This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
This article is rather a mess. I suppose a major reason for this is that flood geology itself is a mess, but I still think we can do better. Before I start chipping away, I'd like to make sure there are no fundamental objections to my way of looking at the article. First, I think it is appropriate to deal with the contentions of flood geology and the view of the scientific community interspersed. This approach is mostly used already, but sections called "Creationist interpretations of evidence" and "Scientific analysis of flood geology" make it sound otherwise. I would like to rearrange sections 3-5 so that each topic only appears once and rename Section 3 to "Evidence claimed to support a global flood" and Section 5 to "Additional evidence against a global flood". How does that sound? -- Art Carlson ( talk) 21:26, 24 November 2007 (UTC)
<undent> Christian Skeptic, the contribution you can make here is to produce as many published references as possible for what you have described about the different flood theories and other theories. THAT would be valuable and useful, instead of efforts to debate us and your pitiful assorted insults against your fellow editors, many of who have about 20 times as much education as you and 200 times as much experience in science. Don't just whine about how awful big bad science is. If you have information about assorted fruitcake creationist interpretations and theories, let's have them. Especially if they are published someplace, hopefully not on table napkins or blogs.-- Filll ( talk) 21:57, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
Do a bit of research. Einstein was not a creationist. Einstein did not even believe in miracles, and there is plenty of documentation of this. Neither did Newton who was at best an Arianist, a group that the vast majority of creationists would favor burning at the stake. And on and on and on. It will be a stupid movie full of lies. But go ahead and believe lies if you prefer.-- Filll ( talk) 01:34, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
Rock of Ages, Ages of Rock -- New York Times. Probably a useful resource for the article. Hrafn Talk Stalk 07:52, 25 November 2007 (UTC)
I read the article. It is fantastic and would be an excellent source for this article. What is wrong with this article? It includes plenty of direct quotes from creationists and creation scientists. I see no bias whatsoever. Where is the bias? It balances both sides of the argument, which is what is required for NPOV on Wikipedia. I might also remind you that Wikipedia is not a primary source, or a secondary source, but a tertiary source, by and large. That is, Wikipedia must mainly draw on sources that summarize primary source material. What Christian Skeptic
is perhaps missing is that we cannot use primary sources, or if we do, it must be sparingly, so his suggestion of going directly to the participants in the conference would not really be useful for Wikipedia. This NY Times article is a secondary source, which is perfect for WP.--
Filll (
talk) 21:33, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
I think you are confused. That is a title meant to draw people's attention. It is a newspaper article. It is not a list of references. And there is so much confusion about ages, I think all creationists should just give up and subscribe to the Omphalos Conjecture because that is the only way they can save face, if at all.-- Filll ( talk) 01:11, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
Biased and condescending. Christian Skeptic ( talk) 05:44, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
If I can count yearly layers back well over 100 million years, then either the earth is not young, or my assumption that a layer per year gets laid down is wrong, or the earth was created to look old on purpose, even though it is not. And so which does science choose? Since it agrees with thousands of other clues about an old earth, mainstream science has chosen the first conclusion. Do you dispute this? It should be fairly obvious. If you cannot understand that mainstream science has made this choice, then there is a fundamental problem some place. And it is not with us or this Wikipedia article.
You are free to draw another conclusion. However, you are not free to force others to choose the conclusion you chose, or to lie and state that science did not choose the first one, or to ask Wikipedia to lie and not state that science did not choose the first one. Clear enough? -- Filll ( talk) 17:32, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
I'm currently back working on my BS in Earth Sciences with emphasis in Paleontology. I can testify at all geology, especially such common things as the geologic column is 100% evolutionary. In every earth science class I have ever taken, evolution is the dogma preached. Christian Skeptic ( talk) 17:12, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
Views that are held by a tiny minority should not be represented except in articles devoted to those views.
The policy requires that where multiple or conflicting perspectives exist within a topic each should be presented fairly. None of the views should be given undue weight or asserted as being judged as "the truth", in order that the various significant published viewpoints are made accessible to the reader, not just the most popular one. It should also not be asserted that the most popular view, or some sort of intermediate view among the different views, is the correct one to the extent that other views are mentioned only pejoratively. Readers should be allowed to form their own opinions. As the name suggests, the neutral point of view is a point of view, not the absence or elimination of viewpoints. ... The acronym NPOV does not mean "no points of view". The elimination of article content cannot be justified under this policy by simply labeling it "POV". The neutral point of view is a point of view that is neutral, that is neither sympathetic nor in opposition to its subject. Debates within topics are described, represented and characterized, but not engaged in. Background is provided on who believes what and why, and which view is more popular. Detailed articles might also contain the mutual evaluations of each viewpoint, but studiously refrain from asserting which is better. One can think of unbiased writing as the fair, analytical description of all relevant sides of a debate, including the mutual perspectives and the published evidence. When editorial bias toward one particular point of view can be detected, the article needs to be fixed.
Pseudoscience is a social phenomenon and therefore significant, but it should not obfuscate the description of the main views, and any mention should be proportionate and represent the majority (scientific) view as the majority view and the minority (sometimes pseudoscientific) view as the minority view; and, moreover, to explain how scientists have received pseudoscientific theories. This is all in the purview of the task of describing a dispute fairly.
it should describe what 'Flood Geologists' think, but in the terms of accepted science and academia (except to the extent that it is explaining creationist terms or what creationists think terms mean)
Minority views can receive attention on pages specifically devoted to them—Wikipedia is not a paper encyclopedia. But on such pages, though a view may be spelled out in great detail, it must make appropriate reference to the majority viewpoint, and must not reflect an attempt to rewrite majority-view content strictly from the perspective of the minority view.
Look, a quick glance at WP:UNDUE and WP:FRINGE shows that what CS has posted above is, to be kind, just pure horse pucky. I strongly suggest that he cease and desist before he gets himself in administrative trouble for violating WP:DE and God knows what else.-- Filll ( talk) 19:42, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
Notability does not imply correctness or acceptance by an academic community. Many ideas widely believed to be incorrect are nonetheless notable, and the claimed correctness of an idea does not confer notability. If it can be documented in reliable sources that scientists or historians consider a hypothesis correct, then notability is satisfied per the above. However, a single proponent claiming that a hypothesis is correct does not satisfy notability.
Creation science — The overwhelming majority of scientists consider this to be pseudoscience and say that it should not be taught in elementary public education. However the very existence of this strong opinion, and vigorous discussion regarding it amongst mainstream groups (including but not limited to scientists, scientific journals, educational institutions, political institutions, and even the United States Supreme Court) give the idea itself more than adequate notability to have articles about it on Wikipedia.
Notable topics which are primarily non-scientific in nature but which contain claims concerning scientific phenomena should not be treated exclusively as scientific theory and handled on that basis. ... On the other hand, subjects such as creationism or creation science, which involve a direct conflict between scientific discoveries and religious doctrine, should be evaluated on both a scientific and a theological basis.
I am advising you to please drop the attitude before you exhaust the patience of the community.-- Filll ( talk) 22:00, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
Minority views can receive attention on pages specifically devoted to them—Wikipedia is not a paper encyclopedia. But on such pages, though a view may be spelled out in great detail, it must make appropriate reference to the majority viewpoint, and must not reflect an attempt to rewrite majority-view content strictly from the perspective of the minority view.
There is evolution, evolutionist, and evolutionary. There is creation, creationist, creationary.
Whether creationary is uncommon or not is completely irrelevant. It is a real, valid, word. Just as an "evolutionary scientist" is a scientist who is an evolutionist, just so a "creationary scientist" is a scientist who is a creationist. And despite your denial of reality, there really are creationary scientists. Christian Skeptic ( talk) 06:36, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
Hrafn Talk Stalk 07:44, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
Somebody cue me in, I must have been dosing. Exactly what proposed edit is the last five pages of this discussion about? Is it only the words "creationary" and "evolutionary"? -- Art Carlson ( talk) 09:34, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
As far as I can see, this proposed idioyncratic usage of "creationary" can be traced to an individual creationist/linguist crank, one Hans-Friedrich Tamke who has been pushing this issue since the late 1990s [2] (at least). Both he ( Talk:Henry M. Morris#Parallel adjectives: creationary/evolutionary) and others ( Talk:Creation biology/Archive 1#Creationary vs. creation vs. creationist) have tried to push this on wikipedia, but without success. I see no reason for further debate of this dead issue. Hrafn Talk Stalk 12:59, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
Just to mess with peoples' minds a bit: given that the adjective of "recreation" is "recreational", if we wanted to creation a new adjective for "creation", shouldn't it be "creational"? This shows how silly it is to attempt to mindlessly apply rules to a language as heterogeneous as English. >:) Hrafn Talk Stalk 13:44, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
“ | Kent Hovind is a proponent of the vapor canopy, but other creationists now reject the idea, such as Walt Brown's Center for Scientific Creation and Answers in Genesis | ” |
From numerous WP policies, it is clear we are not supposed to boost obscure fringe theories and we are also supposed to write clearly and be accessible. Pushing words like "creationary" and using "evolutionary" in nonstandard ways violates both of these precepts. We should use words the way most people use them, or else we end up producing crappy articles. And why should we adopt the promotion of these nonstandard obscure words and usages? What value does it serve? It just obfuscates the entire issue. I could easily cook up dozens of other related words we could pepper these articles with, and it would make the articles hard to read, and irritate our readers, and just generally be unencyclopedic:
and so on and so forth. If one starts travelling down this road, WP will rapidly cease to be anything worth reading. -- Filll 15:52, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
<unindent>
I am getting tired of this. Anything further that you have to say on this subject that is not backed by pertinent reliable sources will be simply userfied or deleted. Hrafn Talk Stalk 05:31, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
"Creationary" does not have widespread support as a term. I have The Creationists, by Ronald Numbers, arguably the most authoritative history of the Creationist movement, in front of me. I have not seen the word "creationary" used in it once. You need to find an equally authoritative source to support your case for using "creationary", if you want any chance at all of getting your way. One obscure dictionary out of 900 is not even close. In any case, its definition of "creationary" does not support your use, in that it uses the term purely in connection with an act of creation, not with apologetic attempts to substantiate a prior "creationary" act.
What were you saying about "baseless assertion after baseless assertion with out any sources"? I have a very solid source at the core of this issue. I'm sure as hell not going to bother to go to the trouble of providing reliable sources to rebut every one of your Gish Gallop of unsubstantiated and frequently fallacious statements. Life is too short. Hrafn Talk Stalk 06:40, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
I believe in being tolerant of occasional digressions, and indeed I have been known to indulge from time to time myself. CS, the reason you should stop this discussion is not because anybody is trying to suppress your sharp observations and exemplary point of view, but because it no longer has any relevance to the question of how to improve the article. If you think it does, then make the connection to a concrete edit suggestion and argue for it clearly and succinctly. General discussions of the philosophy os science are out of place here. Take it to a newsgroup or an email exchange. And, Filll, that goes for you, too. ( WP:NOFEEDING) -- Art Carlson 11:59, 1 December 2007 (UTC) - And for Hrafn. And, for that matter, for me, too!-- Art Carlson 14:39, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
There are a number of problems with this section.
Liquifaction: This seems to belong under "mechanisms" more than "evidence". Either way, I can't figure out what the claims are supposed to be, and they are certainly not cited. Does anybody know about this?
Radiometric dating: I don't think creationists ever claim that radiometric dating proves that the flood occurs. The topic belongs under "evidence against a flood", with the arguments of the creationists, that the methods are not reliable, as a rebuttal.
Fossils: Similarly here. Do creationists say that the fossil evidence proves there was a flood, or that the evidence, despite appearances to the contrary, is consistent with a flood?
Submarine canyon formation: This one might be OK (once the citations have been provided).
-- Art Carlson 14:58, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
This is the kind of thing that CS could productively help with, if he so chose, rather than grandstanding and arguing. At least he provided some references above; did anyone check them and integrate the appropriate references? My impression is that the fossil record supposedly "proves" that a flood occurred, since it looks like a whole bunch of things died. The dating methods are said to be unreliable or to support a young earth and possibly "simultaneous" death of a large number of animals.-- Filll 15:29, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
<undent>This is based on a complete misunderstanding of what science is and what constitutes an accepted theory in science. A scientific theory is nothing more than a parsimonious natural explanation for data that can make predictions. If a new theory is simpler and makes the same predictions, then it is more likely to become the accepted theory instead. If the theory makes predictions that are found to not agree with the data, then it is less likely to be accepted and will probably eventually be replaced.
