Talk:101 evidences for a young age of the Earth and the universe/Archive6

Missing evidences 29-85?
Um. I just stumbled across this page, and I was wondering whether the absence of evidences from 29 to 85 was intentional? - EthZee 131.227.237.77 (talk) 12:15, 26 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Probably because 101 is a pretty sizable Gish Gallop, and thus the article isn't finished yet. I wasn't aware that those numbers had been entirely removed, however. 12:20, 26 May 2010 (UTC)


 * That would be me messing up the conversion from tables to sbs. D'oh! Fixed. - David Gerard (talk) 12:24, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

Fucked formating
The formation is fucked in 85 and a couple others. Can't see what the problem is. Anyone wanna weigh in? AceDrumcode 01:56, 24 September 2010 (UTC)
 * See above section? Maybe the sbs is still partially borkened.  02:41, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

Salt - No. 40
Not completely sure what's going on here, but:"When seawater is separated from the ocean itself, and subsequently evaporates, the salts ('evaporite') left behind are no longer in the ocean,[citation needed] and the evaporated fresh water eventually returns." Evaporites are still in the ocean, technically, even if they no longer contribute to salinity, but at the point that evaporites are formed, the water is saturated, so any fresh-water added should re-absorb part of the evaporite, right? Or, if I'm just dead wrong (geology is not my thing), can't someone give some sort of citation as has been requested? ThunderkatzHo! 02:47, 30 March 2011 (UTC)
 * I think it's just oddly worded. Not entirely sure what it is getting at. I assume if there's some sea water washes up and all the H2O evapourates, leaving salt behind. There is then freshwater in the air that comes down as rain. Therefore it cycles around or something. That said, the actual creationist thing makes even less sense. 20:22, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

Minor milestone
It only took two years, but huzzah! All 101 points now have refutations. Next, sorting out the 98 refutations with holes so big that a blind child could flick an overboiled sprout through them left-handed from the back of a unicycle going down a farm lane in a headwind. Hmm, is that analogy a bit wordy? Real first name and last initialTalk, talk, talk skim my contributions 21:27, 19 May 2011 (UTC)
 * WHOOP!! But that's the point of a Gish Gallop isn't it?? Ancient Greek Pegasus icon.png 21:38, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

Needs to be relocated
This is a comparison, or a 'rebuttal' article, not an article about 101 evidence. Do we have a single title we are using to distinguish all of these? And if not, would you wise men and women suggest one? like "101 Evidences (rebuttal)" or something, though that is probably stupid.--Godot  The Peyote God awaits 00:05, 21 September 2011 (UTC)
 * "Refutation" ?Robothead.svg dot.svg 00:08, 21 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Generally I don't think that's much of a problem. The entire point of RW is to offer refutations of crankery, we don't have two articles on homeopathy where one says what it's supposed to be another called that says why it's bunk. The original 101 article and the reasons why it's a bullshit gish gallop are inseparable. Secondarily, the parentheses should really be in the case of secondary terms and disambiguation. Unless there were two things covering 101 evidences for a young age of the earth and the universe there is no need to change it - title is long enough already, anyway. ADK ...I'll vomit your oak!  07:25, 21 September 2011 (UTC)
 * The present title is fine. It's about the thing of that name, after all. I see the full title is "Age of the earth: 101 evidences for a young age of the earth and the universe" - you can move it there if you're feeling unusually anal today - David Gerard (talk) 11:30, 21 September 2011 (UTC)
 * To which the only appropriate response must be "fetch the lube". ADK ...I'll forsake your bat! 11:40, 21 September 2011 (UTC)
 * TO me, when i click on something, i expect to see an article about that. but when i click and find just counter arguments, that's a different (but very RW - which is why i love the site) type of article.  I always think in terms of users, and as a user, the title doesn't let me know that we are going to point by point refute it, rather than just give info about it.  I do think point by point (side by side) articles should be identified differently than just "an article on the books of the bible".[[Image:Pink mowse.png|25px]]Godot   The Peyote God awaits 12:34, 21 September 2011 (UTC)
 * But you didn't click there and find "just counter arguments" ... you found the actual full text of the article itself, right there on the page of that title - David Gerard (talk) 13:23, 21 September 2011 (UTC)
 * That's my whole point, David. This article, and ones like it are *different* if you will, BETTER than just "this pamphlet came out in 1902 and is a religious rant about coffee drinking".  These types of articles are what you read, if you want to build your own arsenal of arguments.  I think we do ourselves, and the article a disservice, by not highlighting those facts more. [[Image:Pink mowse.png|25px]]Godot   The Peyote God awaits 13:51, 21 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Well, I expanded the intro to include that information. But considering the added confusion and complexity of additional parentheses and the implication that there's another article without the parentheses and without the rebuttal, we probably cause more problems doing it. Either going on a random wiki walk isn't going to change who reads it regardless of what the title is, so there's no benefit to it. We do have the sbs category, which is the only place where the article's "different" style is notable. Ask Darwinists being another one. ADK ...I'll watch your broadsword! 00:51, 22 September 2011 (UTC)