Talk:101 evidences for a young age of the Earth and the universe/Archive7

Hate this title
I know it's not an RW title, but there's no such plural noun as "evidences". The only correct use of "evidences" is as a verb: "My recent statement evidences my full support for this measure". "Evidence" is the collection of facts, statements, opinions, etc that give weight to an argument. If you add another datum to this, you have more evidence, not more evidences. Ugh. TerrenceKoeckring (talk) 21:34, 28 March 2012 (UTC)
 * In shocking news, creationists turn out to be hard of thinking - David Gerard (talk) 08:34, 29 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Actual sources on the internet vary as to whether it's countable or not. But the main questions are; does it convey the right meaning? Is it more succinct than "pieces of evidence"? Yes, and yes. So picking over that is pretty arbitrary and pointless, really. Scarlet A.pngd hominem 08:57, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

I have had my mind somewhat changed by an outside view, that being Jerry Coyne suggesting our title needs ": rebuttal" or something similar on the end. Anyone else? - David Gerard (talk) 11:41, 29 March 2012 (UTC)
 * It's long enough as it is, and let's not forget the whole of RW is basically a rebuttal project. I don't see a need, but thanks anyway Jerry xxx Sophie  because liberals  13:41, 29 March 2012 (UTC)
 * We've had the same argument before over the various books and how we can sometimes end up with ambiguous titles. Thing is, I don't think the wiki is all-encompassing enough to really need a formalised system for dealing with that in the title. We could use the displaytitle hack to put it in italics, indicating that it's a title of another work. Scarlet A.pngtheist 17:07, 29 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Okay, I've added in the displaytitle hack, see what you think. It doesn't work via preview so has to be a saved revision to view it. Scarlet A.pngsshole 17:13, 29 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Strictly speaking their title uses a lower case E for 'earth'. I bet they wouldn't use a lower case G for 'god'.  17:50, 29 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Pondering the name of the article I realise that it's actually very misleading. What they present are mainly not evidences for a young Earth (especially a 6000 year old earth) but counter -arguments against the evidence for a 4.6 bn year Earth.

I hadn't really intended to start a debate about changing the title; I simply wanted to vent my spleen about the crappy grammar. It's definitely better in italics and with the "(rebuttal)" on the end. TerrenceKoeckring (talk) 18:19, 29 March 2012 (UTC)
 * If the title is embarrassing to us then we need to put some disclaimer in the first paragraph. If we are happy with it then we don't. --Bob"What can be asserted without evidence can also be dismissed without evidence." 18:36, 29 March 2012 (UTC)
 * The disclaimer detracts badly from the tone of the article. We make it clear enough, I think, that the title is CMI's - David Gerard (talk) 19:57, 29 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Use a footnote. TerrenceKoeckring (talk) 20:17, 29 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Probably best.--Bob"What can be asserted without evidence can also be dismissed without evidence." 20:48, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

Note for #78 for any interested editors...

 * 1) 78 Side note:

The Galileo probe was sent to Jupiter (arrived 1995) and did not visit Neptune. It did not observe Neptune and therefore did not find anything out about Neptune or its winds. The only probe to ever visit Neptune (and thus measure the winds there) was Voyager 2 in 1989.

The author of point 78 apparently misread the linked creation.com page which states, "Neptune, being the eighth planet from the Sun, would not be expected to have enough heat energy left for driving high speed winds after more than four billion years, yet it does. Measurements in late 1995 by the Galileo probe indicate a similar situation at Jupiter." and misunderstood it to say the Galileo probe observed Neptune in 1995.

-Karl Withakay


 * Nice catch, thank you! - David Gerard (talk) 19:53, 29 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Ar har har. I've just been proofreading our piece against the current version of the 101 evidences, and the author has fixed it in the intervening years - David Gerard (talk) 22:19, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

Because this isn't far too long already
How about a picture or two? Sophie because liberals  21:53, 29 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Not sure that would work too well with the layout. Perhaps one per section. Want to find some really good ones in the Wikipedia links? - David Gerard (talk) 22:49, 29 March 2012 (UTC)


 * I think it's a bad idea. It will either mess up the SBS layout, or expand the space taken by the rebuttals, leaving large blank gaps on the creationist side. --Tweenk (talk) 00:24, 30 March 2012 (UTC)


 * The cover blurb just uses the CMI logo - David Gerard (talk) 11:53, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

Ima gonna let you finish, but I just wanted to say that 101 evidences is the best article of all time. All time!
I remember when I was first running regex over the article at creation.com to set up the side-by-side template. This is fucking fantastic, thanks to everyone that worked on this - even CUR. The analysis section at the end sums it up nicely. With the great deconservapediafication going on it is interesting to note it was kendoll that brought this shit-heap to our attention as a slam dunk against "evolutionists". Thanks again everyone. Pi 3:14 (talk) 04:40, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

#3 original paper
Someone queried the NYT's phrasing and asked just what "ten times the descendants" meant. What I think is the original paper is paywalled - anyone here got access to it? - David Gerard (talk) 13:57, 2 April 2012 (UTC)


 * Highly temporary copy here, for anyone who wants to have at it. I tried reading it and felt like a dog being shown a card trick - David Gerard (talk) 19:56, 2 April 2012 (UTC)


 * Sounds like the journalist misunderstood "10 percent" (upper bound on selection advantage of ~0.097) as "10 times". But I'll wait for someone who knows wtf they're talking about to fix it - David Gerard (talk) 10:27, 3 April 2012 (UTC)