![]() | This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||
|
Pleas, help my with edition of this paper - I do not can english, only russian! ru:Heljqfy--Heljqfy 04:57, 17 September 2010 (UTC)
This is a Creationist article written by a Creationist. It is psuedo-geology in disguise as real science. It is an attempt to smuggle Creationist perspectives into mainstream lay-science using Wikipedia because it is not peer reviewed. The term "Diluvial" was conciously abandoned by legitimate Geologists over 70 years ago - for it's specific reference to, and implication of, a biblical global flood. Giant current ripples are known to be a result of specific glacial outburst flood events, and are not related to any hypothetical or mythical global flood. 68.238.137.127 ( talk) 00:15, 1 October 2010 (UTC)
Agreed, the article is horrible and almost unreadable. It needs to be 8 times shorter and re-written completely for clarity and focus. Preferably by a geologist. I would almost like to suggest we use the paragraph from 68.238.137.127 above as a replacement for this entire article and it would be far better. Unfortunately I don't have time to research/tackle this but it should be tagged by someone. -- trisweb ( Talk) 11:04, 27 August 2012 (UTC)
@ Kevmin: I removed the citations before 2016 that were about the number of Missoula floods, because the 89 number is relatively new. I didn't want readers to get confused by out-of-date citations that may contradict the latest research. Is that ok with you? — hike395 ( talk) 00:13, 23 January 2023 (UTC)
![]() | This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||
|
Pleas, help my with edition of this paper - I do not can english, only russian! ru:Heljqfy--Heljqfy 04:57, 17 September 2010 (UTC)
This is a Creationist article written by a Creationist. It is psuedo-geology in disguise as real science. It is an attempt to smuggle Creationist perspectives into mainstream lay-science using Wikipedia because it is not peer reviewed. The term "Diluvial" was conciously abandoned by legitimate Geologists over 70 years ago - for it's specific reference to, and implication of, a biblical global flood. Giant current ripples are known to be a result of specific glacial outburst flood events, and are not related to any hypothetical or mythical global flood. 68.238.137.127 ( talk) 00:15, 1 October 2010 (UTC)
Agreed, the article is horrible and almost unreadable. It needs to be 8 times shorter and re-written completely for clarity and focus. Preferably by a geologist. I would almost like to suggest we use the paragraph from 68.238.137.127 above as a replacement for this entire article and it would be far better. Unfortunately I don't have time to research/tackle this but it should be tagged by someone. -- trisweb ( Talk) 11:04, 27 August 2012 (UTC)
@ Kevmin: I removed the citations before 2016 that were about the number of Missoula floods, because the 89 number is relatively new. I didn't want readers to get confused by out-of-date citations that may contradict the latest research. Is that ok with you? — hike395 ( talk) 00:13, 23 January 2023 (UTC)