Talk:In the Beginning: Compelling Evidence for Creation and the Flood/Archive1

Impressive
A lot of great work in this article. 16:56, 6 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Thanks! -- Onychoprion (talk) 17:01, 6 July 2017 (UTC)

Citations Needed?
So, I'm a programmer and have about as much authority on most of the subjects at hand as a nerdy potato. In my attempt to just get through the 131 things in part 1, I'm taking a few short-cuts. Namely, in places, making assertions on how things happen or might happen. I'm basically just guessing, and I'd bet a lot of my guesses are wrong.

Before I even try to push this out into mainspace, I'll go over things and try to fix them, but if someone better researched than I in the particulars of biological evolution would like to, feel free to go through and add citations to my blatherings, or tell me I'm an idiot for assuming it works one way when it doesn't. I don't expect anyone to do this, since this is a hell of a slog, but, ya know, the offer's open! :D -- Onychoprion (talk) 19:27, 10 July 2017 (UTC)
 * You've done an amazing job on what's present. It takes a ton to look through condensed bullshit, pick out the pieces, and identify what kind of bullshit they are. In general, linking to Wikipedia or a RW article on the subject (eg, when In the Beginning says "Insects have no known evolutionary ancestors") is enough to debunk creationist tracts of the "evidence doesn't exist" type! 20:33, 10 July 2017 (UTC)

In-text citations
Christopher found and dealt with something (thanks, BTW! ) that I felt I should clarify. The text of the book does use citations, using superscript lowercase letters that link to one or more things in the back to support the claim (well, usually, sometimes the references objectively disprove his point). When I copy-paste from the site, the superscript doesn't translate, and so occassionally there'll be a random letter after a word. I've been trying to remove them (the other solution would be to keep them, and include the links they go to, which I think is overkill; when the references matter I just deal with them in the response). As a human, I'll mess up on that sometimes. So thanks, Christopher, for fixing one -- Onychoprion (talk) 18:02, 12 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Oh I see, your welcome! I feel we should include their "references" if we're going to copy all the text verbatim. Probably in a new ref group (ours just being normal, theirs being formatted maybe?) Like The Positive Case for Design or Evidence for God's existence. Christopher (talk) 19:02, 12 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Hmm, is an idea. It would take a fair bit of busy-work, and it would increase the size of the page dramatically. For what it's worth, Brown doesn't skimp on the footnotes (see example here). I'm willing to do it, or at least start doing it now and go back to later fill in the 41 items I missed. -- Onychoprion (talk) 19:08, 12 July 2017 (UTC)
 * I'd suggest not. A side-by-side rebuttal is plenty of work; if a reader is interested I references they can check the original text. 19:12, 12 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Seeing how many footnotes he uses, you're right, it wasn't a good idea. Christopher (talk) 19:21, 12 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Alright. Would be lying if I said I wasn't relieved. XD -- Onychoprion (talk) 19:26, 12 July 2017 (UTC)

Congrats on hitting the 1/3 mark
Quite a task you've set for yourself. 17:20, 13 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Haha, thanks. And yeah, I underestimated this project. Luckily part 2 shouldn't be that bad, since it's mostly just bad geology that can be summarized and debunked pretty quickly. Unluckily, between here and there is the astrophysics section which I just skimmed over and holy hell is it bad. Things like asserting the IAU reclassified Pluto as a dwarf-planet because evolutionists didn't like Pluto because something about how it couldn't have formed? These are levels of stupid I didn't even know existed. -- Onychoprion (talk) 17:33, 13 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Clearly you're not mentally equipped to handle Walt Brown's hard-hitting truth. I prescribe a weekly reading of scripture, followed by 80 (!) years of solid Young-Earth creationist belief. 23:53, 17 July 2017 (UTC)
 * With how many brain-cells I've lost in reading Brown's book, I might start believing in YEC again! -- Onychoprion (talk) 01:28, 18 July 2017 (UTC)

Excellent Work
Good job!!!Roo (talk) 20:11, 18 July 2017 (UTC)

Hydroplate-ness
So ... yeah. Turns out Brown threw the whole of his hydroplate mess right in the middle of his rant about radiometric dating. My instict says that should either be moved to the bottom of this page, if/when I get around to debunking the non-soundbite bits, or that it just be removed entirely and put onto the Hydroplate theory page. I put it where it is now because, well, Brown tells the reader to read it right there, and so a swift kick-in-the-butt seems appropriate. Open to suggestions and ideas, though! -- Onychoprion (talk) 18:43, 19 July 2017 (UTC)
 * At the very least I will port over the "fun with numbers" section to the Hydroplate page, and expand it with more data. -- Onychoprion (talk) 19:05, 19 July 2017 (UTC)

Future of this page
So, I've gotten down to #127 out of 131, but the last 4 are him trying to make the Flood seem less ridiculous than it is. Most of it's covered in other pages; I'll probably just link to them when I can be bothered to read more of that.

