Fun talk:Statements that are wrong on the level of a Young Earth
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
This is OK for an essay but I don't think it's a mainspace article. Wẽãšẽĩõĩď
Methinks it is a Weasel 22:58, 7 May 2013 (UTC)
- I'm agreeing with Weasloid here; this is more essay-like than an article. No one would type this title into the wiki.
talk 21:33, 12 May 2013 (UTC)
- Stupid title, insubstantial article. If nobody is prepared to do something with this then I'll delete it within 6 days.
ГенгисYou have the right to be offended; and I have the right to offend you.
23:26, 26 October 2013 (UTC)
- Stupid title, insubstantial article. If nobody is prepared to do something with this then I'll delete it within 6 days.
Any objections?[edit]
I feel like this should be moved to essay. Heavy Metal Jesus (\m/ \m/) 03:26, 13 May 2013 (UTC)
Would work better as a "fun" type of article.--Zipperback (talk) 04:42, 13 May 2013 (UTC)
- I support the move to funspace. There doesn't seem to be much of an "argument" here, so much as poking fun at stupidity. Wehpudicabok (talk) 05:36, 13 May 2013 (UTC)
- I object. It's not an essay. It's also not fun or funny. I think illustrating just how wrong you have to be to accept YEC like this is clever. There's a good place for this somewhere.
09:48, 13 May 2013 (UTC)
- On further thought, this is sort of weak. Considering how far off you have to be to compress the history of Earth and the universe into 6,000 years superficially seems meaningful, but that's not what creationists do. The numbers presented in this article are so irrelevant to creationist claims, as interesting as the concept is, that they're propping up a straw man argument. Yes of course 6 thousand is a lot less than 4.54 billion. We've got that covered. 10:21, 13 May 2013 (UTC)
- We already have Branches of science you have to ignore to believe in young Earth creationism. This here thing, though, is a fun bit of snark but the list of examples can easily be a section in a YEC article somewhere. SophieWilder 10:39, 13 May 2013 (UTC)
- I think there's possibly something there. At first blush it seems clever, like I said. But I admit I don't understand it or I would have integrated it into that or one of the other articles I cited. If you can make sense of it please take a run at it and show me what you'd do - if there's something there I'd love to add to it. 10:57, 13 May 2013 (UTC)
- I think there's possibly something there. At first blush it seems clever, like I said. But I admit I don't understand it or I would have integrated it into that or one of the other articles I cited. If you can make sense of it please take a run at it and show me what you'd do - if there's something there I'd love to add to it.
- We already have Branches of science you have to ignore to believe in young Earth creationism. This here thing, though, is a fun bit of snark but the list of examples can easily be a section in a YEC article somewhere. SophieWilder 10:39, 13 May 2013 (UTC)
- On further thought, this is sort of weak. Considering how far off you have to be to compress the history of Earth and the universe into 6,000 years superficially seems meaningful, but that's not what creationists do. The numbers presented in this article are so irrelevant to creationist claims, as interesting as the concept is, that they're propping up a straw man argument. Yes of course 6 thousand is a lot less than 4.54 billion. We've got that covered.
- I object. It's not an essay. It's also not fun or funny. I think illustrating just how wrong you have to be to accept YEC like this is clever. There's a good place for this somewhere.
- Moved to funspace - David Gerard (talk) 13:21, 14 March 2014 (UTC)