Talk:In the Beginning: Compelling Evidence for Creation and the Flood

From RationalWiki
Jump to: navigation, search
This page is automatically archived by Archiver
Archives for this talk page: <1>

Before Gold[edit]

@Onychoprion Could someone please CTRL+F and replace all instances of direct outlinks to wikipedia (i.e. like this) with the appropriate {{wpl}} and {{wpa}}-in-<ref>-tags format? Thanks! Reverend Black Percy (talk) 16:55, 9 August 2017 (UTC)

"Someone", eh? ;) I went through the list. Searching for "wikipedia" since all []-based links have "wikipedia" in them, and replaced them all with wpl templates. Kinda a rough way of doing it, and I erred on the side of caution as to whether to keep or discard underscores (rather than check each wpl template that it works as expected). -- Onychoprion (talk) 18:30, 9 August 2017 (UTC)
Haha Th hug.gif Great stuff. Gold soon, dude! All the best, Reverend Black Percy (talk) 20:06, 9 August 2017 (UTC)


@Onychoprion Sorry to hassle you, but every RationalWiki link needs to be reformatted as shown in this edit. Thanks in advance.

It's an irony that the link to my 'model internal link edit' is itself an outlink — but it has to be, 'cause I can't internally link to individual edits. Reverend Black Percy (talk) 21:30, 9 August 2017 (UTC)

Done. Anything else? -- Onychoprion (talk) 17:10, 11 August 2017 (UTC)

Fun with Math #TNOs?[edit]

Should I move the whole Hydroplate theory#Impact on Earth section over from the Hydroplate page to the Fun with math section here? On the one hand, it'd put all the numbers in one place, but on the other it is relevant to the hydroplate stuff.... -- Onychoprion (talk) 20:38, 9 August 2017 (UTC)

@FuzzyCatPotato Reverend Black Percy (talk) 20:49, 9 August 2017 (UTC)
I vote no. IMHO, side-by-side articles should seek to minimize in-article refutations that could be done elsewhere (eg, a SBS shouldn't have a whole section listing transitional fossils when transitional fossils exists) but maximize subject-specific refutations (eg, the list of alleged "out-of-place" coal-encased human artifacts shouldn't have its own articles). The math falls in the former category. FuzzyCatPotato!™ (talk/stalk) 21:36, 9 August 2017 (UTC)
Hmmm, alright, that makes sense. Though that raises another question: should I move the radiation bit over to the Hydroplate page? -- Onychoprion (talk) 21:59, 9 August 2017 (UTC)

Split into subpages?[edit]

This is a very long page, perhaps it'd be wise to put each section (either level 3 or 4 headings) into its own subpage? —Kazitor, pending 03:39, 27 August 2017 (UTC)

This is amazing[edit]

It's quite amazing the extremes someone will reach to discredit evolution of any kind, when what astronomers understand with evolution has nothing to see with the concept of biologists, and without even bothering to do some research. I can understand the likes of Ken Ham or Ray Comfort sputtering their BS, but a supposedly MIT-graduated engineer... come on. --Panzerfaust (talk) 10:22, 5 November 2017 (UTC)

Keeping in mind [[engineers and woo], of course. Still can't say I understand that correlation. —Kazitor, pending 10:56, 5 November 2017 (UTC)

"Fun" version[edit]

This article certainly deserves a "Fun" version of the style of the one for the "101 evidences for a young age of whatever". Maybe I'll start it one of these days. --Panzerfaust (talk) 13:52, 25 November 2017 (UTC)

Haha, thought about that myself the other day. Though I'm not the one to write that. More power to you if you start! XD Onychoprion (talk) 02:14, 28 November 2017 (UTC)