My main question is what should happen from here. Brown has several chapters (the "Origin of Earth's Radioactivity" is one of them) after this. Full-on chapters, too, half-filled with good science, the other half filled with bollocks (the Origin of Earth's Radioactivity is a good sample). I could go through each one and rip it to bits, but I personally feel his flood model is nonsense, not to mention unneeded since his 131 127 reasons for it to exist are complete bollocks.

If y'all agree that's too much for a page that's already too big, I'll go about editing here and there. I do have a few questions, such as whether I should use first-person language in the rebuttals (singular or plural). Also there's probably more opportunities for links, both internal and external, to resources. (Oh, I'll try to remember a "see also" section). Wouldn't wanna impose on anyone, but a second or third set of eyes would be helpful!

Thanks! And sorry for spamming the Recent Changes so much. -- Onychoprion (talk) 23:02, 22 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Size is of no concern here -- only your motivation and/or perfectionism are. To me, the page is a pretty total takedown of Walter Brown's book. It would be hard for someone to walk away thinking that Walt Brown is a trustworthy source -- even on chapters that you've not mentioned. And indeed, if the flood didn't happen, explaining why his flood model is bullshit is unnecessary.
 * Re: First person: RatWiks use first-person language and usually use plural versions ("we" and "us"), IIRC. See eg 101_evidences_for_a_young_age_of_the_Earth_and_the_universe.
 * I'll make sure to look this over sometime this weekend. :) 23:32, 22 July 2017 (UTC)

External links to add
From :

Walter Brown's "Hydroplate" Flood Model Doesn't Hold Water

Juicy quotes from Amazon reviews or Goodreads.

CreationWiki and its external links: ANTI-DARWINISM TODAY, The Hydroplate Theory and Dr. Walt Brown on RSR

CBN interview with Brown

Sources from the skeptical community.

17:08, 23 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Ooooo, thanks! :D -- Onychoprion (talk) 05:03, 24 July 2017 (UTC)

Ready?
I think it's ready. I could nit-pick it for far longer, but at some point I should just accept perfection isn't going to be a thing. Unless there's any objections, I'll push it tomorrow. -- Onychoprion (talk) 22:03, 2 August 2017 (UTC)

Someone make this article a cover abstract
Because it's worthy of Gold, straight from the tin. Moment of silent awe, please. *zippo salute* Reverend Black Percy (talk) 16:37, 3 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Christopher (talk) 16:41, 3 August 2017 (UTC)

Compare and Contrast
Excellent work on the article! I enjoy the compare and contrast as it makes the points very easy see. Could you possibly help me out with the page stellar metamorphosis? I wanted to do a compare and contrast with that, only it is not a creationist theory, it is a much stranger ball of wax. It also is not as personal as your experience with the transition from religion to clear thinking, so your motivations are going to have to be a bit different as stellar metamorphosis does not propose goddidit in any way.Roo (talk) 20:35, 4 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Thanks! I have looked at the stellar metamorphosis page a while back, and it could certainly use some love. I don't know much about it, though from what I read the guy's pretty well out of his mind. Not sure if it'd work as a side-by-side, unless there's a handy place he's laid out the whole mess (as opposed to, say, giving several lectures, or publishing a slew of books. Both of which could be used to generate nifty quotes, but then you're opening yourself up to being accused of quote-mining, picking out-of-date phrases, and the like. I'm about to go into a trade-school so my free time might be fairly limited, but I'll take a look and see if I can't fix it up a bit! -- Onychoprion (talk) 16:02, 9 August 2017 (UTC)

Throwing up my hands -- issue appears to begin somewhere between Brown claim #65 and #75.
No idea why notelist isn't working. 21:02, 5 August 2017 (UTC)