Talk:Scientific arguments for a young Earth

i read it in the bible! and god wrote that...(sarcasm) ^{— Unsigned, by: 208.54.39.145 / talk / contribs}

Why should we care?--ZooGuard (talk) 07:23, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

Believe it or burn forever

It says it in the Bible and if you don't believe it just because there is overwhelming scientific evidence on the contrary then you will go to hell and burn in a lake of fire for all of eternity.

Sarcasm ^{— Unsigned, by: CedricDoodlehopper / talk / contribs}

Thinking about it it's kinda wasteful to build an Earth which will last for 7-10 thousand years and a Hell that will last for eternity. I mean, where are God's priorities here?--The soul of the unicorn (talk) 12:11, 6 November 2013 (UTC)

Do the job quick, knock off early and and get one in before closing time. Sophie^Wilder 21:03, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

Why fun?

So ... why has this - along with some other similar articles - been moved to fun?--Bob^{"I think you'll find it's more complicated than that."} 14:13, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

Because tumbleweed went out of style, i think.--Miekal 14:14, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I moved them because they did not offer any legitimate content, instead relying on tumbleweed jokes. As these articles are largely for humorous purposes and do not add anything of significance to main space, I had thought that they would make more sense here, and I wasn't really in a "let's argue about wikibureaucracy!" mood. You can move them back if you like. MĖSSIÅH ØF DØØM ^{Why weepest thou?} 14:17, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

Wouldn't it have been better to talk about it first?--Bob^{"I think you'll find it's more complicated than that."} 14:19, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

Perhaps, but he does have a point that the main goal of the article is to make you laugh via tumbleweed; not actually science us out about how the arguments they use are bullshit (and i think we have alteast 10 or so articles that already do that)--Miekal 14:21, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

I guess I should've probably not gone fully unilateral with this. That said, I doubt anybody would have given it much attention, and I wasn't really in a talking mood. Sorry, I'll remember to talk about shit like this before doing it in future. MESSIAH OF DOOM ^{What is this that stands before me?} 14:24, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

(EC):::::I think it makes it's point perfectly and concisely through the use of humour. But my point is that we should have this discussion first - not second.--Bob^{"I think you'll find it's more complicated than that."} 14:25, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

Then you might wish to consider moving them back and putting it to a vote.--Bob^{"I think you'll find it's more complicated than that."} 14:27, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

[whole bunch of EC's] Sometimes the rational thing to do is point and laugh. That can be more effective than engaging in ponderous tedious exhaustively reasoned argumentation, where the desired effect is getting people's attention and setting their minds on a sensible track. In other words, you won't find me complaining if this goes back in main space. Sprocket J Cogswell (talk) 14:30, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

Sure, if everybody wants to vote on it, then I'll go ahead and move it back (but only this one, because I moved about ten, and it's, like, 1 am). In the future ill talk about shit before doing shit. THE GREAT RIGHTEØUS DESTRØYER ^{Reaching out to embrace the random} 14:34, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

K. DØØM MĖSSIÅH ^{It's quite an irregular place to be, but never fear, you're safe with me} 14:37, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

Before doing this again be aware that there is a {{Funspace}} template. Scream!! (talk) 15:35, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

Some of these tumbleweed joke pages are actually viral entry points for the wiki. They should not be moved without discussion. Генгис^mutating 06:40, 25 September 2014 (UTC)

Vote

Funz

1. DØØM MĖSSIÅH ^{It's quite an irregular place to be, but never fear, you're safe with me} 14:37, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

Main

1. Seriously, tumbleweed is an accurate representation of the number of valid relevant scientific arguments. Sprocket J Cogswell (talk) 14:52, 24 September 2014 (UTC)
2. These articles are linked from numerous parts of t'web. Why fuck about with something that's working well? Scream!! (talk) 15:12, 24 September 2014 (UTC)
3. Yeah, you're off your rocker, pal. There's only so many ways you can meaningfully and clearly state "There is literally nothing to this notion". Simple and straightforward humor also makes a clear point. Ikanreed (talk) 15:38, 24 September 2014 (UTC)
4. This IS RationalWiki. Генгис^{RationalWiki GOLD member} 06:41, 25 September 2014 (UTC)
5. Indeed.--Bob^{"I think you'll find it's more complicated than that."} 13:02, 25 September 2014 (UTC)