Of course flood geology can explain the data. So can the flat earth hypothesis and Last Thursdayism. However, these explanations are far more involved and involve nonnatural mechanisms, so they are not accepted scientific theories. Often, to explain new data, the explanations associated with flood geology and a Flat Earth have to become more and more complicated.
This is what happened to geocentric theory. I could explain all planetary motions assuming the earth was at the centre of the solar system and even the universe. It is just that the explanation would be far more complicated than the current theory. Paucity wins and so this is not the accepted theory.
The original theory of Evolution has been replaced many times with more complicated theories to explain new data. However, evolution still involves natural phenomena, which many creationist explanations do not. Evolution is also still "simpler" than most creationist explanations, because it does not involve assuming some very complicated being interfering day to day second to second, in the lives of every living thing on earth, forever, and breaking the observed laws of the universe to do so. The same is true of plate tectonics and the theory of gravitation and the theory of quantum mechanics.
The problem with flood geology is that it posits nonnatural mechanisms, very complicated mechanisms, and never discards one or two fundamental axioms (i.e., that a given interpretation of the bible is literally true), even when there is substantial evidence that simpler natural explanations would explain the data. -- Filll 18:12, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
I also hope that CS realizes that if we accept magic into science, that means we have to let all people out of prison, because of course the evidence they were convicted on could have been put there by magic, and this would be a valid defense. So CS you are not allowed to enforce any laws whatsoever. Close the jails and courts and fire all the police.-- Filll 18:17, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
Well I have to agree that the
creation-evolution controversy is not really about science. That is because creationism includes magic, and science, including evolution, does not include magic. So the controversy cannot be a scientific one, since creationism, creation science, intelligent design, and flood geology are outside of science.
You are incorrect about evolution never being a theory; the observations of evolution constitute data, also known as scientific facts. The explanation for these facts is called the theory of evolution.-- Filll ( talk) 01:46, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
Since the model was introduced not quite 10 years ago, there has not been a lot of publication and discussion published so far. However, references in the following paper show that there has been some discussion in creationary circles.
Wayne R. Spencer and Michael J. Oard, 2004, "The Chesapeake Bay Impact and Noah’s Flood", CRSQ, Volume 41, no. 3 December.
References: (selected)
Faulkner, D. 1999. A biblically based cratering theory. Creation Ex Nihilo Technical Journal 13(1):100–104.
–—–—–. 2000. Danny Faulkner replies. Creation Ex Nihilo Technical Journal 14(1):47–48.
Faulkner, D. and W. Spencer 2000. Danny Faulkner and Wayne Spencer reply. Creation Ex Nihilo Technical Journal 14(3):75–77.2004
Froede, C.R., Jr. and D.B. DeYoung 1996. Impact events within the Young–Earth Flood Model. CRSQ 33:23–34.
Froede, C.R., Jr. and E.L. Williams 1999. The Wetumpka Impact Crater, Elmore County, Alabama: an interpretation within the Young-Earth Flood Model. CRSQ 36(1):32–37.
Froede, C.R., Jr. 2002. Extraterrestrial bombardment of the Inner Solar System: a review with questions and comments based on new information. CRSQ 38:209–212.
Hovis, J. 2000. Biblically-based cratering theory. Creation Ex Nihilo Technical Journal. 14(3):74–75.
Oard, M.J. 1994. Response to comments on the asteroid hypothesis for dinosaur extinction. CRSQ 31:12.
–—–—–. 2001a. Vertical tectonics and the drainage of Floodwater: a model for the middle and late Diluvian period—Part I. CRSQ 38:3–17.
–—–—–. 2001b. Vertical tectonics and the drainage of Floodwater: a model for the middle and late Diluvian period—Part II. CRSQ 38:79–95.
Spencer, W. R. 1994. The origin and history of the Solar System. In Walsh, R.E. (editor), Proceedings of the Third International Conference on Creationism (technical symposium sessions), pp. 513–523, Creation Science Fellowship, Pittsburgh, PA.
–—–—–. 1998a. Catastrophic impact bombardment surrounding the Genesis Flood. In Walsh, R.E. (editor), Proceedings of the Fourth International Conference on Creationism (technical symposium sessions), pp. 553–566, Creation Science Fellowship, Pittsburgh, PA.
–—–—–. 1998b. Geophysical effects of impacts during the Genesis Flood. In Walsh, R.E. (editor), Proceedings of the Fourth International Conference on Creationism (technical symposium sessions), pp. 567–579, Creation Science Fellowship, Pittsburgh, PA.
–—–—–. 1999. Earth impacts, the geologic column, and Chicxulub. CRSQ 36:163–165.
–—–—–. 2000. Response to Faulkner’s ‘Biblically-based cratering theory.’ Creation Ex Nihilo Technical Journal 14(1):46–47.
–—–—–. 2002. Response to Carl Froede on extraterrestrial bombardment. CRSQ 39:142–145.
Walker, T. 1994. A biblical geologic model. In Walsh, R.E. (editor), Proceedings of the Third International Conference on Creationism (technical symposium sessions), pp. 581–592, Creation Science Fellowship, Pittsburgh, PA. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Christian Skeptic ( talk • contribs) 19:35, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
In my opinion the Philosophical objections is totally unneccesairy. These are just general objections to creationism in total, not specifically for a flood. The piece is written in a very biased way too. I recommend deleting it. 62.41.69.18 ( talk) 15:03, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
John D. O'Keefe, 1982, “ The interaction of the Cretaceous/Tertiary Extinction Bolide with the atmosphere, ocean, and Italic textsolid Earth,” Geological Society of America, Special Paper 190, p. 111, 117.
"Most of the energy is transferred to the planetary material in the case of an asteroidal impact (~ 85%)" p. 111
"Notably from 13% to 15% of the projectile energy resides in the water ejecta [when impacting ocean water]." p.111
"Note that less than 5% of impact energy is directly transferred [by shock wave from explosion] to the atmosphere." pg 117
Note: That adds up to ~100%. ~85% + <15% + <5% = ~100% Christian Skeptic ( talk) 05:27, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
Which is typical of evolutionists. ignorance is bliss, blind and stupid. Try to control yourself. People in glass houses should not throw stones.-- Filll ( talk) 16:02, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
While we are at it CS, try to stop using the term "evolutionist'. Many view it as derogatory. If I used a comparable word for someone with beliefs like those you subscribe to, you might not find it so pleasant. Thanks awfully.--
Filll (
talk) 18:53, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
Off-topic: In the news [3] recently - mammoths and bison were found that had been peppered with high speed projectiles (meteorites, asteroid fragments?) I thought this might have been a 'flood connection', but it appears not as the bison survived for some time afterwards ross nixon 19:17, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
This discussion is getting long-winded. The questions we want to decide are, Should the "asteroid impact model" be covered in this article at all?, and, if so, In which section and in what level of detail?
Some editors have argued that the idea should not be covered at all because it is not notable. This is a legitimate question, but remember that WP:NOTABILITY is a guideline, not a policy (advisory, rather than mandatory), and even then the topics within an article are not each required to meet the standards. So merely citing notability cannot end the discussion. Likewise, any reference to WP:FRINGE is not very helpful unless it is pointed out just which statements are thought to apply in what way to this case. It would help a lot if we could find a good secondary source, whether from an observer of the flood geology community or from within that community. I'd like to see an article with a title like, "Major ideas/prominent trends/hot topics within flood geology". An alternative would be to compare the numbers from a carefully constructed google search. If we have to start analyzing the primary sources ourselves, which is sometimes necessary, we will be doing WP:OR and inviting endless controversy.
I personally am less concerned with the standing of asteroid impacts in the community than I am with the substance (as presented by CS). The material was added as a subsection of "Proposed mechanisms of the flood", but I don't see how it answers the questions of where the water came from or where it went. Perhaps it is meant as an explanation of evidence that "appears" to contradict the Flood hypothesis, such as the sorting of fossils (tsunamis eating their way inland) or the existence of large, thin geological layers (liquifaction). If so, then it would belong in another section. Perhaps it is just meant to round out the picture of the Flood, in which case we would have to re-open the questions of to what degree it represents a consensus and whether this level of detail is appropriate.
I would ask the participants of this dicussion to try to concentrate on these issues, stating their arguments succinctly, (and to definitely avoid personal attacks).
-- Art Carlson ( talk) 09:16, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
In reading the article, a bias and indeed contempt is clearly obvious, flying in the face of what should be a neutral and impartial presentation of the article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by VertigoGames ( talk • contribs) 08:27, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
Firstly I would like to offer my appreciation to Art Carlson and all the other contributors for their discussion on this worthy topic. I understand that what is being discussed here is highly contentious and I would like to strongly encourage all to "do nothing out of selfish ambition or vain conceit, but in humility consider others better than yourselves" (Philippians 2:3). With this in mind I confess that I am not an expert in these matters, however in my humble opinion I would like to point out an example that I believe may contravene NPOV. I believe that Paragraph 2 typifies an unfairness in tone in this article. In particular I consider phrases such as "routinely been evaluated, refuted and dismissed unequivocally" as "Peacock Terms" (refer WP:APT). Further attributing this refutation and dismissal to the "Scientific Community" in its entirety could be considered a "Weasel Word" (refer WP:AWT) and is in contradiction with WP's own article on Scientific Community where it states that "there are no singular bodies which can be said today to speak for all of science". Such a paragraph biases this article in a number of ways including: (1) implying that Flood Geologists are not members of the Scientific Community therefore making this a de facto debate between faith and science; (2) it asserts a number of opinions as fact (refer WP:ASF) including that Creation views of Flood Geology are false and consequently that currently held evolutionary theories are true. It is my recommendation that this paragraph be deleted and further efforts be made to ensure that a dispassionate and neutral tone be carried throughout this article. Siyrtur ( talk) 13:42, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
Hrafn Talk Stalk 14:15, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
Hrafn I think that you miss the point. Sure the terms I highlighted are not noted specifically in
WP:Peacock however that document is not prescriptive. The nature of a “peacock term” is that the word or phrase is not sufficiently specific and that it grandstands about a particular opinion, which is exactly as you have portrayed it. Please be specific! If you have verifiable instances where creation arguments have been put forward and repudiated within legitimate scholarly debate and reported in reputable sources then state that with a valid citation.
Similarly Filll, if you can provide a valid source where 99% of geologists reject flood geology (or even some other percentage) FANTASTIC please put it in the article.
I think that to overcome the inherent contention in this aspect of the discussion perhaps we should confine our descriptions of those in favour of Flood Geology as either Flood Geologists or proponents of Flood Geology. These terms neither infer that they are scientific nor that they are unscientific just that they refer to themselves as Flood Geologists. Similarly when describing an opponent of Flood Geology, if they are a Geologist then describe then as a Geologist, if they are Evolutionary Bologists then describe them as such. Reference to the “Scientific Community” as a collective noun is unhelpful because the term includes those whose expertise has no relevance to this topic (i.e. computer science) nor does it give those whose expertise are relevant sufficient credence.
I also agree with rossnixon about “undue weight”. I believe that if this was an article about the more general topic of “geology” then both Hrafn and Filll would have a legitimate point. However as Flood Geology is the sole topic of this article then its purpose is to describe what the key tenets of Flood Geology are, who the key proponents and opponents are and the context in which it exists. This article is not the place to assert that Flood Geology is true, nor that it is false.
My aim in this particular discussion is not to debate which point of view is correct, simply that this article maintains the key policies of WP. If some choose to believe that Flood Geology is true, then good luck to them, if others believe that it is all bunkum then good for them. I believe that as it is hailed in
WP:NPOV, “Let the facts speak for themselves”.
