Talk:Flood geology

Proposed Neutral structure.

OK how about this Ungtss would you allow the reorganizing of the article into two sections: one for flood geology and one against flood geology, the two sections should be edited to prevent layering arguments (where each section makes counter-arguments against the other in successive layers) sticking to one or two layers at most. Would you be willing to allow such a structure? --BerserkerBen 16:51, 17 Jan 2005 (UTC)

that structure sounds fine to me -- as long as the counters are after the description, leaving the present text intact, do as you please:). i'd ask, tho, that:

1) you make the arguments with facts, not conclusions, as arguments like "flood geologists are stupid" are not persusasive.

2) you limit your arguments to the ideas on the page (cutting out criticism of the straw-man vapor canopy, for instance, or arguments about the exact timing of the flood, because we don't claim to know exactly when it happened -- the ussher-lightfoot calender is not dispositive, and the torah provides guidelines (there are even two versions of the geneologies -- so we really don't know what or if it happened).

other than that, have at it:)! i've been waiting:)! Ungtss 13:47, 18 Jan 2005

Well that not excatly what I was thinking, I was thinking of it organizeds in this order:

Neutral header

"For it" headline with the existing arguments for it pasted below.

"Againts it" headline,

Sources

Sources "for it"

Sources "Against it"

External links.

External Links "for it"

External Links "Aganist it"

--BerserkerBen 15:24, 18 Jan 2005 (UTC)

um ... that looks great to me. i'd just title for first section "description of it" instead of "for it." feel free to add "Against it" after the existing text (leaving the existing text intact), and all the sources and external links you can find. i also think it would be FANTASTIC if you would provide the mainstream explanations for the phenomena mentioned. Ungtss 15:34, 18 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Began the restructure with scientific rebuttals beneath the old pro-creationism stuff. Needs more meat, but it's a start.

anonymous 1:43, 22 Jan 2005

You mean uniformitarian rebuttals.

I removed the bit about Occam's razor as it was untrue. Occam's razor is a guide, not a law. It may (although I would even question that) say that invoking God is not the most likely solution, but it cannot absolutely rule it out. In any case, Flood Geologists don't invoke God for this.

Creationary scientists are scientists, so of course they know that their ideas have to conform to laws of physics (goodness, many of those laws were first described by creationists!), and saying so as you had it is patronising. So I removed that as well.

I added that the canopy model is out of favour. You did know that, didn't you?

And don't worry about my facetious comment I added to the article; if you can puts notes to editors in the article, so can I. :-)

Philip J. Rayment 14:15, 22 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Anonymous again. No, I meant scientific rebuttals (:. Calling mainstream geology "uniformitarian" is rather a strawman. Geologists readily embrace cataclysms for which there is evidence (e.g. the dinosaur-killer 65m years ago).

I'm going to add some stuff to the Occam's Razor page, and link to it from here, discussing the Razor and scientific theories.

Actually, I didn't know the vapour canopy was out of favour. I learn something new every day. And I didn't realise I was being patronising. Sorry!

I don't mind facetious comments. Go right ahead!

anonymous 17:41, 22 Jan 2005.

Perhaps "Modified uniformitarianism" would be more accurate, but it is really uniformitarianism that holds sway, modified by the overwhelming evidence for cataclysms. But I reject "scientific" as a suitable description as it implies that maintream views are more scientific than creationary views, which is POV. I'm not surprised that you didn't know that the vapour canopy is out of favour; most anti-creationists really know very little about the idea that they feel so strongly against. Philip J. Rayment 12:50, 24 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Lack of Neutrality

This article goes against wikipedia policies stipulated in Neutral_point_of_view as such the article should be label as neutrality questionable. The writers to should make an attempt to added in the counter arguments made by conventional geologist. --BerserkerBen 02:44, 17 Jan 2005 (UTC)

i'm not aware of any counterarguments. several mainstream geologists have come through and chosen not to add any counterarguments, despite requests on my part that they do so. Ungtss 03:44, 17 Jan 2005 (UTC)

That's bull, you just delete them for dubious reasons. --DanielCD 03:46, 17 Jan 2005 (UTC)

no sir. i asked you to provide a good mainstream rebuttal at the end. you said you didn't want to get involved. you're still welcome to add the rebuttal. but it has to come after the main text, and it has to say WHO says it. Ungtss 04:09, 17 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Sorry, the burden of proof is not on me. Where are your scientific citations ? Real scientific studies, not just websites and non-peer reviewed books. It's not my job to cite things accepted by the mainstream; its the person whose making the wild claims' job to do so. --DanielCD 04:23, 17 Jan 2005 (UTC)

berserkerben asked for counterarguments by a conventional geologist. i noted that mainstream geologists had declined to provide any. if you ever change your mind, you're welcome to add them to the page. there is no "burden of proof" in wikipedia. it is an encyclopedia, and this article describes a particular view of geology accurately, concisely, and in an encyclopedic manner. encyclopedic counterarguments are welcome to improve the quality of the article. Ungtss 04:36, 17 Jan 2005 (UTC)

If you are unware of counter arguments please read the link I added at the bottom of the article, there it states at lest ~80 counter arguments. How about we add a "Arguments Against Flood Geology " headline and start listing them? --BerserkerBen 04:55, 17 Jan 2005 (UTC)

