Information icon.svg Nominations and campaigning for the RationalWiki 2020 Moderator Election are completed. Voting is live now, until 20:00 UTC, 1 December!

Talk:101 evidences for a young age of the Earth and the universe/Archive3

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>, <2>, <4>, <5>, <6>, <7>, <8>, <9>, <10>, (new)(back)


By voice I mean several things. One is basically "style of snark" - on a huge collaborative piece like this we need to try to keep the flow smooth, starting a joke in one section and then re-using it, say, is a bad idea (not that I'm saying it has happened here). Another one is the use of the word "you" to reply to the crap on the left. When being read, "you" is the reader, not the person/piece we are refuting. Please try to avoid it, or edit it out if possible when encountered? This is like not writing "I think..." or whatever in mainspace articles. One point two, the voice is the general tone - do we casually dismiss and insult, do we drown the opponent in logic and references, do we use pretty pictures, etc. Overall, a given article should, hopefully, maintain a consistent "voice" from beguine to ende. This is the hardest thing to do on a wiki - the hardest of all, due to the basic concept of multiple writers/editors (hi Ed!). Thanks for reading ;) ħumanUser talk:Human 01:58, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

Snark should be like salt and pepper on this - it adds flavour but too much spoils it. Logic and references are best - the truth will set you free! Totnesmartin 08:25, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

The title[edit]

Am I the only one that just about slaps themselves reading that title. The best I can come up with is 101 pieces of evidence for a young age of the earth and universe, even still it sounds crap. - π 08:39, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

101 reasons why Young Earth Creationism is a valid hypothesis. Any better? Ace McWickedDisco Jesus 08:42, 8 June 2009 (UTC)
(ec)Clearly it's an example of unintelligent design. (It's not our fault btw) --  Nx/talk  08:43, 8 June 2009 (UTC)
@Ace 100 times better. @Nx That should go in the segue at the top. - π 08:45, 8 June 2009 (UTC)
Shall I move it then? Ace McWickedDisco Jesus 08:48, 8 June 2009 (UTC)
I don't think you should, it's the title of the original article --  Nx/talk  08:49, 8 June 2009 (UTC)
While that is true, it doesnt appear on our rebuttal at all expect for in the title. We have a wiki-link though but thats it. Ace McWickedDisco Jesus 08:52, 8 June 2009 (UTC)
I'm on the side of keeping the title the same as the original title. Here's 101 evidences as a handy redirect. Totnesmartin 09:02, 8 June 2009 (UTC)
But it is the name of the article we are rebutting. So that's what it should be called. We could perhaps put a note below it to the effect that we fully know that "evidence" is an uncountable noun but we have gone with the creationist language as that's the title.--Bobbing up 09:02, 8 June 2009 (UTC)
I put something to that effect. Perhaps it could be prettier.--Bobbing up 09:08, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

"Forms quickly", "young age" etc[edit]

The article we are working on has a large number of links to creationist articles making claims about the quick formation of oil, coal etc or that petrification happens quickly or whatever. To do this properly we'd also need to refute those articles as well. But that's a much bigger task.--Bobbing up 09:29, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

Those quick formations are all synthetic. Besides, because something happened in a short time doesn't mean it happened in a short time recently. - π 09:41, 8 June 2009 (UTC)
I understand that. What I'm saying is that we need to say that in some article(s) somewhere.--Bobbing up 09:46, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

Biblical claim[edit]

"The Bible claims to be the communication of the only One who witnessed the events of Creation" - Does it? Is this claim actually written in the book or is it something that the Creationists just believe to be true? Redchuck.gif ГенгисYou have the right to be offended; and I have the right to offend you. 16:20, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

That's a good point. I don't believe that it actually makes that claim anywhere. Logically one wouldn't expect it to either. It's not really a coherent whole anyway but something which was cobbled together by various sources - so it's unlikely that any one of them individually wrote anything about "the bible", as the bible itself didn't exist as an individual document when the individual parts were being written.  :Obviously many of those of a biblical persuasion view it as .."the communication of the only One who" bla bla, but that's their opinion of it.
On the other hand I've not read it for some time and somebody may have slipped something into the NT at some point - but I doubt it. Where is AJK when you need him?--Bobbing up 17:39, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

Subscription services[edit]

If you encounter links to there journal saying you have to subscribe, just google the article name and you can still get the article without paying. Also read what they are saying carefully. I noticed at least one rebuttal, which basically repeated the argument they were attacking. I will fix the one I noticed when I fully explored the argument. - π 04:11, 9 June 2009 (UTC)