Conservapedia talk:Arguments for a recent creation

From RationalWiki
Jump to: navigation, search

Time to hack away at this nonsense.--TimS 13:12, 13 June 2007 (CDT)

What a crock of shit.--PalMD-yada yada 13:29, 13 June 2007 (CDT)
Is there a reason arguments is spelt wrong? (that sounded bitchy... oops!) αιρδισΗταλκ 13:35, 13 June 2007 (CDT)

Sorry, my fury knows no bounds. I will fix it:)--TimS 14:01, 13 June 2007 (CDT)

hehe αιρδισΗταλκ 14:08, 13 June 2007 (CDT)

Since I can still edit over at CP I would like to take this list and debunk it publicly with references to real science articles and hard undeniable facts. If I am to be permabanned I want to go out with a BANG!--TimS 14:26, 13 June 2007 (CDT)

I did that with Essay:CP on Deceit..it lasted about 30 seconds.--PalMD-yada yada 14:31, 13 June 2007 (CDT)

Yea, they tend to ignore facts. Ed and I had some words over how Molecular research supports evolution. It is pretty hard when you have to explain the differences between a Phenotype and Genotype and how molecular biology is interested in both and how all of this can relate to supporting evolutionary study. Consider trying to explain this to someone who has a bias on something they do not understand the basics of, but yet feel compelled to argue with your knowledge because of their lack of knowledge. I believe I will start out my rebutle with "In the intrest of providing the children who use this site as a source of information perhaps we should look into these claims and see what the science actualy supports..."--TimS 14:40, 13 June 2007 (CDT)

Count me in. Sterile 15:40, 13 June 2007 (CDT)

I assume this is a work in progress. So far, it's hard to tell the original from responses. Anyone think we should side-by-side it? If not, some sort of format that makes reading it easy for the open minded.--PalMD-yada yada 16:42, 13 June 2007 (CDT)

See my comment under "formatting"

I'm adding bits and pieces to this. To properly debunk these, each statement really requires a separate article. There is such a huge amount of background knowledge to correctly and fully explain to a layman why these are just nonsense. Splodge 14:44, 15 June 2007 (CDT)

I was thinking such thought too Splodge I will move some of the larger arguments and counter arguments to separate articles. -ĬŴΣĐĝё 14:47, 15 June 2007 (CDT)
Good point. The "debunk" here should be relatively concise and clear - and, ideally, link to an in-depth article in the main space. humanbe in 01:42, 17 June 2007 (CDT)

Formatting[edit]

This looks great so far, but it's a bit confusing. I'm finding it hard to separate the refutations from the original material because it's all sort of muddled together. Maybe a side-by-side, or adding a refutation header to each argument or something might help. --Kels 15:59, 15 June 2007 (CDT)

No offense, but "a bit confusing"? I know this stuff and I can't follow the damn article one paragraph in! Perhaps a side-by-side format would help? Our stuff is bolded, and then theirs is... the "content" is great, but the presentation lacks a certain, shall we say, "snap"? I will try to help. I may play in my sandbox with it for a bit. humanbe in 01:42, 17 June 2007 (CDT)
I've created a trial side-by-side version at User:Jtl/Arguments_for_a_recent_creation, current as of this revision. I attempted to make formatting changes only; the biggest one is losing the numbering from the points (which was already not working very well). I haven't actually read the material, though, so I'm not sure I haven't messed anything up. If the people working on the article like the side-by-side version, feel free to copy it over, and if not, that's okay too. Now I try again to sleep. --jtltalk 05:54, 17 June 2007 (CDT)
Put headered number att he begining of each table line, it allows easier editing. And, yes the numbering was really confusing early in the article. I'll look at what you've got in a bit, I need to go "outside" humanbe in 13:55, 17 June 2007 (CDT)
I reorganised jtl's layout so that each point is editable and have taken the liberty of copying it to the main article. God's peed Babel fishÅЯ†ђŮŖ ÐΣй†Now look here! 14:50, 17 June 2007 (CDT)

TO links[edit]

I would also advise using our resources. Most of the crap at CP has been assembled by many whackos working over many years, and is in repositories such as AIG (answers in goobers). TalkOrigins probably has very well researched and footnoted rebuttals to every one of these "points". Don't knock yourself out duplicating the work - summarize the rebuttal, and link to the TO file with the {{to}} template or a direct link. humanbe in 01:48, 17 June 2007 (CDT)