The major problem with a rational list of counter-arguments is that Flood Geology is not very well-defined. There are the water canopy model (impossible among other things because of the athmospheric pressure required to keep the water up), the underground aquifier model(wells from the deep) (Where did the water go? Why did it stay down so long?), and the apparently currently en-vogue runaway subduction model (where did the required energy go? Why has the crust not melted completely?). None of the recent flood models are compatible with radioactive dating methods, dendochronology, or even the written history of the Egyptian and Chinese civilizations. Nor can either explain how the Siberian and Deccan traps manage to overlay massive sediments and even massive coal seams (if they were laid-down post flood, they would have no time to erode to the current state, or even cool). --Stephan Schulz 10:01, 17 Jan 2005 (UTC)

i believe mainstream scientists would call issues like that "opportunities for further research" rather than "fatal flaws." how, after all, do mainstream geologists think we got fossil fuel deposits? seems they don't really have any idea. at least flood geology is a start. radiometric dating is rejected out of hand, because they are meaningless. specific examples of dendochronology (rather than conclusory statements) or written histories that are incompatible with the flood would be welcome. Ungtss 14:01, 17 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Actually they have many theories on where fossil fuels come from, many of which make far more sense and follow occam's razor far better. Here is a good review on it: http://www.astronomycafe.net/qadir/q1161.html --BerserkerBen 16:51, 17 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I don't think an encyclopedic article is the right place for such a discussion. Look at the amount of discussion on talk.origins or the archives - this can go on for ever. As stated above, one of the problems is that there is no single flood geology model. All of the ones I know about are easily debunked by qualified (or even semi-qualified) scientists. The water canopy model certainly is no straw man - it may not be the strongest or latest flood geology model, but it is one that is still advanced by many people. Maybe someone (Ungtss? You seem competent on that topic) can write up one concrete (preferably the current best) model as a basis for dicussion.--Stephan Schulz 15:03, 18 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I'm sorry, Ungtss, but I really believe your knowledge of the state of the art in sciene is somewhat lacking. Mainstream geologists do of course have models about the creation of fossil fuels (see overlapping edit above). There is, as always, debate about details, but that does not mean that "they don't really have an idea". Your sentence about radiometric dating really makes no sense - it is not "rejected outright" (except maybe by you, as it does not seem to fit your world view), but rather forms a set of very useful tools for many disciplines. Maybe you do not understand how they work (and how and why they can fail to work under certain circumstances), but they are really based on very fundamental laws of physics. As for Dendochronology, both the Bristlecone Pine master series (goes back to 7000 B.C.) and the University of Sheffield British Isles master series (goes back to 5000 B.C.) show no sign of a flood at the traditional dates. I suggest you go to talkorigins.org and read and understand everything there that interests you. You don't need to believe it, but at least understand it. Most of the articles there have a bibliography to primary research papers (which, however, are very hard to read for non-experts) if you fear bias. --Stephan Schulz 18:36, 17 Jan 2005 (UTC)

it amazes me how you seem to think that personal insults are persuasive. why don't you try some facts, instead? radiometric dating of sediments is rejected outright by the flood model, because excess argon debunks K/Ar and mixing lines debunk isochron dating. it's not my "worldview." it's the "topic." as to bristlecone pines, they definitely raise some interesting issues, and i'm certainly no expert on the topic. i have heard, however, that there is some controversy regarding the bristlecone pines, including "samples with a high proportion of missing rings will exhibit complacent ring patterns. It is not surprising, then, to find that nearly 50 percent of the bristlecone pine samples used as components in the 7104-year master chronology have mean sensitivities of less than 0.30 (5). Such low sensitivities are suggestive of complacent samples that would cross match about the same regardless of where they were placed in the chronology" [1] Ungtss 13:47, 18 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Hi Ungtss, sorry, I did not intend to insult you at all. It just seems that you do have a very one-sided view of the issue. There are many more radiometric dating methods then the one you mention, and they all agree within expected errors. You can e.g. use C14 dating on coal (it will not resolve to a concrete date, as natural coal seams are far older than the useful range of C14 dating, but it will give a minimum age much older than the alleged flood date). Your source for the controversy is a letter to the editor in a Christian-oriented journal, not a scientific publication. --Stephan Schulz 15:03, 18 Jan 2005 (UTC)

that's the kind of stuff i'd love to see on the page -- very specific, fact-intensive cases that falsify the flood model -- not "c14 proves the flood false" but "THIS PARTICULAR COAL READING revealed THESE PARTICULAR results." i'd like that very much. if i have a one-sided view, it's because i find the mainstream side just gives me a continual stream of conclusions, rather than facts to support them -- i'm just after the facts, and i'd love the opportunity to work with you in finding them:). Ungtss 15:18, 18 Jan 2005 (UTC)

It has been stated that modern paleontology grew out of efforts to date the Genesis Flood more precisely; many who attempted to do so decided that this was a fool's errand and then began to think in ways more in accordance with the modern scientific method and less in accordance with medieval theology.

Rlquall 19:19, 19 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Creationists Response

Actually, Creationists do often respond that mainstream scientists will not accept anything based in the Bible, but that doesn't necessarily belong in the article.