Siyrtur (
talk) 14:06, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
[Edit conflicted parallel reply to Filll's]
Hrafn Talk Stalk 14:43, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
Filll, I totally agree with you when you state that I cannot claim that "Flood Geology" is not a part of science or geology. In fact if you go back to my original statement I was arguing for their inclusion. Now I also understand that you consider "Flood Geology" as a fringe science topic but
WP:Fringe also explicitly states that Creationism (and subsequently Flood Geology as a "prominent subset") should be evaluated on a scientific AND a theological basis (see "Evaluating Scientific and Non-Scientific Claims") and from a theological perspective the belief in a world-wide flood is definitely not a fringe topic. Therefore a clear, dispassionate and BALANCED explanation of the claims for and against the Flood as explored by Flood Geology is necessary.
Hrafn, My, my, you do have a talent for hyperbole! As a compromise I propose the following text in the place of the current version of Para 2:
Flood Geology is one of a number of controversial topics which are regularly debated between evolutionary scientists and creationists. Leading publications espousing Flood Geology include "Answers in Genesis" [2] and "Creation ex Nihili Magazine" [3] whereas the claims of Flood Geology are regularly refuted by leading journals in evolutionary biology, geology and paleontology including "Nature Magazine" [4] and "Science Magazine" [5]. Further complicating the debate is the fact that this controversy is not necessarily divided along religious and scientific lines with a number of churches accepting that a world-wide flood may not have occurred and the scientific community being likewise divided. As observed by the American Science Affiliation "Today's spirited discussion often pits Christian vs. Christian and scientist vs. scientist" [6].
I think this new paragraph recognises the existence of the debate, who the key groups are, and a number of verifiable sources from both sides of the fence. This now allows the interested reader to access the debate from primary and secondary sources where they can make up their own mind. Would you agree? Siyrtur ( talk) 15:52, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
Even in religious circles, those who believe in a literal worldwide flood are a minority, as near as I can determine. So this is a FRINGE belief both scientifically and theologically, at least at the moment.--
Filll (
talk) 17:23, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
Silly Rabbit, WP even has an article
Creation-evolution controversy. You can't serious say that there is not an ongoing debate??! I can see that the matter is clearly decided in your mind but yet in the public arena the discussion goes on... With regards to my citation from the ASA, perhaps you need to read it. The ASA is an association of scientists (Science Degree minimum for membership) who state, "The ASA has no official position on evolution; its members hold a diversity of views with varying degrees of intensity". So I totally reject your assessment of the neutrality of this source. My only concession to you and Hrafn on this paragraph would be to substitute "modern secular scientist" as opposed to "evolutionary scientist".
Hrafn, Your reading of
WP:Undue is completely inaccurate. "Undue weight" talks of minority views not religion vs science.
WP:Fringe in fact states that this subject must consider both the religious and the scientific aspects of this matter equally.
Filll, perhaps you might want to examine the Chapter 4 of the Westminster Confession of Faith
[7] which articulates a literal interpretation of Creation. This document is the founding creed upon which all Presbyterian and Reformed Protestant churchs are founded including many independent and Baptist churchs. These churches are mainstream churches therefore the belief in a literal flood could hardly be considered fringe.
Unsigned, I hope my reference to the founding creeds of major churches as a step in the right direction. I think that you are have made a good point in suggesting that the range of 'learned' theological positions should be explored.
Siyrtur (
talk) 15:16, 18 March 2008 (UTC)
I am afraid I see not much more in your posts than confusion and ignorance. Molleen Matsumura of the National Center for Science Education found, of Americans in the twelve largest Christian denominations, at least 77% belong to churches that support evolution education (and that at one point, this figure was as high as 89.6%). Matsumura 1998, p. 9 notes that, "Table 1 demonstrates that Americans in the 12 largest Christian denominations, 89.6% belong to churches that support evolution education! Indeed, many of the statements in Voices insist quite strongly that evolution must be included in science education and "creation science" must be excluded. Even if we subtract the Southern Baptist Convention, which has changed its view of evolution since McLean v Arkansas and might take a different position now, the percentage those in denominations supporting evolution is still a substantial 77%. Furthermore, many other Christian and non-Christian denominations, including the United Church of Christ and the National Sikh Center, have shown some degree of support for evolution education (as defined by inclusion in 'Voices' or the "Joint Statement")." Matsumura produced her table from a June, 1998 article titled Believers: Dynamic Dozen put out by Religion News Services which in turn cites the 1998 Yearbook of American and Canadian Churches. Matsurmura's calculations include the SBC based on a brief they filed in McLean v. Arkansas, where the SBC took a position it has since changed, according to Matsurmura. See also NCSE 2002. These churches include the United Methodist Church, National Baptist Convention, USA, Evangelical Lutheran Church in America, Presbyterian Church (USA), National Baptist Convention of America, African Methodist Episcopal Church, the Roman Catholic Church, the Episcopal Church, and others.
Also, as Steve Sailer points out, it is also not clear how firmly held the public beliefs in creationism are. [8] Most creationist claims require a literal reading of Genesis and a belief in biblical inerrancy. However, not all Americans seem to subscribe to biblical literalism. For example, among the 15% that are evangelical Protestants, only 47.8% believe that the Bible is literally true, and 6.5% believe that the Bible is an ancient book full of history and legends. Only about 11% of Catholics and mainline Protestants believe the Bible is literally true, and only 9% of Jews believe the Torah is literally true. About 20% of Catholics and Protestants reported that the Bible is a book of history and legends, and 52.6% of Jewish respondents felt the same about the Torah. These figures make it clear that a large fraction of Christians and Jews do not subscribe to the necessary beliefs to adopt many creationist principles wholeheartedly. [9]
However, most Christians believe in God as Creator, while also accepting scientific evolution as a natural process. [10] A minority of Christians rejected evolution from its outset as "heresy", but most attempted to reconcile scientific evolution with Biblical accounts of creation. [11] Islam accepts the natural evolution of plants and animals, but the origin of man is contested and no consensus has emerged. [12]
I would also direct you to Clergy Letter Project.
{{
citation}}
: Check date values in: |date=
(
help)CS1 maint: date and year (
link) Retrieved on
2007-02-08--
Filll (
talk) 16:02, 18 March 2008 (UTC)That is just an observation. Perhaps this is okay and simply presenting the reality of the situation, or maybe it doesn't appear this way to most individuals. -- Emesee ( talk) 00:47, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
The article seems preoccupied with the views of Young Earth Creationism. But surely Old Earthers equally accept the idea of a literal flood? Do they not have any developed theories of flood geology? Just curious. PiCo ( talk) 11:37, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
I know we're supposed to assume good faith, but given that several peoples' concerns have been summarily dismissed, I find it hard to do so.
This article needs to be either flagged or edited. It is perfectly possible to accurately portray the scientific view of flood geology without using disparaging language such as has been identified by the commenter immediately below.
The connotation of even the first part of the article feels slanted rather than objective. As I indicated, it is possible to use more objective language to get across the same point. Scientific disagreement is not open license for belittlement. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.140.134.68 ( talk) 03:11, 18 July 2008 (UTC)
Below are the links allowed on the page ranked according to prominence. Creationwiki with its many creationary editors is at least as prominent as the prominent individuals in the list. It is certainly more prominent as the crackpots.
Prominent Organizations
AiG
* Answers in Genesis' Geology Questions and Answers Page
Geoscience Research Institutue
* Biblical Evidence for the Universality of the Genesis Flood - Richard M. Davidson -
Prominent Individuals
Dr. Baumbardner
* Unveiling the Mechanism Behind the Genesis Flood
Michael Oard
* Startling Evidence That Noah's Flood Really Happened
Tas Walker
* Tas Walker's Biblical Geology
Doug Sharp
* Revolution against Evolution geology page
Not Prominent Individuals
Mike Brown [biologist]
* Global Flood Geology from "Creation Science Prophecy"
Steven Robinson
* Recolonisation Theory
Prominent Individuals (crackpot)
Walt Brown
* Hydroplate Theory
Not Prominent Individuals (Crackpot)
David Pratt
* Shock Dynamics geology theory –
Broken link
* Christian Geology
--- Christian Skeptic ( talk) 16:23, 19 July 2008 (UTC)
Taking the formal External Links policy:
Hrafn Talk Stalk 06:53, 20 July 2008 (UTC)
The order of the paragraphs in this section is weird - couldn't the para on the 18th century be moved so it comes in between the para on the Enlightenment and the 19th century? PiCo ( talk) 07:42, 25 August 2008 (UTC)
This paragraph is misleading;
"Generally, the geologic column and the fossil record are used as major pieces of evidence in the modern scientific explanation of the development and evolution of life on Earth as well as a means to establish the age of the Earth. Some creationists deny the existence of these pieces of evidence. This is the approach taken by Morris and Whitcomb in their 1961 book, The Genesis Flood, and it is continued today by leading creationists such as Michael Oard and John Woodmorappe.[23]"
This says that Morris, Oard and Woodmorappe deny that there are fossils in the geologic record, which is innacurate.
They all recognize that the geology of past events of the earth is recorded in the rocks, However, they deny the Geologic Column, which is an interpretation of the rock record as evolution of the earth over millions of years.
They all recognize the existence of fossils in the rock record, but they interpret the fossil record in the rocks as the result of burial in the Flood and not as a record of evolution over millions of years (the typical interpretation).
The difference has to do with interpretation of the geologic rock record and interpretation of the fossil record, not the denial of the either one. Christian Skeptic ( talk) 16:30, 28 August 2008 (UTC)
<undent> Herbert's paper has relevance to the above point. Around 1825 there was strong support amongst English clergymen naturalists for the idea that a "diluvium" accounted for geological features, but she goes on to describe on p. 173 "the rapidity of change within the field of geology. For Sedgwick in 1831 there remained a distinction between diluvial and alluvial deposits, but the connection between 'diluvium' and the Noachian flood had been dissolved. Thus when Darwin was actively pursuing the study of geology during his last terms at Cambridge, he would have encountered a diluvial theory separated from connection to the biblical flood." . . dave souza, talk 11:15, 29 August 2008 (UTC)
Hi, I am new to this particular page. I am not a YEC, but I was curious about the particular beliefs associated with Flood Geology, and I have to say that it is difficult to glean objective information from this site. To those who feel strongly about debunking Flood Geology: The inclusion of negative comments in just about every paragraph is not helping your cause; I ended up clicking on the link to the "answers in genesis" site in order to obtain a more readable (albeit certainly not objective) account of Flood Geology's basic tenets.
My suggestion is that we retain all the information on this page, but structure it in the following way:
1. Keep the very first paragraph that summarizes Flood Geology's basic beliefs.
2. Name specific organizations that support or oppose Flood Geology. Avoid loaded/undefined terms such as "scientists". However, if we could find a direct quote about Flood Geology or YEC in general from the National Academy of Science, that would be acceptable. In this section, it would be great if we could find some specific statistics describing the percentage of (North American?) individuals who claim to believe in the veracity of the Flood account. If this is not possible, we could cite the percentage of individuals claiming to believe in Young Earth Creationism, and note that belief in a worldwide flood is strongly associated with YEC.
I think we should avoid the temptation to comment on the significance of these statistics with remarks such as "the people who believe in Flood Geology are not really scientists". In general, readers of this page will have enough familiarity with notable organizations such as the Discovery Institute, or the NAS, and can decide for themselves which are reliable sources of scientific information. If not, they can click on the links and learn more. The idea is to present Flood Geology's incidence of belief in a neutral, encyclopedic fashion.
Now, the fact that this is a "hot topic" is not insignificant. However, we should attempt to treat the matter professionally and, to limit emotional outbursts petitioning the reader to believe one thing or another. Hence:
3. Describe the arguments in favor of the Flood Geology model, including historical arguments (i.e. arguments originally made in the 1600s, etc. along with a description of the current popularity of those arguments).
4. Describe the arguments against the Flood Geology model, also including historical counter-arguments.
Sections 3 and 4 would eliminate the need for a "history of flood geology" section.
5. Describe the various models of "where did all that water come from", along with counter-arguments.
6. Keep the links for further reading classified into pro- and anti- flood stances.
If this proposal seems reasonable, I look forward to restructuring the page with you all, sometime in the near future.
Cynthia1981 (
talk) 15:15, 1 September 2008 (UTC)Posted by Cynthia1981 on September 1, 2008.
