Information icon.svg Our policy on articles on living people is under review. Your comments and inputs are welcome on the relevant project talkpage.

Nominations and campaigning for the RationalWiki 2020 Moderator Election is underway and will end on November 23.

Talk:101 evidences for a young age of the Earth and the universe/Archive2

From RationalWiki
Jump to: navigation, search

This is an archive page, last updated 3 May 2016. Please do not make edits to this page.
Archives for this talk page: <1>, <3>, <4>, <5>, <6>, <7>, <8>, <9>, <10>, (new)(back)

Astronomy section[edit]

This needs some work; very few of the points are rebutted. Time educated Phantom! 21:34, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

I've looked up a few points, and it's very technical stuff. Plus, it's not like there's a deadline. Totnesmartin 23:31, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

Side-by-side style remark[edit]

Snippet from the first few lines

As a quick 1:20am note, the gap between the two columns should be a tick larger, or we should have some sort of dividing line. Right now, the "damage" is small because of the length differences, but it's still a bit startling when you try to read the rebuttal, skip into the next line... and don't have a "start reading here" mark because there is no visible divider. Maybe a thin light grey line in the middle? It wouldn't get in the way, but it would still give a border of sorts... --Sid 23:20, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, I noticed that. The tables are supposed to each be 45% wide, with a 10% wide empty cell in the middle of each row. What happened? Ah, I see. The empty cells are missing... ħumanUser talk:Human 23:30, 7 June 2009 (UTC)
I could fix it, but I'd need a "safe window" in which to copy the source, run a find/replace over it, and then copy it back. Shall I just add a note at the top and do it? ħumanUser talk:Human 23:31, 7 June 2009 (UTC)
I'll fix, just give me a minute. - π 23:35, 7 June 2009 (UTC)
Cool, thanks. ħumanUser talk:Human 23:50, 7 June 2009 (UTC)
Done. - π 23:52, 7 June 2009 (UTC)


That's not it - the cellspacing is not the solution. You need to add <td width=10%>&nb sp;</td> between each section. With no space between &nb and sp;, of course. ħumanUser talk:Human 23:54, 7 June 2009 (UTC)
Okay roll it back and I'll give it another go. - π 23:56, 7 June 2009 (UTC)
Actually don't I will fix it. - π 23:57, 7 June 2009 (UTC)
Looks good, thanks. ħumanUser talk:Human 00:19, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

External links[edit]

We are actually missing all their page links, do we need them back? - π 00:07, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

You mean all the places where they say "see foo baramin"? Perhaps it would be good form to have them? ħumanUser talk:Human 00:20, 8 June 2009 (UTC)
Some of their points are entirely based on a previous article. I'll get working on it. - π 00:24, 8 June 2009 (UTC)
Here is there comments with the links could someone copy it in? That isn't going to work - π 02:15, 8 June 2009 (UTC)
Fixed. - π 03:12, 8 June 2009 (UTC)
Thanks, that's a lot better. Makes us look much more professional. ħumanUser talk:Human 06:40, 8 June 2009 (UTC)
I wish I had done it in the first place rather having to try and work around the comments on the right. I have a much better idea how to do this in the future. - π 06:46, 8 June 2009 (UTC)
Excellent - is it something that you can document that anyone can copy, after you're dead and gone off to greener pastures? ħumanUser talk:Human 07:07, 8 June 2009 (UTC)
Not really it is more of a case-by-case thing. Their html script was disgusting, it was put together using some webpage program for sure. - π 07:14, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

Creational journal refs[edit]

I went through and started adding links to specific articles cited in the batshittery on the left and found that most articles are on subscription sites. If you find alternate sources of articles please put in cites so we can briefly refute or critique the articles if necessary. Nutty Roux100x100 anarchy symbol.svgUser:Nutty Roux/sigtalk 00:34, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

Could you not, I am trying to fix those now. - π 00:36, 8 June 2009 (UTC)
No worries home slice. I was doing this hours and hours ago before you started your work on this. Nutty Roux100x100 anarchy symbol.svgUser:Nutty Roux/sigtalk 01:22, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

Pace and quality[edit]

People seem to be racing to see how fast they can add things to our side, if the quality of the typing is anything to go by - or the quality of the some of the arguments. I please beg of you all, type slowly and carefully, try to make strong points clearly, and triple-proofread. After a while there will be so much here that after-the-fact proofreading of the article will be an incredible chore. Remember, quantity =/= quality. That is all, thanks. ħumanUser talk:Human 01:03, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

We were all over it like ants on a sugar cube weren't we. the proofreading will come naturally, as people read though. i agree on the quality issue though, it's a mess of good points, philosophical arguments and even worse monstrosities. Totnesmartin 08:23, 8 June 2009 (UTC)
I think we have a few extensive articles on some of these things. To shorten it we can just give brief explanations and point to the articles. Particularly the one on racemization I think is almost quoted directly from the article on amino acids, there's no need for an entire paragraph devoted to explaining steroechemistry there. Just one example I've found so far of that. I'll keep the adding to a minimum for now. Scarlet A.pngsshole 13:19, 8 June 2009 (UTC)