Rlquall 12:22, 8 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Yes, they sometimes do that. But not specifically in response to claims that flood geology is junk science. That's why I took it out. --Stephan Schulz 12:41, 8 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Edits by User:67.65.165.249

In my opinion, the mainstream scientific consensus on flood geology is an important and relevant part of the article. What is the general opinion? My suggestion is to add something like the old pararaph back in. --Stephan Schulz 22:44, 15 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I think that there must be a non-POV way to put into the article that the claims of "flood geology" are almost completely different from, and in opposition to, those of mainstream science, and are largely ignored by mainstream science. It is true that most mainstream scientists regard flood geology as "junk science", this should somehow be expressed in the article without making it a Wikipeida "endorsement" of this view,

Rlquall 15:26, 16 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Ok. It can probably be argued that most mainstream scientists do indeed not consciously regard flood geology as a junk science, because they are unaware of the fact that it even exists (I certainly only learned about its existence on talk.origins). So what about: "Flood geology is not compatible with current mainstream scientific opinion, and is ignored by most serious geologists." I can't make it much less inflammatory than that.--Stephan Schulz 16:31, 16 Nov 2004 (UTC)

As someone who both has a degree in geology and attends church, I don't think that you'll get it much better than that. You can never please people who are 100% literalistic and thnk that the Earth celeberated its 6008th anniversary last year. I'm sure that some of them will continue to mess up the page from time to time. Certainly "flood geology" is a "theory", as is "Uniforimitarianism", it's just that one has the backing of the mainstream scientific community and that the other doesn't. It may be "POV" to say that one is right and that the other is wrong, but it's not POV to say that flood geology is not the viewpoint of 21st century mainstream science. There are people who don't believe that George W. Bush was elected President earlier this month, but these views are not mainstream and should not be given exactly the same weight as those who agree with that thesis, and this should be the same.

Rlquall 16:55, 16 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Scientists ignore flood geology

...as stated above, I think most scientists and most geologists, at least outside the US, ignore flood geology not because of the evidence, but because the topic is so incredibly obscure and non-scientific that they never even heard about. Among the scientists I know (and I am one and actively working as one), I would not expect anyone but me to even know what flood geology is. Maybe we can find a better consensus as my last version, but I'm not very happy with the current one either. --Stephan Schulz 21:40, 21 Nov 2004 (UTC)

...you makde a very good point here, I only objected to the wording because it was such a weak compromise. I actually believe something along the lines of the old "junk science" concept to be much better, but although that is true (if geologists have heard of the idea at all they consider it junk, not real science), it would probably not be politically correct enough for most Americans to accept. I'll try again, see what you think.

I like it! Maybe the language flow can be improved a bit (I'll meditate), but the sentiment is exactly right in my opinion. --Stephan Schulz 14:23, 22 Nov 2004 (UTC)

"Pseudoscience?"

Firstly, I would like the last editor to sign in. You're a lot less "anonymous" that way and your views will carry more weight if we know that each time they are coming from a real person and not an IP address. If you wish to remain relatively anonymous, make your screen name wholly separate from your real name. Secondly, it is true that most scientists regard flood geology as pseudoscience. This is not saying that it necessarily is such, which could be considered POV, but that it is regarded as such by a majority of mainstream scientific authorities. This statement is true. There have been, since the early 18th century, people who do not accept that the House of Hanover / House of Windsor has any true claim to the Crown of England, and they have supporters called "Jacobins" who believe that the current heir to the House of Stuart is the true monarch of Great Britain. However, they do not represent a majority view. Wikipedia acknowledges their existence, which it should, but does not give it equal weight with the mainstream view that Elizabeth II is currently Queen of England. Flood Geology should be treated the same way, as a theory which exists and has adherents, including some with scholarly credentials, for this is indisputable, but which is also not at the present a majority viewpoint among repuatble and recognized scientists, which is also true. Rlquall 23:46, 27 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Just as an aside, you meant Jacobites. Jacobins are something else. - Nunh-huh 05:50, 29 Nov 2004 (UTC)

You surely got that right! Rlquall 03:35, 2 Dec 2004 (UTC)

..Hi this is the anonymous Japanese nerd who made the previous sentence about "most geologists, if they are aware..." I don't have time to keep fixing deletions by people like 68.88.xxx, unfortunately, but I would like to add a point for the cowardly individual who just deleted the sentence AGAIN without even a comment!!!! (and also for other readers)... There are 2 well-known opposing theories about the position of the Sun and Earth. One is that the Sun goes round the Earth, the other is vice-versa. Now is it just my "point of view" to explain that one of these theories is WRONG??? Of course, next year we might discover an even better theory, but the words "correct" or "mistaken" in science can only ever mean "to the best of our knowledge at this time". Surely that is a good enough definition, as we update our information. Like the Sun orbiting the Earth, there is no good evidence to suggest that a great flood shaped the earth in recent history, and therefore it is not even "POV" to say that this theory is WRONG. Yes, WRONG. Because wikipedia likes to avoid strong yes/no language, I tried to frame the idea in reference to evidence and current scientific thinking. What you are doing however is a very clever sleight-of-hand trickery with your language, misinforming lay readers that if something is "not 100% provable forever" that means "only an opinion and therefore only as valid as other opinions", something which seems intuitively ok but is really a fallacy. With respect to my sentence, if you are bothered that I made a comment on behalf of "most geologists" without asking *all* geologists in the world first..sure, that's fine. In that case, let us also remove the weak "is not considered compatible with current..." phrasing shall we? Because what it should say, given the current state if the art, is- "Flood Geology is not compatible with the geological evidence". That's all. It is a true statement, by any reasonable definition, taking all the evidence, not only 1 or 2 convenient aspects. Thanks for reading, take care guys.

