Talk:Creationist Views on Australia

From Uncyclopedia, the content-free encyclopedia.

On prose: You know what to do here. "Sacraficing" is sacrificing; "evidence to Australia's existence" should be "evidence for Australia's existence". That said, I very much applaud the use of specific quotes. That's a stronger technique than paraphrasing. Thank you.

On concept: This piece uses a classical reductio ad absurdum: If extended to its logical extreme, the premise that the Bible contains all knowledge results in a contradiction because the Bible appears to know nothing about things that we humans know physically do exist. ("The Bible is the inerrant...word of the living God. It is absolutely infallible, without error in all matters pertaining to faith and practice, as well as in areas such as geography, science, history, etc." -- Jerry Falwell, Finding Inner Peace and Strength, page 26). So this piece is not just jokes, it is also real satire. There are obvious counter-arguments, but we can discuss that elsewhere. My point here is that you've written something that is not solely comedy. It has the potential to generate some intellectual heat.

NOT TO SAY IT IS UNFUNNY! "...look at the sky. It is clearly lower than it should be. That is a low sky. God wouldn't make a sky that low." is funny. So is "...actual scientists who have PhDs and inconsistant hair." Those jokes are nicely done.

I might suggest that you think a bit about exactly what you want each part of this article to do. (I'd suggest this in any carefully constructed article, not just the present one...)

For example, many of the quotes from the Bible literalists use the word "fucking": is the intent to show the morally scrupulous losing their scruples when they're angry? Or is it just to portray them as trash-talkers? Where and how can you use this to best effect?

The premise is laid out nicely in the opening quotes and summarized perfectly in the first sentence of the main article. That's a nice bit of work. The following sections then bring up a series of logical ramifications: what about people who've actually gone to Australia? What about the view of Earth from space? What about the science of geography? What do Australians think about not existing? What might a specific Australian do if he took Australia's non-biblical status seriously? Again, this is a solid structure. It's very appropriate to the piece. What you might look at is how these ideas work together in a progression -- are they in the proper order? How might the article flow if the order were changed slightly? Or how could each section be tweaked to lead into -- and thus strengthen -- the succeeding section?

The Bunkhead section is different from the others in that it tells a story about a specific individual (the other sections describe general situations or arguments). You might have a look at that section in textbook storytelling terms: provide appropriate, specific detail; use active verbs; set the scene and describe the action; use direct quotes. You've done a lot of this already, and I applaud your effort. It might benefit from some more careful thought.

Incidentally, I had a look at the article history -- you've done a hell of a lot of work on this piece over the past week. My compliments on putting together a substantial, funny article. ----OEJ 03:59, 15 April 2007 (UTC) Hello, This one's been on Pee before. I stuck it on the discussion page of the article. I've modified it since and would appreciate some feedback. Cheers! The Oblong Lobster 22:37, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

The above review way underrates the article. Alksub - VFH CM WA RV {talk} 19:12, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Reviews

These reviews stink, this article is hilarious and you know it. they're both probably creationist reviewers. The Bunkhead section is genius and irreverent.

GO BACK TO Creationwiki!!! --62.49.195.66 12:45, 29 April 2008 (UTC)