Talk:Creationist time

Shouldn't this really be called "creationist time"? It is a rather broad brush with its current title... ħuman 21:29, 6 March 2009 (EST)

I have to question the use of a linear scale, creationist tend to use exponential or even weird hyperbolic trig functions to get there chronology to fit. They agree that every recorded event in the last 2,500-3,500 years occurred in order and at the time of "secular scientists/historians" say it did, but the entire 13,699,997,500 before that only took about 2,000 years. Schlafly's the rate of decay of carbon may have been 10 times higher in Jesus's time is not the nuttiest thing a creationist has said. - User $\scriptstyle -i\ln(-1)$ 04:34, 7 March 2009 (EST)

I don't know about this. Fun? User:Mei 04:41, 7 March 2009 (EST)

We will see, maybe we could do an article on YEC chronology from here. - User $\scriptstyle -i\ln(-1)$ 04:45, 7 March 2009 (EST)

Might need a diff'rent name? User:Mei 04:48, 7 March 2009 (EST)

I was working on researching the Young Earth Creationism timeline to expand the article a bit. I can move it to the Essay or Fun namespace though if that seems better. The linear formula was just meant to show the enormous contrast between the two systems. User:Ttony21/sig2 14:00, 8 March 2009 (EDT)

I can certainly see good reason for a creationist chronology article here at RW, perhaps this could be renamed (again, sorry?) and filled up with some amusing stupidity? And the equation issue (mentioned above) could be addressed in the article, perhaps we kan haz some pretty graphs too? ħuman 20:02, 8 March 2009 (EDT)

This really seems fit more for funspace than mainspace. It's basically a sarcastic jab with no rigor behind it. - Linneris (talk) 19:25, 30 December 2021 (UTC)