I hope that you don't think that taking out the sentences that offend whoever it is that they are offending is my doing, and don't feel that to be the case, as your command of the language is far to strong to think that such is my doing based on my comments. I thought that the comment "is not considered to be compatable with the geological evidence" is a realistic way of putting it; perhaps someone else sees this as saying, "The Jacobins are wrong and don't know what they are talking about, Elizabeth II is Queen of England, " instead of just laying out the facts and letting everyone see that about 99% of the British public recognizes the Elizabeth II is currently queen, but that not all of them are monarchists, and that there are monarchists with a different viewpoint. Perhaps like the British public members who are neither avid devotes of the Windsors nor followers of the the Stuarts, if you will pardon the extended analogy, there are those who accept Uniformitarianism with some reservations instead of unequivocably. I still think that there should be a way to put into the article that Flood Geology varies widely with mainstream scientific opinion in the early 21st century without people feeling an urge to delete or revert it. The existence of alternative theories and explanations in any area of science and history needs to be noted, but we must be careful less we give advocates of Holocaust Denial, which certainly exist, grounds to state that their theories are as widely accepted as those of other historians, which they certainly are not. Rlquall 01:56, 29 Nov 2004 (UTC)

(reply from above) Hi Rlquall, no sorry if I wasn't clear- I was kind of annoyed when writing. It was someone from IP 68.xx.xxx etc who I was hoping would read my comments in particular, as well as those persons new to wikipedia who might have interest in editing the page. You and Mr.Stephan (oops, I mean Mr. Schulz) are very open about discussing opinions here and infact corrected and improved the edit I made, as I remember. However I just realized that other person just removed my last sentence AGAIN without reading or contributing to the discussion... That's just very rude. Hello- are you reading this now?? Please discuss things here first, it's not polite to ignore the other editors... and PLEASE read Rlquall's explanations about "alternative theories" and why they must be put in context.

Just an off-topic aside: Just "Stephan" is fine. Otherwise I have to insist on "Dr. rer. nat. Stephan Schulz, Dipl. Inform., Grand Phoobar of the 7th Loge" ;-) --Stephan Schulz 11:59, 29 Nov 2004 (UTC)

And on-topic again. It looks as if we have a near-consensus that the sentences about a) flood geology being incompatible with current mainstream science and b) most geologists that are aware of flood geology think it is bogus should stay on. One anonymous user disagrees and has deleted them repeatedly, now calling them "the personal opinions of a small group of people", and asking for sources. Rather that getting into a revert war, I would prefer to discuss the thing here. As for part a), I don't think this needs to be sourced at all - any introductory geology textbook will tell you that. It is an undeniable fact. Part b) is trickier. The relative obscurity of "flood geology" is easy to see via Google. The term generates about 16,000 hits, as opposed to about 260,000 for "plate tectonics", 200,000 for "continental drift" and 3,000,000 for "erosion". Moreover, from the sample on the first two pages, nearly all of those hits point to either Christian/Creationsit website (ICR, RAE, AiG) or to talkorigins.org and similar sites. I don't know if there are any specific surveys among geologists about flood geology - I seriously doubt it. But all general surveys about Creationist topics show that most scientists consider them bogus. See e.g. the success of Project Steve. So I'd vote for reinstating both sentences again. I liked the following version best:

The theory is not, however, compatible with the current geological evidence. Many geologists are not even aware of Flood Geology, and the vast majority of those who are consider it pseudoscience.

...which indeed is similar to the one someone has restored now. --Stephan Schulz 15:03, 29 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Okay - I changed the last sentence so it wouldn't be so biased. You all got to keep your word pseudoscience and I got to let the reader know that not *every* *single* geologist in the *entire* world regards flood geology as absurd junk science. I also italicized (if that's a word) 'some' in the sentence on Neptunism. I hope this is a good compromise. --Anonymous editor who has yet to make a wikipedia account

...Hmm....to the person above: you changed it first without discussing again... Can you please read the above points of other editors carefully. I will explain below also- the problem with your phrasing is twofold.

Frist, most geologists don't consider it pseudoscience because they are not aware of it, because it has no impact in serious academic circles. I checked (in a very unscientific manner I admit!!) with some of my uni friends and out of 5 geologists/earth scientists not one had even heard the term. When I showed them some creationist websites they all said "but this is so obviously wrong".."this distorts such-and-such data" etc. Which brings me to point two.

