Talk:Fossil sorting by the global flood
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
I think I get what this is talking about but the title is very confusing. 
theist 22:05, 1 January 2011 (UTC)
- Yeah - it needs a title that makes more sense by itself. And at the end of the day, who's going to type 'Fossils sorted by a comb...' into the search bar? EddyP Great King! Disaster! 22:07, 1 January 2011 (UTC)
- This is a straight copy of evo:Fossils sorted by a combination of these factors -- Nx / talk 22:08, 1 January 2011 (UTC)
- Ah, that explains the formatting! I thought it looked sorta familiar. theist 22:10, 1 January 2011 (UTC)
- "Fossil stratification" or something of that nature with this title as a redirect? The only "factor" which "sorts" fossils is when they died. Which is a question of what strata they are in. --BobSpring is sprung! 22:23, 1 January 2011 (UTC)
- Should we de-link some of the things that probably won't ever get a page then? Aboriginal Noise Oh, you want to hit people with garbage cans? 01:16, 27 January 2011 (UTC)
- Yes. Blue (pester) 03:38, 27 January 2011 (UTC)
- Done. Although taking a look at some of those links, it's a big area that needs an article. This would be a good branching/starting point for that but it needs an RW style treatment rather than EvoWiki treatment. Of course, the two projects are now somewhat entwined and we haven't yet figured out how to deal with that. theist 17:02, 27 January 2011 (UTC)
- Nice job... now it needs a title. I can't
be arsed tothink of something appropriate. Blue (is useful) 17:09, 27 January 2011 (UTC)- The title should be: "Fossils sorted by the flood". And the article says why not.--BobSpring is sprung! 17:10, 27 January 2011 (UTC)
- Although we now need to head to EvoWiki and port the entire lot of articles. That'll be quite a headache. theist 20:03, 27 January 2011 (UTC)
- And I expect that porting will be only the smallest part of the task. I've just imported some articles into TP and I find that I spend a lot more time re-editing them than moving them.--BobSpring is sprung! 22:11, 27 January 2011 (UTC)
- Although we now need to head to EvoWiki and port the entire lot of articles. That'll be quite a headache.
- The title should be: "Fossils sorted by the flood". And the article says why not.--BobSpring is sprung! 17:10, 27 January 2011 (UTC)
- Nice job... now it needs a title. I can't
- Done. Although taking a look at some of those links, it's a big area that needs an article. This would be a good branching/starting point for that but it needs an RW style treatment rather than EvoWiki treatment. Of course, the two projects are now somewhat entwined and we haven't yet figured out how to deal with that.
- Yes. Blue (pester) 03:38, 27 January 2011 (UTC)
- Should we de-link some of the things that probably won't ever get a page then? Aboriginal Noise Oh, you want to hit people with garbage cans? 01:16, 27 January 2011 (UTC)
- "Fossil stratification" or something of that nature with this title as a redirect? The only "factor" which "sorts" fossils is when they died. Which is a question of what strata they are in. --BobSpring is sprung! 22:23, 1 January 2011 (UTC)
- Ah, that explains the formatting! I thought it looked sorta familiar.
- This is a straight copy of evo:Fossils sorted by a combination of these factors -- Nx / talk 22:08, 1 January 2011 (UTC)
Texas man claims to have found "fossils from Noah's flood"[edit]
Man digs up a bunch of rocks, claims they are fossils from the Flood, self-proclaimed fossil expert confirms, local news channel reports on it, Texas secession can't come fast enough not The Onion
Petey Plane (talk) 15:42, 22 March 2016 (UTC)
- Maybe we can help tout another Galt's Gulch that's friendly to creationism. -EmeraldCityWanderer (talk) 16:03, 22 March 2016 (UTC)
- Here's hoping. I'm all for one of those Christian Homeland type things that try to start their own countries in the Pacific Northwest and the Southeast. I have no problem with the self-segregation of stupid people. Petey Plane (talk) 15:05, 23 March 2016 (UTC)