Cynthia1981 (
talk) 15:15, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
Hrafn Talk Stalk 16:50, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
Why is he addressed in the introduction and the issue is never broached again? It's unclear what point is being served. The cites appear to be examples of his work which don't support the claims a) that he was dismissed by scientists, b) that it's accepted science now or c) that his story has relevance to Flood geology. There isn't any explanation of the differences between episodic catastrophism and flood geology which adds to the confusion, why it's paid any mind in the intro? Professor marginalia ( talk) 20:59, 3 September 2008 (UTC)
"The ordering of fossil layers is often used as evidence for the scientific explanation of geological features." This claim doesn't say how or why this is so. I think the idea needs clarification. Professor marginalia ( talk) 00:44, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
The statement about flood geology contradicting much of the evidence underlying the current consensus is dubious at best. This needs RS showing flood geologist actually contradicting actual evidence, and much of it. And it needs to be based on what flood geologist actually say, rather than what others say they say. Otherwise the statement is shown to be weaselly and POV. LowKey ( talk) 00:14, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
<outdent> Hrafn's source does not match the statement anyway. It is a list of claims with responses, but the claims AND the response are offering explanations of THE SAME EVIDENCE. No one is contradicting anyone else's evidence in that list. The source fails verification. And it is incorrect to say that the lead usually has no citations. The lead should avoid redundant citations. What we have here is a tendentious, weasel-worded POV assertion with no RS, parenthetical to boot. So far only Hrafn has attempted to source it. The source reference dealt with interpretations and conclusions but I could not see any contradiction of evidence in it. The others objecting to the challenge seem to think the statement is self-evident without needing verification. A) that's a pretty good indicator of POVblindness; and B) if is so self-evident and uncontroversial RS should be very easy to provide. And can we please strive to recognise the difference between evidence and interpretation or conclusion?
Example: Water on my desk is evidence, leaky roof and spilled drink are both interpretations. Water marks on the ceiling are also evidence. If I still say spilled drink because there is no water mark on the ceiling I have contradicted the evidence. If I say that the water mark on the ceiling could be from water that splashed there when the drink was spilled then I have NOT contradicted the evidence.
LowKey ( talk) 23:48, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
Silly Rabbit has cited the Geologic Column as evidence that is contradicted. Notice that WP has no such article but redirects to Geologic Timescale, which is an interpretation. I am not debating the validity of the interpretation; I am merely pointing out that it is one. The cited source has Morton quoting YEC's on the Geologic Column and saying that he can show where it exists in entirety according to their own definition. He then goes on to change the definition to either what he THINKS they mean or what he HOPES they mean and then attacks that definition. He demonstrates quite ably that the GC is not an objective piece of evidence, but a synthesis of evidence which may be synthesised different ways by different people. LowKey ( talk) 02:29, 9 September 2008 (UTC)
This is getting increasingly tendentious. Sources have been given that explicitly stated that flood geology contradicted modern geological evidence, and you still refuse to accept the statement as adequately sourced. By the way, this is a statement which is totally uncontroversial (outside your own mind): flood geology was rejected by science over a century ago as inconsistent with the evidence. Period. Moreover, you have been totally overruled by several editors, and yet continue to make edits against the obvious consensus. siℓℓy rabbit ( talk) 01:23, 17 September 2008 (UTC)
Er... Excuse me. What's the point of the usual editors of this page re-hashing their old arguments yet again, only this time it's under the header Request for Comment? What has been requested, per the RfC page instructions, is outside opinion; it's not the same old arguments from regular editors such as Christian Sceptic (who started the regular-editors'-discussion ball rolling). Could everybody please read the RfC instructions, because if those instructions are followed, the procedure will have a much better chance of being useful. "Requests for comment (RfC) is an informal, lightweight process for requesting outside input," "Before asking outside opinion here, it generally helps to simply discuss the matter on the article talk page first." (Italics in the original.) The usual editors of this page are kindly asked to a) not keep repeating the same everlasting comments, and b) to leave the RfC section for that outside opinion which they have requested by listing the article on the RfC page. If an outsider should come here to respond, it's highly dis-inviting for them to find, of all things, a straw poll between the usual suspects! I have not removed any comments, but merely re-named this section to "preparatory discussion", and moved the RfC header down. If there is in fact any outside input hidden in this section, I ask the regular editors to please move that outside input down into the actual RfC section below. I hope this helps. Bishonen | talk 22:32, 19 September 2008 (UTC).
The whole paragraph under discussion/comment here has recently been completely excised twice, from 2 different IP addresses. Is there some tag to direct editors to the discussion? The only inline one that I know of that incorportates a discussion notice is the "Dubious" tag, but if I use that it will be instantly reverted. I think protecting the article is overkill, but editors should be aware that the statement is under active discussion. LowKey ( talk) 00:33, 19 September 2008 (UTC)
See top note in the previous section. Outside editors are kindly invited to post their comments on Flood geology in this section.
Does flood geology contradict much of the evidence underlying the current scientific consensus on geology, evolutionary biology, and paleontology? Are the references as presented in the article currently adequate to substantiate this claim? siℓℓy rabbit ( talk) 01:44, 17 September 2008 (UTC)
— Scien tizzle 18:46, 22 September 2008 (UTC)"Creationists and the Grand Canyon". Retrieved 2008-09-22.
{{ cite web}}
: Text "The Humanist (March, 2004)" ignored ( help)
New York Times : "Rock of Ages, Ages of Rock". Retrieved 2008-09-22.
At present the history section seems to jump from the 18th century to Lyell in the 1830s before referring back to Hutton in the 1780s. There was an interesting series of developments, as Cuvier apparently explained his findings as a number of local floods, but his ideas as translated by the Neptunist Robert Jameson and adopted by Buckland were changed into support for a universal Biblical flood, albeit as a final epoch before the modern world. Herbert pp. 171–173 discusses this view as held by Adam Sedgwick and Buckland, our article only shows Buckland later recanting the idea. Gotta do other things first, but this section needs improvement. . . dave souza, talk 10:49, 22 September 2008 (UTC)
As far as i am aware almost no YECs claim not to be biased, they openly embrace that they start from the presupposition that the Bible is 100% correct, just as evolutionists and the like start from the point that the Bible is wrong. Saying that they claim to be unbiased when they are makes them wrongly appear to be self-contradictory —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.162.91.230 ( talk) 11:13, 23 September 2008 (UTC)
The original post seems to be based on a mis-reading (or perhaps a non-reading) of the article, which currently states
Flood geology starts from the viewpoint that the Biblical Book of Genesis is an accurate and impartial description of actual historical events.
which seems to be what the poster was concerned about. The ensuing discussion has touched on a number of other issues, but seems to have circled in on the question of whether the Bible can be true without being literally true. The current version uses language like "Genesis states" and "The account describes", so I don't think there is any disagreement or ambiguity about what the Bible says literally. The article also states
The idea that Genesis is literally accurate is not universally held within Christianity.
which is also indisputable. So please, we do not need a discussion here of the sense in which the Bible is or is not true. Further discussion here should be limited to the question of how the article can be improved, ideally with concrete objections, concrete suggestions of alternatives, and reliable sources to base them on. -- Art Carlson ( talk) 09:53, 24 September 2008 (UTC)
Apparently the criticism that opened this section is no longer being pursued, while the discussion has doubled back to a previous criticism. On this basis I am putting in a new section header at this point. -- Art Carlson ( talk) 10:07, 25 September 2008 (UTC)
LowKey, did you make a concrete proposal for a change? The discussion here is unfortunately not very focused. Did you simply want to drop the parenthetical phrase "(and much of the evidence underlying it)" from the lead? I don't have any problem with this phrase, but I also think the paragraph is plenty unambiguous without it. My proposal would be to switch the two sentences, i.e. to talk first about (general) consensus and then about (specific) evidence, like this:
Flood geology directly contradicts the current consensus in a number of scientific disciplines including geology, evolutionary biology and paleontology. [14] [15] [16] [17] The arguments creationists have presented in support of flood geology have been evaluated, refuted and unequivocally dismissed by the scientific community, which considers such flood geology to be pseudoscience.
Note that I have also replaced the word "evidence" with "arguments". Does this version have any better chance of gaining consensus, or have I missed the point somewhere? -- Art Carlson ( talk) 10:33, 25 September 2008 (UTC)
Now that I'm here, I can't pass up the opportunity to ask this: Would a theoretical individual who has never heard of the Bible, never seen it, never read any of its contents, etc... Would such an individual also be starting "from the point that the Bible is wrong" if he or she looked at the evidence and came to the conclusion that the Earth was around 4.5 billion years old? -- Good Damon 22:41, 24 September 2008 (UTC)
[Decrease indent] It's a trivial, nitpicking point, but carbon-14 can only be used to date objects of age less than 100,000 years because the half-life of 14C is only around 6,000 years. Age of the Earth stuff is done via a suite of much longer lived isotopes. As for requiring the assumption of an old Earth, well that doesn't stand up to scrutiny. Among many other things, it's the isotopic evidence that tells us that the Earth is old. Coupled to what we know from directly observing the behaviour of the isotopes in a laboratory, the parent-daughter isotope ratios indicate that a lot of time has passed. The most obvious alternative hypothesis (and I use that latter word with caution) can be viewed as theologically unsatisfactory. Cheers, -- PLUMBAGO 08:41, 25 September 2008 (UTC)
The supporters of Flood Geology seem to ignore the fact that many of the 18th and 19th Century Geologists were Christians eager to discover evidence of a worldwide flood. They came back from the field disappointed but most were honest enough to recognise that the earth is much older than the Bible suggests and that no major single event, such as Noah's flood, has been responsible for the formation and presence of most of today's geological features. Unfortunately the heresy of Flood Geology is today still clouding the minds of many Christians. Surely the progress of scientific knowledge ought to enable a better interpretation of the creation narrative. As well as radiometric dating, other dating methods such as dendrochronology, ice cores, clay varves etc. have been developed making Flood Geology even less credible. Supporters of Flood Geology seem to believe there is a conspiracy of science against Christianity and the Bible. The motive of science is to discover scientific truth in order to better understand and utilize the natural environment. -- Another berean ( talk) 10:36, 25 September 2008 (UTC)
Actually, I think the history section does a fine job of explaining that the scientific community started with an open mind, although with a leaning to the Biblical account as a working hypothesis. Only in the course of discovering and pondering the consequences of masses of new evidence were they forced to conclude that the geological and paleontological evidence pointed to an old Earth without a catastrophic flood. The fact that this topic keeps coming up may be an indication that the article is not as clear as it could be. I would like to hear from LowKey (and the anonymous poster, if he is still around), whether he thinks that the article makes it adequately clear that the position "evolutionists and the like start from the point that the Bible is wrong" is inaccurate. I'm inclined to think that the anonymous poster just did a knee jerk without reading the article, and ended up pulling everybody's chain. If that's the case, can't we bury it now? -- Art Carlson ( talk) 19:59, 25 September 2008 (UTC)
I changed the header for this section from "theological basis" to "biblical basis" and drastically shortened it.
The majority of the section was about interpretations of the flood narrative from a scholarly perspective. No doubt there's a place for this, but not here - this section should simply set out the reason why literalists believe that flood geology is a valid field of study: becuase they believe the flood narrative is history, not theology. PiCo ( talk) 05:54, 23 October 2008 (UTC)
I divided the section in two, one section being a straight-forward description of the Genesis flood story, the second for an overview of modern scholarly understanding of the story. I also added a para about flood and biblical chronology within the first subsection. I believe this is a useful edit, as it quarantines the non-contentious part - what Genesis actually says about a flood - from the analytical section. I also think we need something abt the chronology - it's quite important to flood geology that all their events happen quickly, as they have to fit within the very tight schedule provided by a Creation about 4000 BC (sometimes 10,000) and a flood about 2,300 BC.