There may be some engineers, or chemists, who believe in flood geology, but no GEOLOGISTS. I would really be surprised if you could find even one in a real university. Your sentence made it sound like "a few" do agree (correct me if I'm wrong, but I learned in English class that "A few" means "enough" ie. more than just "few").. You seemed very angry that a bunch of geologists on wikipedia would claim, based simply on their experiences, that their colleagues overwhelmingly rejected Flood Geology.. However, you make an unsupported claim that *some* geologists DO believe it..I think you'd be disappointed if you visited a few geology departments. So unless we can make the sentence reflect this, I think we have to revert again.

By the way, go into a geology department at a university and ask some questions about upright fossils. These are used as evidence to *support* flood geology by ignorant website writers, and I think it would be good for you to learn how they really occur from someone who actually studies geology. Just that one little piece of education and you might see how ridiculous this "subject" of flood geology is.

- Wow. Okay. You were right. I'm completely wrong. I didn't realize you had some hard facts such as "you checked with your uni friends and they said 'this distorts such-anc-such data' etc".**

Boy, it really takes a lot of courage ...

... to just keep on editing this article down to what you want it to say without even creating an account and signing in and having your own talk page, etc. If I didn't know better, I'd suspect you of being an Anonymous Coward! Rlquall 13:22, 5 Dec 2004 (UTC)

From "Japanese nerd" who seems to be the 68.xxx.IP editors arch-enemy for some reason... Hello - firstly an apology to Rlquall about my own anonymous cowardice. Initially I wasn't intending to edit anything, can you believe that? But this ridiculously "PC" approach to what should be a factual encyclopedia just made me angry. I suppose should either make an account or give up on wiki..Recently the political pressure to distort facts makes me think the latter..

Back to the real subject.. Please PLEASE please could you post what your objection is BEFORE editing? to the 68.xxx.IP editor- I honestly don't know what it is that you have a problem with. Also, could I suggest you improve your reading comprehension skills? Although English is not my first language, I thought it was clear that I wasn't using "5 Geologists at Uni" as being a meaningful statistic (I joked that I was "highly unscientific", see?). What I was doing was supplying a little anecdote about my personal experiences which, combined with the discussions on this page, and my reading of scientific journals, lead me to believe that Geologists, in general, are unaware of Flood Geology, and, if presented with the data, then consider it a pseudoscience. You also seemed to misunderstand my use of "such and such"- i *think* (could be wrong) that this is a way of making a sentence simpler when referring the real information is A: too time consuming -and- B:irrelevant (because what we are discussing is the opinion of Geologists, not the data itself). The meaning of your short sarcastic reply , I am guessing, was that "such and such data is wrong" is not a good refutation of Flood Geology. This point is of course so obvious that it is disappointing you didn't realize I already knew this.. Even worse is that you couldn't make the imagination leap that SO MUCH data is wilfully lied about on Creationist websites that I had to say "such and such" to keep my sentence short, because otherwise we would be here all day. (Don't believe me? ask..a..geologist..)

Please consider our curent position, you edit because the article offends you- then others (recently me) revert your edits because they think it alters something important in the factual basis of the article. This will never end unless you try to discuss with people here and reach a consensus. So please- what *exactly* is your problem??

Flowering plants climbed to higher ground but ferns couldn't?

Well, it is considered junk science for a reason. Honestly, the latest addition is not quite innocent. I would still prefer a clear statement that flood geology is considered nonsense by most informed people. This one is amusing, but a) to subtle for many people and b) not really encyplopedic style. --Stephan Schulz 00:23, 7 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I know..I know...

Japanese nerd again- This is my point however. Putting up such patently stupid "facts" does nothing for wikipedia's reputation, but it allows people (if they bother to think about the plants, or click on how fast glyptodons are compared to deinonychus) to judge that the "theory" is a nonsense. If I just go ahead and say it is not science, even though that is better for an encyclopedia, then someone will revert the edit. Perhaps making the explanation less comedic is better- for example in the section about fast vs. slow animals, simply explain how smart and fast some of these animals were, and choose wording to show that this indicates that the "theory" is not correct. Likewise with plant matter- focusing on the fact that floatation and random mixing in flood waters would make exclusive strata of different plants impossible. It is too much effort for me when all it really needs is that original simple sentence you helped put together. I will not be editing any further because this is starting to depress me. Hooray for smart fast sloths! Down with those lazy, flightless pteranodons!

Foraminfera

"Forams" and the other mircofossils sure got sorted neatly by the Flood, didn't they? And all according to a seemingly evolutionary patern, where "ontogony recapitulates philogeny," at that. Simply amazing!

Rubbish on this talk page

I realise that NPOV is for the article, not the talk page, but some of the rubbish on this page is over the top.

<<You can never please people who are 100% literalistic and thnk that the Earth celeberated its 6008th anniversary last year.>>
Not if you don't give them a fair hearing.

<<There are 2 well-known opposing theories about the position of the Sun and Earth. One is that the Sun goes round the Earth, the other is vice-versa. Now is it just my "point of view" to explain that one of these theories is WRONG???>>
Arguably, yes. Both objects are moving, and both are moving relative to each other. Which one is considered to be moving depends on your reference frame. A heliocentric reference frame is much more useful for astronomy than a geocentric one. But then we all use a geocentric one when we talk about the sun "rising" and "setting".

