Talk:The Equation of Creation

	This Creationism related article has been awarded BRONZE status for quality. It's getting there, but could be better with improvement. See RationalWiki:Article rating for more information.

I'm trying...

I'm trying to get my brain around this but I'm not so hot on maths. But even if we assume that every assumption made in this equation is correct and that it is more than a tautology - would it then prove anything? I rather doubt it. The sun and the moon are the same size when viewed from the Earth which is a pretty improbable state of affairs, but it hardly proves that God exists. If this is the case shouldn't we make this point in the intro?--Bob^{Not Jim} 20:40, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

Open your mind, "Bob" (if that is your real name, which I doubt), and realise that the Moon and the Sun being the same size from Earth is proof of God and that atheistic liberal evolutionism causes breast cancer. Perhaps you should translate the Bible. Professor Moriarty 20:57, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

Thank you Andy "Moriarty", you have clarified everything nothing.--Bob^{Not Jim} 21:09, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

the equations are all broken and have been replaced by "failed to parse" followed by a bunch of seemingly random characters in a big red font138.43.109.213 (talk) 17:18, 2 November 2022 (UTC)

Link

What can we possibly link to this? It's really neat, but I'm not sure how to make it less lonely. Researcher (talk) 07:35, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

I was reminded of the the Bible Code when I (briefly) looked at the premise: Jumble around various values, stir, then praise God when you happen to get a result that looks familiar. --Sid (talk) 22:36, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

Bronze?

Really? It's a rambling bunch of stuff with one footnote about some whacko. ħuman 03:18, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

Yeah you don't like seeing medals on mediocre articles? Oh. 03:29, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

Apparently not, no. It makes me burn with a green fury. ħuman 03:46, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

And what's this brilliant "MID" priority thing? The noobs made it so it's all talk pages. Nice work kids. ħuman 03:47, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

The stage is all yours, Mr. Professional. I look forward to your ingenious solution to the problem of categorizing an article via a template on its talk page. 173.254.216.67 (talk) 09:33, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

Arguments against

Given the range of bases that have been used in the past (a listing of defunct systems of weights and measures will show quite a few) base 10 proves nothing more than the 'potato spelt by other means' trope. 86.191.125.138 (talk) 10:51, 19 December 2016 (UTC)

Programming problem

The wiki programming has an issue with the mathematical equations ('Failed to parse (MathML with SVG or PNG fallback ...') - is this the 'RW-sentience' expressing a negative opinion of the equation? Anna Livia (talk) 18:44, 2 November 2022 (UTC)