Butt-kissing/Praise[edit]

Great article, this (and the goats of course) is what RW is all about! MiddleMan 18:22, 17 June 2007 (CDT)

Stars[edit]

Perhaps no one here can answer this, but how do YEC account for stars being over 6,000 light years away? olliegrind 12:12, 18 June 2007 (CDT)

OOOh, I think I can handle this one.... I believe it is because space is actually comprised of a large tarpaulin, or carpet (probably god's) that has become worn over time. The "stars" are actually nothing more than holes poked in the fabric by a very powerful sparrow. Good question, though. ʄĹїþþїɲ;-) 12:19, 18 June 2007 (CDT)
This just raises further questions! olliegrind 12:50, 18 June 2007 (CDT)
The common explanation is that the speed of light is not constant and it was much faster during the days of creation so the light managed to travel further during that time (one presumes by many orders of magnitude faster!) Another that some creationist nutter put up on You-Tube is that the universe is is designed like an Ames room and the stars only appear to be further away but in reality are closer. A sort of cosmic optical illusion. God's peed Babel fishÅЯ†ђŮŖ ÐΣй†Now look here! 12:25, 18 June 2007 (CDT)
So God put up little glow-in-the-dark stars on the ceiling? olliegrind 12:50, 18 June 2007 (CDT)

What I don't understand is why CP claims that starlight is a problem for old-universe theorists? humanbe in 13:09, 18 June 2007 (CDT)

GOD LIKES TO TRICK US!!! Make light go fast, and then have to have to start more than 6000 years out. TRYICK GOD! Sterile 13:21, 18 June 2007 (CDT)

There was this guy who believed God placed a time-dilation (extreme gravitation) field around the Solar System...

Starlight being a problem for "old-universe theorists" is just utter bullsh*t, based on (deliberate) misinterpretations of scientific findings, it's a bit like the "we haven't found every transitional form yet, so evolution must be false" argument. MiddleMan 13:30, 18 June 2007 (CDT)

Refutations[edit]

Rather than just posting see Talk Origins perhaps a synopsis of the refutation could be given. It would make for a more interesting article IMHO. God's peed Babel fishÅЯ†ђŮŖ ÐΣй†Now look here! 12:29, 18 June 2007 (CDT)

(Feel free--just didn't have time to summarize this morning!) Sterile 13:22, 18 June 2007 (CDT)
Keep in mind that on this topic, CP probably just copied a bunch of stuff from somewhere like AIG (you think Andy understands any of these things?). And also, there will be powerful refutations at TO for all of their "points". humanbe in 14:38, 18 June 2007 (CDT)
I didn't mean that we should ignore the TO refutations but having a page of see TO isn't very interesting. As for understanding the science, well I don't think that anyone who put up these conjectures in the first place understands the science, let alone some dumbass lawyer. God's peed (get it Human?) Babel fishÅЯ†ђŮŖ ÐΣй†Now look here! 14:48, 18 June 2007 (CDT)
Haha, yup. What I meant was that the research is easy - go to TO. Then summarize here and link, like you said. humanbe in 14:50, 18 June 2007 (CDT)

Actually, I haven't been able to find everything at TO; part of the problem is that the CP article is rephrased a bit, and so it takes some time to find stuff. Also, the CP article somewhat convolutes things--they combine points at parts and make things worse. Sterile 15:00, 18 June 2007 (CDT)

I would like to add this to the top, as a parallel intro, but i can't figure out how. Anyone?

"Many scientific arguments can be used to show that the evidence is more consistent with a old Earth than a recent creation. Some arguments put forward in support of a recent creation simply put an arbitrary lower limit on the age of the Earth, solar system, or universe, which are inconsistent with scientific observation. The following is a list of various scientific reasons in no particular order." --PalMD-yada yada 15:08, 18 June 2007 (CDT)

Like that? Sterile 15:15, 18 June 2007 (CDT)
I had more in mind a header, which I placed there briefly. But suit yourself. CЯacke® 15:24, 18 June 2007 (CDT)
Thanks, guys. It's a minor contribution, but one of the things i like about the parallel structure is the form itself points out the flaw in the argument...it is so weak, that just changing the words around invalidates it.--PalMD-yada yada 15:30, 18 June 2007 (CDT)

expansion[edit]

There's now something under each section. The talk-orgins stuff has to be expanded. I can't look at this anymore though. Sterile 17:34, 18 June 2007 (CDT)