<<Like the Sun orbiting the Earth, there is no good evidence to suggest that a great flood shaped the earth in recent history, and therefore it is not even "POV" to say that this theory is WRONG. Yes, WRONG.>>
This comparison is invalid. Ignoring my previous comments, you can test to see if the earth or the sun is the one doing the orbiting, as that is happening in the present. But with flood vs. non-flood geology, we are talking about the past which we do not have available to test, so it must always remain an interpretation of the extant evidence, based on one's POV.

<<The relative obscurity of "flood geology" is easy to see via Google. The term generates about 16,000 hits, as opposed to about 260,000 for "plate tectonics", 200,000 for "continental drift" and 3,000,000 for "erosion".>>
That's hardly a valid comparison, because plate tectonics, continental drift, and erosion are all part of flood geology (as well as uniformitarian geology)!

plate tectonics is part of flood geology? Not in any version that a competent scientist would recognize. But to make things fairer: Just "geology" gives us 9.6 million hits. Of those, 16000 are "flood geology", leaving 9.584 million hits for non-flood geology. Obscure enough? --Stephan Schulz 18:29, 13 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Yes, plate tectonics is a part of flood geology, and the scientist with the most advanced plate tectonics computer model is a creationist.

Any source for that? I can see that you need a very advanced model of plate tectonics to make it work with young earth creationism, but I cannot see one that is compatible with and accepted by mainstream science. --Stephan Schulz 16:18, 14 Dec 2004 (UTC)

No, of course you couldn't see that, because you have your mind already made up that anything that supports creation cannot fit with mainstream science. But see Interview with plate tectonics expert Dr John Baumgardner. It is from a creationist source, but if you look past that and look at what is actually said, you will see that I have a basis for my comment. Philip J. Rayment 01:28, 15 Dec 2004 (UTC)

But not all of geology is about history; much of it is about things in the present, and flood geology has no disagreement with that. In fact, as has already been discussed, it doesn't disagree with everything with regard to the past. So your number of hits is still not a fair comparison. And that's all I'm saying. I acknowledge that Flood Geology is not as widespread or accepted as uniformitarian geology, and even if you could come up with a fair comparison, the number of hits would still be strongly in uniformitarian's favour. But the difference would not be quite as large as the figures quoted so far would suggest.

Philip J. Rayment 01:57, 14 Dec 2004 (UTC)

In fact, as far as I can tell from my admittedly small samples, flood geology is only mentioned in creationist literature and and web sites. --Stephan Schulz 16:18, 14 Dec 2004 (UTC)

What? Not mentioned on Wikipedia or Talk.Origins? Of course it is only mentioned on creationist web-sites and sites that discuss creationism. If any site discussed flood geology favourably, it is pretty well by definition a creationist site! Philip J. Rayment 01:28, 15 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Actually, if it had some hard evidence for it, it would also be discussed elsewhere. Except for the miracles to make it work, flood geology would not need a creator. So why does it only appear on Conservative Christian Young Earth Creationist Websites (and those critizing them - I give you that). --Stephan Schulz 21:56, 15 Dec 2004 (UTC)

If there were hard evidence and a totally objective scientific community, it would also be discussed elsewhere. Creationists charge that all scientists have a worldview into which they fit their interpretations of the evidence. My answer as to why it only appears on creationist websites stands. Philip J. Rayment 03:00, 16 Dec 2004 (UTC)

<<There may be some engineers, or chemists, who believe in flood geology, but no GEOLOGISTS.>>
Absolute rubbish. Two off the top of my head are Tas Walker and Andrew Snelling

Looks like you found about the only ones...I'd call that an error of measurement. Moreover, at least Andrew Snelling (the one who has a real PhD from a verifiable source) only supports flood geology in Creationist journal paper, while he subscribes to conventional geology in his peer-reviewed publications. --Stephan Schulz 16:18, 14 Dec 2004 (UTC)

No, they are not the only ones, and Tas Walker also has "a real PhD from a verifiable source", despite your unwarranted attempt to perpetuate the myth that creationary scientists are generally not qualified. The article about Dr. Snelling misrepresents the situation, as you can see from the reply here (scroll down to the heading "P.243"). Philip J. Rayment 01:28, 15 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Thanks for the pointer. I still fail to see the misrepresentation. Snelling's name is on a paper that unequivocally accepts the conventional time scale ("millions of years"). If he does not stand by this opinion, he should not have gotten his name on it.

The charge is really one of deceipt; that Snelling misprepresents himself as a "long-ager" when writing in uniformitarian journals. But he has written as a YEC in uniformitarian journals, and his views are well known, so it can hardly be deceipt to write as a long-ager in a context that requires that and in a paper that has other authors that don't share his views, when his views are well known. Philip J. Rayment 03:00, 16 Dec 2004 (UTC)

<<By the way, go into a geology department at a university and ask some questions about upright fossils. These are used as evidence to *support* flood geology by ignorant website writers, and I think it would be good for you to learn how they really occur from someone who actually studies geology. Just that one little piece of education and you might see how ridiculous this "subject" of flood geology is.>>
I assume that you are talking about polystrate fossils, and if so they are used by intelligent scientists as evidence against uniformitarianism. Now if you think that you can refute those claims, I'd be interested to see how good a case you could make.