The second subsection, on modern scholarly analysis of the flood narrative, needs to be re-worked. It takes the documentary hypothesis as the generally accepted model for the composition of the flood story, but it that hasn't been the case since about 1975; it ignores the existence of the primeval narrative; it ignores the internal theology of the flood narrative (it's not just an adventure story, it had a meaning when it written); it ignores the meaning of the biblical chronology; and it ignores the relationship between the Noah story and Babylonian flood myths. PiCo ( talk) 06:52, 29 October 2008 (UTC)
This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
This article is rather a mess. I suppose a major reason for this is that flood geology itself is a mess, but I still think we can do better. Before I start chipping away, I'd like to make sure there are no fundamental objections to my way of looking at the article. First, I think it is appropriate to deal with the contentions of flood geology and the view of the scientific community interspersed. This approach is mostly used already, but sections called "Creationist interpretations of evidence" and "Scientific analysis of flood geology" make it sound otherwise. I would like to rearrange sections 3-5 so that each topic only appears once and rename Section 3 to "Evidence claimed to support a global flood" and Section 5 to "Additional evidence against a global flood". How does that sound? -- Art Carlson ( talk) 21:26, 24 November 2007 (UTC)
<undent> Christian Skeptic, the contribution you can make here is to produce as many published references as possible for what you have described about the different flood theories and other theories. THAT would be valuable and useful, instead of efforts to debate us and your pitiful assorted insults against your fellow editors, many of who have about 20 times as much education as you and 200 times as much experience in science. Don't just whine about how awful big bad science is. If you have information about assorted fruitcake creationist interpretations and theories, let's have them. Especially if they are published someplace, hopefully not on table napkins or blogs.-- Filll ( talk) 21:57, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
Do a bit of research. Einstein was not a creationist. Einstein did not even believe in miracles, and there is plenty of documentation of this. Neither did Newton who was at best an Arianist, a group that the vast majority of creationists would favor burning at the stake. And on and on and on. It will be a stupid movie full of lies. But go ahead and believe lies if you prefer.-- Filll ( talk) 01:34, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
Rock of Ages, Ages of Rock -- New York Times. Probably a useful resource for the article. Hrafn Talk Stalk 07:52, 25 November 2007 (UTC)
I read the article. It is fantastic and would be an excellent source for this article. What is wrong with this article? It includes plenty of direct quotes from creationists and creation scientists. I see no bias whatsoever. Where is the bias? It balances both sides of the argument, which is what is required for NPOV on Wikipedia. I might also remind you that Wikipedia is not a primary source, or a secondary source, but a tertiary source, by and large. That is, Wikipedia must mainly draw on sources that summarize primary source material. What Christian Skeptic
is perhaps missing is that we cannot use primary sources, or if we do, it must be sparingly, so his suggestion of going directly to the participants in the conference would not really be useful for Wikipedia. This NY Times article is a secondary source, which is perfect for WP.--
Filll (
talk) 21:33, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
I think you are confused. That is a title meant to draw people's attention. It is a newspaper article. It is not a list of references. And there is so much confusion about ages, I think all creationists should just give up and subscribe to the Omphalos Conjecture because that is the only way they can save face, if at all.-- Filll ( talk) 01:11, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
Biased and condescending. Christian Skeptic ( talk) 05:44, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
If I can count yearly layers back well over 100 million years, then either the earth is not young, or my assumption that a layer per year gets laid down is wrong, or the earth was created to look old on purpose, even though it is not. And so which does science choose? Since it agrees with thousands of other clues about an old earth, mainstream science has chosen the first conclusion. Do you dispute this? It should be fairly obvious. If you cannot understand that mainstream science has made this choice, then there is a fundamental problem some place. And it is not with us or this Wikipedia article.
You are free to draw another conclusion. However, you are not free to force others to choose the conclusion you chose, or to lie and state that science did not choose the first one, or to ask Wikipedia to lie and not state that science did not choose the first one. Clear enough? -- Filll ( talk) 17:32, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
I'm currently back working on my BS in Earth Sciences with emphasis in Paleontology. I can testify at all geology, especially such common things as the geologic column is 100% evolutionary. In every earth science class I have ever taken, evolution is the dogma preached. Christian Skeptic ( talk) 17:12, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
Views that are held by a tiny minority should not be represented except in articles devoted to those views.
The policy requires that where multiple or conflicting perspectives exist within a topic each should be presented fairly. None of the views should be given undue weight or asserted as being judged as "the truth", in order that the various significant published viewpoints are made accessible to the reader, not just the most popular one. It should also not be asserted that the most popular view, or some sort of intermediate view among the different views, is the correct one to the extent that other views are mentioned only pejoratively. Readers should be allowed to form their own opinions. As the name suggests, the neutral point of view is a point of view, not the absence or elimination of viewpoints. ... The acronym NPOV does not mean "no points of view". The elimination of article content cannot be justified under this policy by simply labeling it "POV". The neutral point of view is a point of view that is neutral, that is neither sympathetic nor in opposition to its subject. Debates within topics are described, represented and characterized, but not engaged in. Background is provided on who believes what and why, and which view is more popular. Detailed articles might also contain the mutual evaluations of each viewpoint, but studiously refrain from asserting which is better. One can think of unbiased writing as the fair, analytical description of all relevant sides of a debate, including the mutual perspectives and the published evidence. When editorial bias toward one particular point of view can be detected, the article needs to be fixed.
Pseudoscience is a social phenomenon and therefore significant, but it should not obfuscate the description of the main views, and any mention should be proportionate and represent the majority (scientific) view as the majority view and the minority (sometimes pseudoscientific) view as the minority view; and, moreover, to explain how scientists have received pseudoscientific theories. This is all in the purview of the task of describing a dispute fairly.
it should describe what 'Flood Geologists' think, but in the terms of accepted science and academia (except to the extent that it is explaining creationist terms or what creationists think terms mean)
Minority views can receive attention on pages specifically devoted to them—Wikipedia is not a paper encyclopedia. But on such pages, though a view may be spelled out in great detail, it must make appropriate reference to the majority viewpoint, and must not reflect an attempt to rewrite majority-view content strictly from the perspective of the minority view.
Look, a quick glance at WP:UNDUE and WP:FRINGE shows that what CS has posted above is, to be kind, just pure horse pucky. I strongly suggest that he cease and desist before he gets himself in administrative trouble for violating WP:DE and God knows what else.-- Filll ( talk) 19:42, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
Notability does not imply correctness or acceptance by an academic community. Many ideas widely believed to be incorrect are nonetheless notable, and the claimed correctness of an idea does not confer notability. If it can be documented in reliable sources that scientists or historians consider a hypothesis correct, then notability is satisfied per the above. However, a single proponent claiming that a hypothesis is correct does not satisfy notability.
Creation science — The overwhelming majority of scientists consider this to be pseudoscience and say that it should not be taught in elementary public education. However the very existence of this strong opinion, and vigorous discussion regarding it amongst mainstream groups (including but not limited to scientists, scientific journals, educational institutions, political institutions, and even the United States Supreme Court) give the idea itself more than adequate notability to have articles about it on Wikipedia.
Notable topics which are primarily non-scientific in nature but which contain claims concerning scientific phenomena should not be treated exclusively as scientific theory and handled on that basis. ... On the other hand, subjects such as creationism or creation science, which involve a direct conflict between scientific discoveries and religious doctrine, should be evaluated on both a scientific and a theological basis.
I am advising you to please drop the attitude before you exhaust the patience of the community.-- Filll ( talk) 22:00, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
Minority views can receive attention on pages specifically devoted to them—Wikipedia is not a paper encyclopedia. But on such pages, though a view may be spelled out in great detail, it must make appropriate reference to the majority viewpoint, and must not reflect an attempt to rewrite majority-view content strictly from the perspective of the minority view.
There is evolution, evolutionist, and evolutionary. There is creation, creationist, creationary.
Whether creationary is uncommon or not is completely irrelevant. It is a real, valid, word. Just as an "evolutionary scientist" is a scientist who is an evolutionist, just so a "creationary scientist" is a scientist who is a creationist. And despite your denial of reality, there really are creationary scientists. Christian Skeptic ( talk) 06:36, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
Hrafn Talk Stalk 07:44, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
Somebody cue me in, I must have been dosing. Exactly what proposed edit is the last five pages of this discussion about? Is it only the words "creationary" and "evolutionary"? -- Art Carlson ( talk) 09:34, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
As far as I can see, this proposed idioyncratic usage of "creationary" can be traced to an individual creationist/linguist crank, one Hans-Friedrich Tamke who has been pushing this issue since the late 1990s [2] (at least). Both he ( Talk:Henry M. Morris#Parallel adjectives: creationary/evolutionary) and others ( Talk:Creation biology/Archive 1#Creationary vs. creation vs. creationist) have tried to push this on wikipedia, but without success. I see no reason for further debate of this dead issue. Hrafn Talk Stalk 12:59, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
Just to mess with peoples' minds a bit: given that the adjective of "recreation" is "recreational", if we wanted to creation a new adjective for "creation", shouldn't it be "creational"? This shows how silly it is to attempt to mindlessly apply rules to a language as heterogeneous as English. >:) Hrafn Talk Stalk 13:44, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
“ | Kent Hovind is a proponent of the vapor canopy, but other creationists now reject the idea, such as Walt Brown's Center for Scientific Creation and Answers in Genesis | ” |
From numerous WP policies, it is clear we are not supposed to boost obscure fringe theories and we are also supposed to write clearly and be accessible. Pushing words like "creationary" and using "evolutionary" in nonstandard ways violates both of these precepts. We should use words the way most people use them, or else we end up producing crappy articles. And why should we adopt the promotion of these nonstandard obscure words and usages? What value does it serve? It just obfuscates the entire issue. I could easily cook up dozens of other related words we could pepper these articles with, and it would make the articles hard to read, and irritate our readers, and just generally be unencyclopedic:
and so on and so forth. If one starts travelling down this road, WP will rapidly cease to be anything worth reading. -- Filll 15:52, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
<unindent>
I am getting tired of this. Anything further that you have to say on this subject that is not backed by pertinent reliable sources will be simply userfied or deleted. Hrafn Talk Stalk 05:31, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
"Creationary" does not have widespread support as a term. I have The Creationists, by Ronald Numbers, arguably the most authoritative history of the Creationist movement, in front of me. I have not seen the word "creationary" used in it once. You need to find an equally authoritative source to support your case for using "creationary", if you want any chance at all of getting your way. One obscure dictionary out of 900 is not even close. In any case, its definition of "creationary" does not support your use, in that it uses the term purely in connection with an act of creation, not with apologetic attempts to substantiate a prior "creationary" act.
What were you saying about "baseless assertion after baseless assertion with out any sources"? I have a very solid source at the core of this issue. I'm sure as hell not going to bother to go to the trouble of providing reliable sources to rebut every one of your Gish Gallop of unsubstantiated and frequently fallacious statements. Life is too short. Hrafn Talk Stalk 06:40, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
I believe in being tolerant of occasional digressions, and indeed I have been known to indulge from time to time myself. CS, the reason you should stop this discussion is not because anybody is trying to suppress your sharp observations and exemplary point of view, but because it no longer has any relevance to the question of how to improve the article. If you think it does, then make the connection to a concrete edit suggestion and argue for it clearly and succinctly. General discussions of the philosophy os science are out of place here. Take it to a newsgroup or an email exchange. And, Filll, that goes for you, too. ( WP:NOFEEDING) -- Art Carlson 11:59, 1 December 2007 (UTC) - And for Hrafn. And, for that matter, for me, too!-- Art Carlson 14:39, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
There are a number of problems with this section.
Liquifaction: This seems to belong under "mechanisms" more than "evidence". Either way, I can't figure out what the claims are supposed to be, and they are certainly not cited. Does anybody know about this?
Radiometric dating: I don't think creationists ever claim that radiometric dating proves that the flood occurs. The topic belongs under "evidence against a flood", with the arguments of the creationists, that the methods are not reliable, as a rebuttal.
Fossils: Similarly here. Do creationists say that the fossil evidence proves there was a flood, or that the evidence, despite appearances to the contrary, is consistent with a flood?
Submarine canyon formation: This one might be OK (once the citations have been provided).
-- Art Carlson 14:58, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
This is the kind of thing that CS could productively help with, if he so chose, rather than grandstanding and arguing. At least he provided some references above; did anyone check them and integrate the appropriate references? My impression is that the fossil record supposedly "proves" that a flood occurred, since it looks like a whole bunch of things died. The dating methods are said to be unreliable or to support a young earth and possibly "simultaneous" death of a large number of animals.-- Filll 15:29, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
<undent>This is based on a complete misunderstanding of what science is and what constitutes an accepted theory in science. A scientific theory is nothing more than a parsimonious natural explanation for data that can make predictions. If a new theory is simpler and makes the same predictions, then it is more likely to become the accepted theory instead. If the theory makes predictions that are found to not agree with the data, then it is less likely to be accepted and will probably eventually be replaced.
