and it's very technical stuff. Plus, it's not like there's a deadline. Totnesmartin 23:31, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

Side-by-side style remark
As a quick 1:20am note, the gap between the two columns should be a tick larger, or we should have some sort of dividing line. Right now, the "damage" is small because of the length differences, but it's still a bit startling when you try to read the rebuttal, skip into the next line... and don't have a "start reading here" mark because there is no visible divider. Maybe a thin light grey line in the middle? It wouldn't get in the way, but it would still give a border of sorts... --Sid 23:20, 7 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Yeah, I noticed that. The tables are supposed to each be 45% wide, with a 10% wide empty cell in the middle of each row.  What happened? Ah, I see.  The empty cells are missing...  23:30, 7 June 2009 (UTC)
 * I could fix it, but I'd need a "safe window" in which to copy the source, run a find/replace over it, and then copy it back. Shall I just add a note at the top and do it?   23:31, 7 June 2009 (UTC)
 * I'll fix, just give me a minute. 23:35, 7 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Cool, thanks. 23:50, 7 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Done. 23:52, 7 June 2009 (UTC)


 * That's not it - the cellspacing is not the solution. You need to add &nb sp;  between each section. With no space between &nb and sp;, of course.  23:54, 7 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Okay roll it back and I'll give it another go. 23:56, 7 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Actually don't I will fix it. 23:57, 7 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Looks good, thanks. 00:19, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

Creational journal refs
I went through and started adding links to specific articles cited in the batshittery on the left and found that most articles are on subscription sites. If you find alternate sources of articles please put in cites so we can briefly refute or critique the articles if necessary. 00:34, 8 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Could you not, I am trying to fix those now. 00:36, 8 June 2009 (UTC)
 * No worries home slice. I was doing this hours and hours ago before you started your work on this. 01:22, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

Pace and quality
People seem to be racing to see how fast they can add things to our side, if the quality of the typing is anything to go by - or the quality of the some of the arguments. I please beg of you all, type slowly and carefully, try to make strong points clearly, and triple-proofread. After a while there will be so much here that after-the-fact proofreading of the article will be an incredible chore. Remember, quantity =/= quality. That is all, thanks. 01:03, 8 June 2009 (UTC)
 * We were all over it like ants on a sugar cube weren't we. the proofreading will come naturally, as people read though. i agree on the quality issue though, it's a mess of good points, philosophical arguments and even worse monstrosities. Totnesmartin 08:23, 8 June 2009 (UTC)
 * I think we have a few extensive articles on some of these things. To shorten it we can just give brief explanations and point to the articles. Particularly the one on racemization I think is almost quoted directly from the article on amino acids, there's no need for an entire paragraph devoted to explaining steroechemistry there. Just one example I've found so far of that. I'll keep the adding to a minimum for now. 13:19, 8 June 2009 (UTC)