<<Even worse is that you couldn't make the imagination leap that SO MUCH data is wilfully lied about on Creationist websites>>
POV might be accepted on talk pages, but vilification? Please either back this up with hard evidence or remove it.

But to finish on a more positive note...

<<It can probably be argued that most mainstream scientists do indeed not consciously regard flood geology as a junk science, because they are unaware of the fact that it even exists...>>
Of several statements here about it being considered junk science, this is the only one that is close to the mark. Of what relevance is the opinions of scientists that have either not heard of it or know very little about it?
Philip J. Rayment 14:27, 10 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Well, what I really have said is that there are two classes of scientists: A large one that has no idea that flood geology exists, and a smaller one that know about it and considers it bogus. Yes, and I grant you a (minuscule or maybe even hypothetical) class of scientists who have heard about it and don't think it is bogus. BTW, you do not need to know very much about flood geology to recognize it as junk. The most basic premisses are in obvious conflict with established scientific facts. --Stephan Schulz 18:29, 13 Dec 2004 (UTC)

And what I am saying is that there are three classes of non-creationary scientists:

One that has no idea that Flood Geology exists.
One that knows it exists and considers it bogus but hasn't really studied the evidence, at least more than superficially.
One that knows it exists and has studied the evidence for it extensively and (somehow!) still considers it bogus.

And my point was that that last category is the only one who's opinions would really carry much weight, and that group would be very small, in fact most likely smaller than the fourth group, the ones who think it is valid.

Fallacy. If somebody tells me the moon is made of green cheese, I call that nonsense immediately. I don't need to check wether it's supposed to be Roquefort or Gorgonzola first.--Stephan Schulz 16:18, 14 Dec 2004 (UTC)

And that is nothing more than arrogantly saying "I know my idea is correct so I don't have to check out yours". Philip J. Rayment 01:28, 15 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Nope. This is not a dichtonomy. If you claim 13234*12022 is 3, I can reject that without doing the multiplication myself. I'm not claiming I have a perfect model of geology. But flood geology is not even compatible with my basic model of physics, much less my rough model of geology. I am indeed not giving all crackpot ideas equal time. There are millions of idiots around there, and my time is limited. If a claim is obvious nonsense, I reject it. Do you wear a tin foil hat to keep out the mind control rays until you have studies the whackos ideas in detail? --Stephan Schulz 21:56, 15 Dec 2004 (UTC)

You can reject that 13234*12022 is 3 without doing even a rough calculation in your head? Just seeing the numbers I am effectively calculating that the result is much larger than 3.

I, on the other hand, know that the product of 2 even numbers can never be odd. But the point is, I do not have to know the exact answer, and I do not even have to know the exact claim - a simple look or a rough calculation based on some simple properties (big numbers/even numbers) is enough. Just as with flood geology. --Stephan Schulz 12:20, 16 Dec 2004 (UTC)

How is flood geology (which you obviously know very little of—see below) not compatible with your model of physics, as distinct from uniformitarian assumptions?

Philip J. Rayment 03:00, 16 Dec 2004 (UTC)

See below about my alleged lack of knowledge.--Stephan Schulz 12:20, 16 Dec 2004 (UTC)

As for your comments about it being bogus and in conflict with the established scientific facts, that is nothing more than empty rhetoric and argument by assertion.

Philip J. Rayment 01:57, 14 Dec 2004 (UTC)

It is an obvious truth accepted by the vast majority of qualified people. Let's start with the first law of thermodynamics. Where did the water come from? Where did it go? --Stephan Schulz 16:18, 14 Dec 2004 (UTC)

What water? Is this another question based on having no idea of what the creationary model is? Please explain the problem and how it relates to the creationary model. Philip J. Rayment 01:28, 15 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I have indeed no idea what "the creationary model" is, as it seems to shift from nonsense to more nonsense as fast as people shoot holes in it. But the core of flood geology, the topic of this page, is that most current geological features (including the Grand Canyon, kilometers of sedimental rock, and most fossilization) have been created in a short time (about a year) by a fairly recent (within the last few thousand years) global flood that was high enough to cover all mountains. For that you either need incredibly massive tectonic events (essentially flattening out most of the earth's crust), or a whole lot of water. The much more traditonal option is lot's of water (40 days of rain). --Stephan Schulz 21:56, 15 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Flood geology does not say:

that the Grand Canyon was formed during the flood,
that the water covered the existing mountains,
that the earth was flattened out to accomodate the flood, or
that 40 days of rain accounts for the flood water.

Thus your knowledge of the model that you so readily reject is so obviously limited that you really have no basis for rejecting it.

Philip J. Rayment 03:00, 16 Dec 2004 (UTC)

You suffer from selective reading and misinterpretation. I did not write "existing mountains" and I did not say that "40 days of rain" account for the water. I should not have written "during the flood", but probably "as an aftereffect of the flood" about the Grand Canyon, so as to make misinterpretation harder. I do take it that you yield, then, that, according to flood geology, a recent global flood, covering all then-existant mountains, was responsible for large-scale sedimentation and most fossils, creating them in a geologically very short time (about a year)?--Stephan Schulz 12:20, 16 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I shouldn't even be replying to something this obvious, but here we go.