Of course flood geology can explain the data. So can the flat earth hypothesis and Last Thursdayism. However, these explanations are far more involved and involve nonnatural mechanisms, so they are not accepted scientific theories. Often, to explain new data, the explanations associated with flood geology and a Flat Earth have to become more and more complicated.
This is what happened to geocentric theory. I could explain all planetary motions assuming the earth was at the centre of the solar system and even the universe. It is just that the explanation would be far more complicated than the current theory. Paucity wins and so this is not the accepted theory.
The original theory of Evolution has been replaced many times with more complicated theories to explain new data. However, evolution still involves natural phenomena, which many creationist explanations do not. Evolution is also still "simpler" than most creationist explanations, because it does not involve assuming some very complicated being interfering day to day second to second, in the lives of every living thing on earth, forever, and breaking the observed laws of the universe to do so. The same is true of plate tectonics and the theory of gravitation and the theory of quantum mechanics.
The problem with flood geology is that it posits nonnatural mechanisms, very complicated mechanisms, and never discards one or two fundamental axioms (i.e., that a given interpretation of the bible is literally true), even when there is substantial evidence that simpler natural explanations would explain the data. -- Filll 18:12, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
I also hope that CS realizes that if we accept magic into science, that means we have to let all people out of prison, because of course the evidence they were convicted on could have been put there by magic, and this would be a valid defense. So CS you are not allowed to enforce any laws whatsoever. Close the jails and courts and fire all the police.-- Filll 18:17, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
Well I have to agree that the
creation-evolution controversy is not really about science. That is because creationism includes magic, and science, including evolution, does not include magic. So the controversy cannot be a scientific one, since creationism, creation science, intelligent design, and flood geology are outside of science.
You are incorrect about evolution never being a theory; the observations of evolution constitute data, also known as scientific facts. The explanation for these facts is called the theory of evolution.-- Filll ( talk) 01:46, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
Since the model was introduced not quite 10 years ago, there has not been a lot of publication and discussion published so far. However, references in the following paper show that there has been some discussion in creationary circles.
Wayne R. Spencer and Michael J. Oard, 2004, "The Chesapeake Bay Impact and Noah’s Flood", CRSQ, Volume 41, no. 3 December.
References: (selected)
Faulkner, D. 1999. A biblically based cratering theory. Creation Ex Nihilo Technical Journal 13(1):100–104.
–—–—–. 2000. Danny Faulkner replies. Creation Ex Nihilo Technical Journal 14(1):47–48.
Faulkner, D. and W. Spencer 2000. Danny Faulkner and Wayne Spencer reply. Creation Ex Nihilo Technical Journal 14(3):75–77.2004
Froede, C.R., Jr. and D.B. DeYoung 1996. Impact events within the Young–Earth Flood Model. CRSQ 33:23–34.
Froede, C.R., Jr. and E.L. Williams 1999. The Wetumpka Impact Crater, Elmore County, Alabama: an interpretation within the Young-Earth Flood Model. CRSQ 36(1):32–37.
Froede, C.R., Jr. 2002. Extraterrestrial bombardment of the Inner Solar System: a review with questions and comments based on new information. CRSQ 38:209–212.
Hovis, J. 2000. Biblically-based cratering theory. Creation Ex Nihilo Technical Journal. 14(3):74–75.
Oard, M.J. 1994. Response to comments on the asteroid hypothesis for dinosaur extinction. CRSQ 31:12.
–—–—–. 2001a. Vertical tectonics and the drainage of Floodwater: a model for the middle and late Diluvian period—Part I. CRSQ 38:3–17.
–—–—–. 2001b. Vertical tectonics and the drainage of Floodwater: a model for the middle and late Diluvian period—Part II. CRSQ 38:79–95.
Spencer, W. R. 1994. The origin and history of the Solar System. In Walsh, R.E. (editor), Proceedings of the Third International Conference on Creationism (technical symposium sessions), pp. 513–523, Creation Science Fellowship, Pittsburgh, PA.
–—–—–. 1998a. Catastrophic impact bombardment surrounding the Genesis Flood. In Walsh, R.E. (editor), Proceedings of the Fourth International Conference on Creationism (technical symposium sessions), pp. 553–566, Creation Science Fellowship, Pittsburgh, PA.
–—–—–. 1998b. Geophysical effects of impacts during the Genesis Flood. In Walsh, R.E. (editor), Proceedings of the Fourth International Conference on Creationism (technical symposium sessions), pp. 567–579, Creation Science Fellowship, Pittsburgh, PA.
–—–—–. 1999. Earth impacts, the geologic column, and Chicxulub. CRSQ 36:163–165.
–—–—–. 2000. Response to Faulkner’s ‘Biblically-based cratering theory.’ Creation Ex Nihilo Technical Journal 14(1):46–47.
–—–—–. 2002. Response to Carl Froede on extraterrestrial bombardment. CRSQ 39:142–145.
Walker, T. 1994. A biblical geologic model. In Walsh, R.E. (editor), Proceedings of the Third International Conference on Creationism (technical symposium sessions), pp. 581–592, Creation Science Fellowship, Pittsburgh, PA. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Christian Skeptic ( talk • contribs) 19:35, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
In my opinion the Philosophical objections is totally unneccesairy. These are just general objections to creationism in total, not specifically for a flood. The piece is written in a very biased way too. I recommend deleting it. 62.41.69.18 ( talk) 15:03, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
John D. O'Keefe, 1982, “ The interaction of the Cretaceous/Tertiary Extinction Bolide with the atmosphere, ocean, and Italic textsolid Earth,” Geological Society of America, Special Paper 190, p. 111, 117.
"Most of the energy is transferred to the planetary material in the case of an asteroidal impact (~ 85%)" p. 111
"Notably from 13% to 15% of the projectile energy resides in the water ejecta [when impacting ocean water]." p.111
"Note that less than 5% of impact energy is directly transferred [by shock wave from explosion] to the atmosphere." pg 117
Note: That adds up to ~100%. ~85% + <15% + <5% = ~100% Christian Skeptic ( talk) 05:27, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
Which is typical of evolutionists. ignorance is bliss, blind and stupid. Try to control yourself. People in glass houses should not throw stones.-- Filll ( talk) 16:02, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
While we are at it CS, try to stop using the term "evolutionist'. Many view it as derogatory. If I used a comparable word for someone with beliefs like those you subscribe to, you might not find it so pleasant. Thanks awfully.--
Filll (
talk) 18:53, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
Off-topic: In the news [3] recently - mammoths and bison were found that had been peppered with high speed projectiles (meteorites, asteroid fragments?) I thought this might have been a 'flood connection', but it appears not as the bison survived for some time afterwards ross nixon 19:17, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
This discussion is getting long-winded. The questions we want to decide are, Should the "asteroid impact model" be covered in this article at all?, and, if so, In which section and in what level of detail?
Some editors have argued that the idea should not be covered at all because it is not notable. This is a legitimate question, but remember that WP:NOTABILITY is a guideline, not a policy (advisory, rather than mandatory), and even then the topics within an article are not each required to meet the standards. So merely citing notability cannot end the discussion. Likewise, any reference to WP:FRINGE is not very helpful unless it is pointed out just which statements are thought to apply in what way to this case. It would help a lot if we could find a good secondary source, whether from an observer of the flood geology community or from within that community. I'd like to see an article with a title like, "Major ideas/prominent trends/hot topics within flood geology". An alternative would be to compare the numbers from a carefully constructed google search. If we have to start analyzing the primary sources ourselves, which is sometimes necessary, we will be doing WP:OR and inviting endless controversy.
I personally am less concerned with the standing of asteroid impacts in the community than I am with the substance (as presented by CS). The material was added as a subsection of "Proposed mechanisms of the flood", but I don't see how it answers the questions of where the water came from or where it went. Perhaps it is meant as an explanation of evidence that "appears" to contradict the Flood hypothesis, such as the sorting of fossils (tsunamis eating their way inland) or the existence of large, thin geological layers (liquifaction). If so, then it would belong in another section. Perhaps it is just meant to round out the picture of the Flood, in which case we would have to re-open the questions of to what degree it represents a consensus and whether this level of detail is appropriate.
I would ask the participants of this dicussion to try to concentrate on these issues, stating their arguments succinctly, (and to definitely avoid personal attacks).
-- Art Carlson ( talk) 09:16, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
In reading the article, a bias and indeed contempt is clearly obvious, flying in the face of what should be a neutral and impartial presentation of the article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by VertigoGames ( talk • contribs) 08:27, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
Firstly I would like to offer my appreciation to Art Carlson and all the other contributors for their discussion on this worthy topic. I understand that what is being discussed here is highly contentious and I would like to strongly encourage all to "do nothing out of selfish ambition or vain conceit, but in humility consider others better than yourselves" (Philippians 2:3). With this in mind I confess that I am not an expert in these matters, however in my humble opinion I would like to point out an example that I believe may contravene NPOV. I believe that Paragraph 2 typifies an unfairness in tone in this article. In particular I consider phrases such as "routinely been evaluated, refuted and dismissed unequivocally" as "Peacock Terms" (refer WP:APT). Further attributing this refutation and dismissal to the "Scientific Community" in its entirety could be considered a "Weasel Word" (refer WP:AWT) and is in contradiction with WP's own article on Scientific Community where it states that "there are no singular bodies which can be said today to speak for all of science". Such a paragraph biases this article in a number of ways including: (1) implying that Flood Geologists are not members of the Scientific Community therefore making this a de facto debate between faith and science; (2) it asserts a number of opinions as fact (refer WP:ASF) including that Creation views of Flood Geology are false and consequently that currently held evolutionary theories are true. It is my recommendation that this paragraph be deleted and further efforts be made to ensure that a dispassionate and neutral tone be carried throughout this article. Siyrtur ( talk) 13:42, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
Hrafn Talk Stalk 14:15, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
Hrafn I think that you miss the point. Sure the terms I highlighted are not noted specifically in
WP:Peacock however that document is not prescriptive. The nature of a “peacock term” is that the word or phrase is not sufficiently specific and that it grandstands about a particular opinion, which is exactly as you have portrayed it. Please be specific! If you have verifiable instances where creation arguments have been put forward and repudiated within legitimate scholarly debate and reported in reputable sources then state that with a valid citation.
Similarly Filll, if you can provide a valid source where 99% of geologists reject flood geology (or even some other percentage) FANTASTIC please put it in the article.
I think that to overcome the inherent contention in this aspect of the discussion perhaps we should confine our descriptions of those in favour of Flood Geology as either Flood Geologists or proponents of Flood Geology. These terms neither infer that they are scientific nor that they are unscientific just that they refer to themselves as Flood Geologists. Similarly when describing an opponent of Flood Geology, if they are a Geologist then describe then as a Geologist, if they are Evolutionary Bologists then describe them as such. Reference to the “Scientific Community” as a collective noun is unhelpful because the term includes those whose expertise has no relevance to this topic (i.e. computer science) nor does it give those whose expertise are relevant sufficient credence.
I also agree with rossnixon about “undue weight”. I believe that if this was an article about the more general topic of “geology” then both Hrafn and Filll would have a legitimate point. However as Flood Geology is the sole topic of this article then its purpose is to describe what the key tenets of Flood Geology are, who the key proponents and opponents are and the context in which it exists. This article is not the place to assert that Flood Geology is true, nor that it is false.
My aim in this particular discussion is not to debate which point of view is correct, simply that this article maintains the key policies of WP. If some choose to believe that Flood Geology is true, then good luck to them, if others believe that it is all bunkum then good for them. I believe that as it is hailed in
WP:NPOV, “Let the facts speak for themselves”.
