Talk:101 evidences for a young age of the Earth and the universe/Archive5

PJR called this fluff
I am pissed off now. I want to turn this into an article that completely breaks CMI's balls and leaves their fairy pseudoscience arses crying. 03:50, 11 November 2009 (UTC)
 * That sounds like rough sex. But anyway, well, go nuts and make it better?  04:30, 11 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Most of this stuff is outside what I know well, do we have geologists available? 04:39, 11 November 2009 (UTC)
 * I like rocks... can we haz link for PJR being an ass (again)? 04:44, 11 November 2009 (UTC)
 * It is here. He thinks this is actually better than our Evidence against a recent creation, by virtue of the fact it has 80 more "evidences". 05:23, 11 November 2009 (UTC)
 * It's the other way around, he thinks Evidence against a recent creation is not bad, and this one is a piece of fluff. Anyway, like with Evidence for God's existence, it seems like he stopped reading the moment he found something questionable and declared himself the winner. -- Nx  / talk 08:21, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

Cover story template
I think this is, or very nearly, cover story material. Discuss? Acei9 09:06, 7 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Well there is probably still a few section that need a rebuttal or needs a rebuttal better than "dumb creationists are dumb", but it is a lot better than when it was first proposed. 09:11, 7 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Agree, but its so close. Acei9 09:18, 7 May 2010 (UTC)
 * 59 needs a summary, with ref to talk origins.
 * 61 is missing rebuttal
 * 63 is written in first person (maybe change "I" to "we"?)
 * 69: if the article on physicsworld supports the previous sentence, then make it into a ref, otherwise summarize and ref
 * Epic of Gilgamesh is a redlink, so either write it or link to wikipedia.
 * -- Nx  / talk 09:35, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

#69 - Mercury's magnetic field
We defend this by saying that Mercury has a iron sulfide core, but reading the attached article it says:

I think we need to address their full argument here. Does anybody know about this? 09:22, 7 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Most of their arguments can probably be addressed with . 15:45, 24 May 2010 (UTC)


 * This is, of course, them being half-smart and confusing their lack of understanding with actual problems in science. Abstract from paper: "They deduce that the planet has a solid inner core surrounded by a relatively thin, molten outer core, which is possible if the core contains some sulphur as well as iron" - i.e., they're pretty damned sure it's sulphur in there, so the question is only how it got in there. A news article here says the sulphur would have been mixed in during the formation of the solar system. This one suggests that it came from planetesimals from further out in the solar system. Remembering that planets formed from planetesimals coalescing. They are quite correct that it contains less volatiles than other planets, but that's not the same as none. One theory suggests it had twice its present mass, but the rest was blasted away by radiation.


 * This is not quite the slam-dunk "look you bozos, this is how it happened in painstakingly tedious step-by-step detail, now shut up" that would really do the trick, but hopefully we can concoct something from it for now - David Gerard (talk) 15:50, 24 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Some papers that I haven't read through (some are paid-for):  This pop sci article is good:  I've also asked on twatter and arsebook, noting I need the information for creationist pwnage - David Gerard (talk) 16:05, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

De-silvering
Armondikov took this from silver to bronze for being good but incomplete. Can anyone finish this off and really make it into the comprehensive pwning it was intended to be? - David Gerard (talk) 15:41, 24 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Gah, there is a reason those are blank, they are highly technical points that have been ignored by both the creationist and scientific community. Geology and nuclear physics are not my strongest areas of expertise, so some of these are going to be rough going. tmtoulouse 20:48, 24 May 2010 (UTC)
 * See above (sulphur in Mercury) for the sort of thing a proper creationist pwning requires. Not that it'll have any effect on their pointy little heads, but it's educational and good for target practice - David Gerard (talk) 21:08, 24 May 2010 (UTC)
 * So perhaps we should pull out each of the ones without any response to a separate talk page section/sub-section and discuss? tmtoulouse 21:10, 24 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Separate sections here should do it. Set pibot to archive the page on a two-week gap, maybe. "Creationist pwning - it's good target practice!" - David Gerard (talk) 21:18, 24 May 2010 (UTC)
 * I think it needs broken down into manageable chunks. The TOC breaks it into sections, so a separate page for each would be far more convenient to edit. The sheer scale that this article needs to be just breaks my brain.  12:25, 26 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Issue with subpages; the article titles are going to be loooooooooong... thus making wiki-linking and stuff quite a pain. Could I perhaps suggest shortening it to "101" or something, then hacking it with DISPLAYTITLE, but keeping the redirects intact so that to the average viewer, it makes no difference. 12:37, 26 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Like so but perhaps somehow prettier. 13:18, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

This page breaks sbs!
This page actually was too much for sbs in places - hence the bits (last para of intro, evidence 18, evidence 96) where I had to explode the template into wikitext guacamole - David Gerard (talk) 23:39, 24 May 2010 (UTC)
 * No that is external links that include =. You just need to put 1= and 2= so that it feeds it in as the first and second variable. 00:01, 25 May 2010 (UTC)
 * AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA - David Gerard (talk) 00:16, 25 May 2010 (UTC)