Talk:Age of the Earth/Archive1

First sentence
the first sentence and its citations are almost exactly like the TOW article. But honestly, it's a single sentence, and how many other ways of saying it are there? As for the references, I see no problem with using wikipedia as a means to finding decent sauce-- 01:28, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

Uh, Evidence against a recent creation. 01:09, 7 October 2011 (UTC)
 * There was a debate as to whether or not there should be a specific article about the age of the earth, so I (brxbrx, at his campus library) made one. Various other editors provided feedback and made their adjustments to the article, and no one has issued a complaint up until today ↑          --  01:36, 7 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Is there a reason for this crap article? don't we have the EXACT same things on our "earth" article.--[[Image:Pink mowse.png|25px]]Godot   The Peyote God awaits 01:48, 7 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Are you fucking kidding me? Hey, look what I found in the saloon bar archives!  The article is here and was created to provide a clear statement regarding the Earth's age here on RationalWiki distinct from the mire of articles on creationism.  It is linked to in some of these articles and links to some of these articles.  It is fine where it is and as the principle author I don't appreciate this sudden deletionism, especially after it's been around for a healthy length of time.--  01:56, 7 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Jesus, kid. That's an awfully strong defense of an article that's woefully incomplete. I don't think anyone's opposed in principle to a separate article for the age of the earth, although I don't know why we wouldn't just interwiki link to the far superior Wikipedia article, but if we're going to have one it at least needs to expand on the material that's already in Evidence against a recent creation. As it is, your 7 sentence article provides no explanation at all of the methods of dating the earth and how and why they agree. There's a single reference to radiometric dating of "star stuff," but it's insufficient to give the reader any insight without requiring him to go to a completely different page, where he also won't learn anything about the specific methods used to date the age of the earth. At the very least the article needs to give a basic explanation of what radiometric dating is, the assumptions that underlie it, why they're reliable, and how it works so that it can then offer a meaningful explanation of how the method is applied to the various materials that provide us with reliable dates. The "star stuff" reference is to ... the article doesn't say. The likely answer is the Diablo Canyon meteorite, but even that's not the only material used. No mention of Australian zircons, lead/uranium ratios in ancient ores, or moon rocks. As for other methods, there's no mention of helioseismological agreement with radiometric dates. No mention of the assumptions that underlie radiometric dating and why they're well-supported - just a throw away mention of how physics and geology would "go under a radical upheaval" if ... the article doesn't say. It's like you didn't even look at the sources you cited, one of which is just an abstract, btw, or our Evidence against a recent creation. If you want this article then finish it. I will if you want me to. 19:23, 9 October 2011 (UTC)
 * You do realize we've an article on radiometric dating, and that it's linked to in this article, right?-- 14:14, 23 October 2011 (UTC)
 * You've failed to response to a single point I made and instead continue revert warring over your shitty article being linked included in the Ussher article, going so far as to accuse be of being a bitter troll or not knowing how a wiki works. Quite to the contrary, you've exhibited a remarkable disinterest in cooperating, yet you've admitted that your article is lacking in some of the regards I mentioned. It is you who are openly trolling here as well as exhibiting a fundamental misunderstanding of the collaborative process, which seems par for the course for someone who's primary response to seeing edits he doesn't like is to revert without the least discussion. I'm deleting your piece of shit stub unless you expand it to do more than make bald assertions and whack ass unsupportable "snark" that just makes you look like an asshole. When I do, I'll collaborate with someone who can actually write and add material as a subsection of the earth article. 14:41, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

Delete tag
Is this thing going anywhere, or is it best as a subsection of an already-existing article? B♭maj7 (talk) Apple acknowledged that 137 workers at a Chinese factory near the city of Suzhou had been seriously injured by a toxic chemical used in making the slick green screens of the iPhone 18:54, 9 October 2011 (UTC)
 * It's just not very good but since he wants it so much give him a chance to flesh it out. 19:23, 9 October 2011 (UTC)
 * As long as it's given a time frame or moved to user space. Otherwise, it will just sit here forever.  [[Image:Pink mowse.png|25px]]Godot   The Peyote God awaits 19:46, 9 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Wow. Godot wants it moved to user space.  Anyhow, I'll work on it as soon as I get my desktop back online.  That'll be whenever my brother finishes downloading and burning my new Vista boot disc image.  Probably next week.--  20:05, 11 October 2011 (UTC)
 * "probably next week" - That's why i want it moved to user space.  The little rant you had about me leaving something undone was a 30 minute long break, cause i had something come up on expected.  leaving crap "to be done later" likely means it never will get done.  That's my concern about "i'll get back to it" that you seem to imply. [[Image:Pink mowse.png|25px]]Godot   The Peyote God awaits 20:08, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

Moved, for now. B♭maj7 (talk) "And when they ask me who is the president of Ubeki-beki-beki-beki-stan-stan I’m going to say, you know, I don’t know. Do you know?" 20:33, 11 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Next time, please use page move, so I can keep revisions. Also, weren't you the first one to start bitching that one time I moved an unfinished article to userspace?--  17:56, 13 October 2011 (UTC)
 * This one is particularly crappy and useless. That one had potential. also, you can do no right by me, no matter what. B♭maj7 (talk) Member of the Kara Duhe fan club since 2010 22:38, 13 October 2011 (UTC)
 * If we were to delete all "particularly crappy and useless" stubs, we would get rid of at least a third of our mainspace articles. 22:43, 13 October 2011 (UTC)
 * And that's necessarily a bad thing because? B♭maj7 (talk) Member of the Kara Duhe fan club since 2010 22:47, 13 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Because it means RW is wasting its resources. The cycle here is that people write something and once the writers are not looking other people agree it's shit and delete it. --Mack Coster (talk) 23:01, 13 October 2011 (UTC)
 * (EC) Just sayin'. You apparently like singling out Bricks even when he tries to do something helpful (misguided as it is), so I'll keep mum. 23:04, 13 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Trying is fine. Doing is better. I made some substantive criticisms that he ignored. Instead he's acting like a bigger baby than usual. The "article" is 5 sentences of slapdash shit that would him flunked out of high school English. He should rewrite the thing to actually describe the issue instead of being mere snark without substance or watch it get deleted in favor of good material being added to the Planet Earth article. What's difficult about this? 23:12, 13 October 2011 (UTC)
 * It's a good thing we only hold Bricks to such high standards, otherwise RW would have about a dozen articles. And why don't you improve the article instead of bitching about it? Oh, I know, you can't do that, the only thing you can do is make badly photoshopped images of cocks. -- Nx  / talk 06:22, 14 October 2011 (UTC)


 * For someone who holds ED in such disdain, you sure seem appreciative of chan memes-- 11:12, 14 October 2011 (UTC)
 * I have visited ED probably about 3 times so know nothing of it to hold in disdain. Aceace 11:15, 14 October 2011 (UTC)