Siyrtur (
talk) 14:06, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
[Edit conflicted parallel reply to Filll's]
Hrafn Talk Stalk 14:43, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
Filll, I totally agree with you when you state that I cannot claim that "Flood Geology" is not a part of science or geology. In fact if you go back to my original statement I was arguing for their inclusion. Now I also understand that you consider "Flood Geology" as a fringe science topic but
WP:Fringe also explicitly states that Creationism (and subsequently Flood Geology as a "prominent subset") should be evaluated on a scientific AND a theological basis (see "Evaluating Scientific and Non-Scientific Claims") and from a theological perspective the belief in a world-wide flood is definitely not a fringe topic. Therefore a clear, dispassionate and BALANCED explanation of the claims for and against the Flood as explored by Flood Geology is necessary.
Hrafn, My, my, you do have a talent for hyperbole! As a compromise I propose the following text in the place of the current version of Para 2:
Flood Geology is one of a number of controversial topics which are regularly debated between evolutionary scientists and creationists. Leading publications espousing Flood Geology include "Answers in Genesis" [2] and "Creation ex Nihili Magazine" [3] whereas the claims of Flood Geology are regularly refuted by leading journals in evolutionary biology, geology and paleontology including "Nature Magazine" [4] and "Science Magazine" [5]. Further complicating the debate is the fact that this controversy is not necessarily divided along religious and scientific lines with a number of churches accepting that a world-wide flood may not have occurred and the scientific community being likewise divided. As observed by the American Science Affiliation "Today's spirited discussion often pits Christian vs. Christian and scientist vs. scientist" [6].
I think this new paragraph recognises the existence of the debate, who the key groups are, and a number of verifiable sources from both sides of the fence. This now allows the interested reader to access the debate from primary and secondary sources where they can make up their own mind. Would you agree? Siyrtur ( talk) 15:52, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
Even in religious circles, those who believe in a literal worldwide flood are a minority, as near as I can determine. So this is a FRINGE belief both scientifically and theologically, at least at the moment.--
Filll (
talk) 17:23, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
Silly Rabbit, WP even has an article
Creation-evolution controversy. You can't serious say that there is not an ongoing debate??! I can see that the matter is clearly decided in your mind but yet in the public arena the discussion goes on... With regards to my citation from the ASA, perhaps you need to read it. The ASA is an association of scientists (Science Degree minimum for membership) who state, "The ASA has no official position on evolution; its members hold a diversity of views with varying degrees of intensity". So I totally reject your assessment of the neutrality of this source. My only concession to you and Hrafn on this paragraph would be to substitute "modern secular scientist" as opposed to "evolutionary scientist".
Hrafn, Your reading of
WP:Undue is completely inaccurate. "Undue weight" talks of minority views not religion vs science.
WP:Fringe in fact states that this subject must consider both the religious and the scientific aspects of this matter equally.
Filll, perhaps you might want to examine the Chapter 4 of the Westminster Confession of Faith
[7] which articulates a literal interpretation of Creation. This document is the founding creed upon which all Presbyterian and Reformed Protestant churchs are founded including many independent and Baptist churchs. These churches are mainstream churches therefore the belief in a literal flood could hardly be considered fringe.
Unsigned, I hope my reference to the founding creeds of major churches as a step in the right direction. I think that you are have made a good point in suggesting that the range of 'learned' theological positions should be explored.
Siyrtur (
talk) 15:16, 18 March 2008 (UTC)
I am afraid I see not much more in your posts than confusion and ignorance. Molleen Matsumura of the National Center for Science Education found, of Americans in the twelve largest Christian denominations, at least 77% belong to churches that support evolution education (and that at one point, this figure was as high as 89.6%). Matsumura 1998, p. 9 notes that, "Table 1 demonstrates that Americans in the 12 largest Christian denominations, 89.6% belong to churches that support evolution education! Indeed, many of the statements in Voices insist quite strongly that evolution must be included in science education and "creation science" must be excluded. Even if we subtract the Southern Baptist Convention, which has changed its view of evolution since McLean v Arkansas and might take a different position now, the percentage those in denominations supporting evolution is still a substantial 77%. Furthermore, many other Christian and non-Christian denominations, including the United Church of Christ and the National Sikh Center, have shown some degree of support for evolution education (as defined by inclusion in 'Voices' or the "Joint Statement")." Matsumura produced her table from a June, 1998 article titled Believers: Dynamic Dozen put out by Religion News Services which in turn cites the 1998 Yearbook of American and Canadian Churches. Matsurmura's calculations include the SBC based on a brief they filed in McLean v. Arkansas, where the SBC took a position it has since changed, according to Matsurmura. See also NCSE 2002. These churches include the United Methodist Church, National Baptist Convention, USA, Evangelical Lutheran Church in America, Presbyterian Church (USA), National Baptist Convention of America, African Methodist Episcopal Church, the Roman Catholic Church, the Episcopal Church, and others.
Also, as Steve Sailer points out, it is also not clear how firmly held the public beliefs in creationism are. [8] Most creationist claims require a literal reading of Genesis and a belief in biblical inerrancy. However, not all Americans seem to subscribe to biblical literalism. For example, among the 15% that are evangelical Protestants, only 47.8% believe that the Bible is literally true, and 6.5% believe that the Bible is an ancient book full of history and legends. Only about 11% of Catholics and mainline Protestants believe the Bible is literally true, and only 9% of Jews believe the Torah is literally true. About 20% of Catholics and Protestants reported that the Bible is a book of history and legends, and 52.6% of Jewish respondents felt the same about the Torah. These figures make it clear that a large fraction of Christians and Jews do not subscribe to the necessary beliefs to adopt many creationist principles wholeheartedly. [9]
However, most Christians believe in God as Creator, while also accepting scientific evolution as a natural process. [10] A minority of Christians rejected evolution from its outset as "heresy", but most attempted to reconcile scientific evolution with Biblical accounts of creation. [11] Islam accepts the natural evolution of plants and animals, but the origin of man is contested and no consensus has emerged. [12]
I would also direct you to Clergy Letter Project.
{{
citation}}
: Check date values in: |date=
(
help)CS1 maint: date and year (
link) Retrieved on
2007-02-08--
Filll (
talk) 16:02, 18 March 2008 (UTC)That is just an observation. Perhaps this is okay and simply presenting the reality of the situation, or maybe it doesn't appear this way to most individuals. -- Emesee ( talk) 00:47, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
The article seems preoccupied with the views of Young Earth Creationism. But surely Old Earthers equally accept the idea of a literal flood? Do they not have any developed theories of flood geology? Just curious. PiCo ( talk) 11:37, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
I know we're supposed to assume good faith, but given that several peoples' concerns have been summarily dismissed, I find it hard to do so.
This article needs to be either flagged or edited. It is perfectly possible to accurately portray the scientific view of flood geology without using disparaging language such as has been identified by the commenter immediately below.
The connotation of even the first part of the article feels slanted rather than objective. As I indicated, it is possible to use more objective language to get across the same point. Scientific disagreement is not open license for belittlement. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.140.134.68 ( talk) 03:11, 18 July 2008 (UTC)
Below are the links allowed on the page ranked according to prominence. Creationwiki with its many creationary editors is at least as prominent as the prominent individuals in the list. It is certainly more prominent as the crackpots.
Prominent Organizations
AiG
* Answers in Genesis' Geology Questions and Answers Page
Geoscience Research Institutue
* Biblical Evidence for the Universality of the Genesis Flood - Richard M. Davidson -
Prominent Individuals
Dr. Baumbardner
* Unveiling the Mechanism Behind the Genesis Flood
Michael Oard
* Startling Evidence That Noah's Flood Really Happened
Tas Walker
* Tas Walker's Biblical Geology
Doug Sharp
* Revolution against Evolution geology page
Not Prominent Individuals
Mike Brown [biologist]
* Global Flood Geology from "Creation Science Prophecy"
Steven Robinson
* Recolonisation Theory
Prominent Individuals (crackpot)
Walt Brown
* Hydroplate Theory
Not Prominent Individuals (Crackpot)
David Pratt
* Shock Dynamics geology theory –
Broken link
* Christian Geology
--- Christian Skeptic ( talk) 16:23, 19 July 2008 (UTC)
Taking the formal External Links policy:
Hrafn Talk Stalk 06:53, 20 July 2008 (UTC)
The order of the paragraphs in this section is weird - couldn't the para on the 18th century be moved so it comes in between the para on the Enlightenment and the 19th century? PiCo ( talk) 07:42, 25 August 2008 (UTC)
This paragraph is misleading;
"Generally, the geologic column and the fossil record are used as major pieces of evidence in the modern scientific explanation of the development and evolution of life on Earth as well as a means to establish the age of the Earth. Some creationists deny the existence of these pieces of evidence. This is the approach taken by Morris and Whitcomb in their 1961 book, The Genesis Flood, and it is continued today by leading creationists such as Michael Oard and John Woodmorappe.[23]"
This says that Morris, Oard and Woodmorappe deny that there are fossils in the geologic record, which is innacurate.
They all recognize that the geology of past events of the earth is recorded in the rocks, However, they deny the Geologic Column, which is an interpretation of the rock record as evolution of the earth over millions of years.
They all recognize the existence of fossils in the rock record, but they interpret the fossil record in the rocks as the result of burial in the Flood and not as a record of evolution over millions of years (the typical interpretation).
The difference has to do with interpretation of the geologic rock record and interpretation of the fossil record, not the denial of the either one. Christian Skeptic ( talk) 16:30, 28 August 2008 (UTC)
<undent> Herbert's paper has relevance to the above point. Around 1825 there was strong support amongst English clergymen naturalists for the idea that a "diluvium" accounted for geological features, but she goes on to describe on p. 173 "the rapidity of change within the field of geology. For Sedgwick in 1831 there remained a distinction between diluvial and alluvial deposits, but the connection between 'diluvium' and the Noachian flood had been dissolved. Thus when Darwin was actively pursuing the study of geology during his last terms at Cambridge, he would have encountered a diluvial theory separated from connection to the biblical flood." . . dave souza, talk 11:15, 29 August 2008 (UTC)
Hi, I am new to this particular page. I am not a YEC, but I was curious about the particular beliefs associated with Flood Geology, and I have to say that it is difficult to glean objective information from this site. To those who feel strongly about debunking Flood Geology: The inclusion of negative comments in just about every paragraph is not helping your cause; I ended up clicking on the link to the "answers in genesis" site in order to obtain a more readable (albeit certainly not objective) account of Flood Geology's basic tenets.
My suggestion is that we retain all the information on this page, but structure it in the following way:
1. Keep the very first paragraph that summarizes Flood Geology's basic beliefs.
2. Name specific organizations that support or oppose Flood Geology. Avoid loaded/undefined terms such as "scientists". However, if we could find a direct quote about Flood Geology or YEC in general from the National Academy of Science, that would be acceptable. In this section, it would be great if we could find some specific statistics describing the percentage of (North American?) individuals who claim to believe in the veracity of the Flood account. If this is not possible, we could cite the percentage of individuals claiming to believe in Young Earth Creationism, and note that belief in a worldwide flood is strongly associated with YEC.
I think we should avoid the temptation to comment on the significance of these statistics with remarks such as "the people who believe in Flood Geology are not really scientists". In general, readers of this page will have enough familiarity with notable organizations such as the Discovery Institute, or the NAS, and can decide for themselves which are reliable sources of scientific information. If not, they can click on the links and learn more. The idea is to present Flood Geology's incidence of belief in a neutral, encyclopedic fashion.
Now, the fact that this is a "hot topic" is not insignificant. However, we should attempt to treat the matter professionally and, to limit emotional outbursts petitioning the reader to believe one thing or another. Hence:
3. Describe the arguments in favor of the Flood Geology model, including historical arguments (i.e. arguments originally made in the 1600s, etc. along with a description of the current popularity of those arguments).
4. Describe the arguments against the Flood Geology model, also including historical counter-arguments.
Sections 3 and 4 would eliminate the need for a "history of flood geology" section.
5. Describe the various models of "where did all that water come from", along with counter-arguments.
6. Keep the links for further reading classified into pro- and anti- flood stances.
If this proposal seems reasonable, I look forward to restructuring the page with you all, sometime in the near future.
Cynthia1981 (
talk) 15:15, 1 September 2008 (UTC)Posted by Cynthia1981 on September 1, 2008.
Cynthia1981 (
talk) 15:15, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
Hrafn Talk Stalk 16:50, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
Why is he addressed in the introduction and the issue is never broached again? It's unclear what point is being served. The cites appear to be examples of his work which don't support the claims a) that he was dismissed by scientists, b) that it's accepted science now or c) that his story has relevance to Flood geology. There isn't any explanation of the differences between episodic catastrophism and flood geology which adds to the confusion, why it's paid any mind in the intro? Professor marginalia ( talk) 20:59, 3 September 2008 (UTC)
"The ordering of fossil layers is often used as evidence for the scientific explanation of geological features." This claim doesn't say how or why this is so. I think the idea needs clarification. Professor marginalia ( talk) 00:44, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
The statement about flood geology contradicting much of the evidence underlying the current consensus is dubious at best. This needs RS showing flood geologist actually contradicting actual evidence, and much of it. And it needs to be based on what flood geologist actually say, rather than what others say they say. Otherwise the statement is shown to be weaselly and POV. LowKey ( talk) 00:14, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
<outdent> Hrafn's source does not match the statement anyway. It is a list of claims with responses, but the claims AND the response are offering explanations of THE SAME EVIDENCE. No one is contradicting anyone else's evidence in that list. The source fails verification. And it is incorrect to say that the lead usually has no citations. The lead should avoid redundant citations. What we have here is a tendentious, weasel-worded POV assertion with no RS, parenthetical to boot. So far only Hrafn has attempted to source it. The source reference dealt with interpretations and conclusions but I could not see any contradiction of evidence in it. The others objecting to the challenge seem to think the statement is self-evident without needing verification. A) that's a pretty good indicator of POVblindness; and B) if is so self-evident and uncontroversial RS should be very easy to provide. And can we please strive to recognise the difference between evidence and interpretation or conclusion?
Example: Water on my desk is evidence, leaky roof and spilled drink are both interpretations. Water marks on the ceiling are also evidence. If I still say spilled drink because there is no water mark on the ceiling I have contradicted the evidence. If I say that the water mark on the ceiling could be from water that splashed there when the drink was spilled then I have NOT contradicted the evidence.
LowKey ( talk) 23:48, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
Silly Rabbit has cited the Geologic Column as evidence that is contradicted. Notice that WP has no such article but redirects to Geologic Timescale, which is an interpretation. I am not debating the validity of the interpretation; I am merely pointing out that it is one. The cited source has Morton quoting YEC's on the Geologic Column and saying that he can show where it exists in entirety according to their own definition. He then goes on to change the definition to either what he THINKS they mean or what he HOPES they mean and then attacks that definition. He demonstrates quite ably that the GC is not an objective piece of evidence, but a synthesis of evidence which may be synthesised different ways by different people. LowKey ( talk) 02:29, 9 September 2008 (UTC)
This is getting increasingly tendentious. Sources have been given that explicitly stated that flood geology contradicted modern geological evidence, and you still refuse to accept the statement as adequately sourced. By the way, this is a statement which is totally uncontroversial (outside your own mind): flood geology was rejected by science over a century ago as inconsistent with the evidence. Period. Moreover, you have been totally overruled by several editors, and yet continue to make edits against the obvious consensus. siℓℓy rabbit ( talk) 01:23, 17 September 2008 (UTC)
Er... Excuse me. What's the point of the usual editors of this page re-hashing their old arguments yet again, only this time it's under the header Request for Comment? What has been requested, per the RfC page instructions, is outside opinion; it's not the same old arguments from regular editors such as Christian Sceptic (who started the regular-editors'-discussion ball rolling). Could everybody please read the RfC instructions, because if those instructions are followed, the procedure will have a much better chance of being useful. "Requests for comment (RfC) is an informal, lightweight process for requesting outside input," "Before asking outside opinion here, it generally helps to simply discuss the matter on the article talk page first." (Italics in the original.) The usual editors of this page are kindly asked to a) not keep repeating the same everlasting comments, and b) to leave the RfC section for that outside opinion which they have requested by listing the article on the RfC page. If an outsider should come here to respond, it's highly dis-inviting for them to find, of all things, a straw poll between the usual suspects! I have not removed any comments, but merely re-named this section to "preparatory discussion", and moved the RfC header down. If there is in fact any outside input hidden in this section, I ask the regular editors to please move that outside input down into the actual RfC section below. I hope this helps. Bishonen | talk 22:32, 19 September 2008 (UTC).
The whole paragraph under discussion/comment here has recently been completely excised twice, from 2 different IP addresses. Is there some tag to direct editors to the discussion? The only inline one that I know of that incorportates a discussion notice is the "Dubious" tag, but if I use that it will be instantly reverted. I think protecting the article is overkill, but editors should be aware that the statement is under active discussion. LowKey ( talk) 00:33, 19 September 2008 (UTC)
See top note in the previous section. Outside editors are kindly invited to post their comments on Flood geology in this section.
Does flood geology contradict much of the evidence underlying the current scientific consensus on geology, evolutionary biology, and paleontology? Are the references as presented in the article currently adequate to substantiate this claim? siℓℓy rabbit ( talk) 01:44, 17 September 2008 (UTC)
— Scien tizzle 18:46, 22 September 2008 (UTC)"Creationists and the Grand Canyon". Retrieved 2008-09-22.
{{ cite web}}
: Text "The Humanist (March, 2004)" ignored ( help)
New York Times : "Rock of Ages, Ages of Rock". Retrieved 2008-09-22.
At present the history section seems to jump from the 18th century to Lyell in the 1830s before referring back to Hutton in the 1780s. There was an interesting series of developments, as Cuvier apparently explained his findings as a number of local floods, but his ideas as translated by the Neptunist Robert Jameson and adopted by Buckland were changed into support for a universal Biblical flood, albeit as a final epoch before the modern world. Herbert pp. 171–173 discusses this view as held by Adam Sedgwick and Buckland, our article only shows Buckland later recanting the idea. Gotta do other things first, but this section needs improvement. . . dave souza, talk 10:49, 22 September 2008 (UTC)
As far as i am aware almost no YECs claim not to be biased, they openly embrace that they start from the presupposition that the Bible is 100% correct, just as evolutionists and the like start from the point that the Bible is wrong. Saying that they claim to be unbiased when they are makes them wrongly appear to be self-contradictory —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.162.91.230 ( talk) 11:13, 23 September 2008 (UTC)
The original post seems to be based on a mis-reading (or perhaps a non-reading) of the article, which currently states
Flood geology starts from the viewpoint that the Biblical Book of Genesis is an accurate and impartial description of actual historical events.
which seems to be what the poster was concerned about. The ensuing discussion has touched on a number of other issues, but seems to have circled in on the question of whether the Bible can be true without being literally true. The current version uses language like "Genesis states" and "The account describes", so I don't think there is any disagreement or ambiguity about what the Bible says literally. The article also states
The idea that Genesis is literally accurate is not universally held within Christianity.
which is also indisputable. So please, we do not need a discussion here of the sense in which the Bible is or is not true. Further discussion here should be limited to the question of how the article can be improved, ideally with concrete objections, concrete suggestions of alternatives, and reliable sources to base them on. -- Art Carlson ( talk) 09:53, 24 September 2008 (UTC)
Apparently the criticism that opened this section is no longer being pursued, while the discussion has doubled back to a previous criticism. On this basis I am putting in a new section header at this point. -- Art Carlson ( talk) 10:07, 25 September 2008 (UTC)
LowKey, did you make a concrete proposal for a change? The discussion here is unfortunately not very focused. Did you simply want to drop the parenthetical phrase "(and much of the evidence underlying it)" from the lead? I don't have any problem with this phrase, but I also think the paragraph is plenty unambiguous without it. My proposal would be to switch the two sentences, i.e. to talk first about (general) consensus and then about (specific) evidence, like this:
Flood geology directly contradicts the current consensus in a number of scientific disciplines including geology, evolutionary biology and paleontology. [14] [15] [16] [17] The arguments creationists have presented in support of flood geology have been evaluated, refuted and unequivocally dismissed by the scientific community, which considers such flood geology to be pseudoscience.
Note that I have also replaced the word "evidence" with "arguments". Does this version have any better chance of gaining consensus, or have I missed the point somewhere? -- Art Carlson ( talk) 10:33, 25 September 2008 (UTC)
Now that I'm here, I can't pass up the opportunity to ask this: Would a theoretical individual who has never heard of the Bible, never seen it, never read any of its contents, etc... Would such an individual also be starting "from the point that the Bible is wrong" if he or she looked at the evidence and came to the conclusion that the Earth was around 4.5 billion years old? -- Good Damon 22:41, 24 September 2008 (UTC)
[Decrease indent] It's a trivial, nitpicking point, but carbon-14 can only be used to date objects of age less than 100,000 years because the half-life of 14C is only around 6,000 years. Age of the Earth stuff is done via a suite of much longer lived isotopes. As for requiring the assumption of an old Earth, well that doesn't stand up to scrutiny. Among many other things, it's the isotopic evidence that tells us that the Earth is old. Coupled to what we know from directly observing the behaviour of the isotopes in a laboratory, the parent-daughter isotope ratios indicate that a lot of time has passed. The most obvious alternative hypothesis (and I use that latter word with caution) can be viewed as theologically unsatisfactory. Cheers, -- PLUMBAGO 08:41, 25 September 2008 (UTC)
The supporters of Flood Geology seem to ignore the fact that many of the 18th and 19th Century Geologists were Christians eager to discover evidence of a worldwide flood. They came back from the field disappointed but most were honest enough to recognise that the earth is much older than the Bible suggests and that no major single event, such as Noah's flood, has been responsible for the formation and presence of most of today's geological features. Unfortunately the heresy of Flood Geology is today still clouding the minds of many Christians. Surely the progress of scientific knowledge ought to enable a better interpretation of the creation narrative. As well as radiometric dating, other dating methods such as dendrochronology, ice cores, clay varves etc. have been developed making Flood Geology even less credible. Supporters of Flood Geology seem to believe there is a conspiracy of science against Christianity and the Bible. The motive of science is to discover scientific truth in order to better understand and utilize the natural environment. -- Another berean ( talk) 10:36, 25 September 2008 (UTC)
Actually, I think the history section does a fine job of explaining that the scientific community started with an open mind, although with a leaning to the Biblical account as a working hypothesis. Only in the course of discovering and pondering the consequences of masses of new evidence were they forced to conclude that the geological and paleontological evidence pointed to an old Earth without a catastrophic flood. The fact that this topic keeps coming up may be an indication that the article is not as clear as it could be. I would like to hear from LowKey (and the anonymous poster, if he is still around), whether he thinks that the article makes it adequately clear that the position "evolutionists and the like start from the point that the Bible is wrong" is inaccurate. I'm inclined to think that the anonymous poster just did a knee jerk without reading the article, and ended up pulling everybody's chain. If that's the case, can't we bury it now? -- Art Carlson ( talk) 19:59, 25 September 2008 (UTC)
I changed the header for this section from "theological basis" to "biblical basis" and drastically shortened it.
The majority of the section was about interpretations of the flood narrative from a scholarly perspective. No doubt there's a place for this, but not here - this section should simply set out the reason why literalists believe that flood geology is a valid field of study: becuase they believe the flood narrative is history, not theology. PiCo ( talk) 05:54, 23 October 2008 (UTC)
I divided the section in two, one section being a straight-forward description of the Genesis flood story, the second for an overview of modern scholarly understanding of the story. I also added a para about flood and biblical chronology within the first subsection. I believe this is a useful edit, as it quarantines the non-contentious part - what Genesis actually says about a flood - from the analytical section. I also think we need something abt the chronology - it's quite important to flood geology that all their events happen quickly, as they have to fit within the very tight schedule provided by a Creation about 4000 BC (sometimes 10,000) and a flood about 2,300 BC.
The second subsection, on modern scholarly analysis of the flood narrative, needs to be re-worked. It takes the documentary hypothesis as the generally accepted model for the composition of the flood story, but it that hasn't been the case since about 1975; it ignores the existence of the primeval narrative; it ignores the internal theology of the flood narrative (it's not just an adventure story, it had a meaning when it written); it ignores the meaning of the biblical chronology; and it ignores the relationship between the Noah story and Babylonian flood myths. PiCo ( talk) 06:52, 29 October 2008 (UTC)