.."blah blah heliocentrism":

when someone says "the earth goes round the sun", all they mean is "the earth orbits the sun because of the suns gravity, the sun is not a small globe circling a fixed earth".. and yet you feel compelled to misinterpret what I said and talk about frames of reference (welcome to the early 20thC!) to try and somehow cast doubt upon my statement so that making an argument by analogy (this is shaky ground, too) an unrelated theory can be seen as "a point of view". (wow, i made a pun with "point of view" and "frame of reference"!) This is either ignorant or a deceitful and deliberate clouding of the issue..you're not a lawyer are you?

.."i think you mean polystrate fossils, does that long word make me sound scientific?":

They are called upright fossils or in-situ fossils (they were when I studied them anyway) I think maybe "polystrate fossils" is a US term, or possibly a creationists original term. As I said before, go into a good uni, and ask about the work of John William Dawson, about 100 years ago. They are certainly very interesting, but they don't support a global flood.

Well, that's my last edit ever, you guys have depressed me away from wiki, well done, pat yourselves on the back. (Awwwwwwwwwwwwwww <:( <=( <8[ )

Ignoring your patronising comments....

<<you feel compelled to misinterpret what I said and talk about frames of reference ... to try and somehow cast doubt upon my statement so that making an argument by analogy ... an unrelated theory can be seen as "a point of view">>My first comment regarding heliocentricity was an aside to point out that it is not as absolutely "wrong" as you made out. It was not connected to my second comment. My second comment was to point out that your analogy was deficient insofar as the point you were making was concerned.

<<As I said before, go into a good uni, and ask about the work of John William Dawson...>>

In other words, you fail to refute the claim as requested, instead telling me to find out for myself. In that case, I can equally say to you that you should find out the creationist case for these yourself, because from what I can see with a quick Internet search, Dawson didn't answer all the creationists' points.

And I notice that you have done nothing to substantiate or withdraw your vilification of creationists. Apparently you think that it is okay to be rude and insulting to them. What does that say about you and your "standards" of debate?

Philip J. Rayment 02:18, 13 Dec 2004 (UTC)

"unscientific" in the intro

To recap, Dreamguy inserted the following sentence into the introduction, with the comment (lead was deceptive in not mentioning it's minority view, and tweaked some phrases for NPOV.)

Most geologists do not consider Flood Geology to be scientific.

I removed it, with the comment Remove reference to not considered scientific; this was already covered in the History, where it fits better.) .
Dreamguy reinstated it, with the comment (It should be in the lead so people glancing at it know, and the section in History only says it's a minority view, not that it's considered unscientific, as there's a difference).
My comments on this are as follows:

I consider it telling that evolutionists are so concerned that their pet theory, which already enjoys government, educational, and media support, not be challenged, that they insist on having such a disclaimer in the introduction for people that might be glancing at it!
I agree that there is a difference between "a minority view" and "unscientific".
I consider it inappropriate in an article about Flood Geology to put an opposing viewpoint right up front in the introduction. It is supposed to be an article about Flood Geology, not a promotion of it, and the introduction does (or should) merely explain in outline what it is without implying that it is correct or incorrect. I could just as easily argue that the evolution article is deceptive because it doesn't mention in the introduction (for people just glancing at it!) that it is not a universally-accepted view! (Incidentally, it is deceptive, because it does claim that it universally accepted in the scientific community!)
I question how true it is that most scientists consider it unscientific. Perhaps we ought to get quotes on this and see if it really is true. But I hasten to point out that "scientific" does not mean "true". Something that is "scientific" is something that can be studied by means of the scientific method. Many scientists do claim that flood geology is unscientific because it invokes the supernatural (but often don't explain how that rules out studying it scientifically), but many others (and in fact many of the same ones) also claim that flood geology has been proven wrong by the evidence. If it can be proved wrong, that means that it can be studied scientifically, and it is therefore "scientific". So how many scientists consider it "unscientific" versus how many of them consider it "scientific but wrong"?

Philip J. Rayment 01:33, 20 Dec 2004 (UTC)

i agree with you. the problem is that the majority of them DO think it's unscientific -- but only because they've defined "science" so as to only include their own ideas. that's why i thought it would be best to identify the issues in dispute -- which, as far as i know -- is primarily uniformitarianism ... and then state the flood geology arguments for why it IS science ... to get beyond the name-calling:). Ungtss 02:17, 20 Dec 2004 (UTC)

What's so wrong about labelling non-mainstream views as such when there is a clear consensus? (Admittedly, at one time Coperncius' views were non-mainstream; if they were somehow to have been presented in a sixteenth century encyclopedia, had there been such, they almost certainly would have been so labeled.) Again, I renew my point: there are sincere and ardent Jacobites in the world, but to state that they do not share a mainstream viewpoint of the British monarchy is an undeniable fact that does not reflect on the validity of the claims of the House of Stuart, but rather on current political realities. Flood geology is not mainstream geology in 2004, and your apparent wish that it was such does not make this to be the case. Rlquall 03:02, 20 Dec 2004 (UTC)

the bigger question to me is, "what's the POINT of continually repeating the fact that it's not mainstream?" on the geocentrism page, i don't see anything about, "This is a minority viewpoint today." of course it's a minority viewpoint. everybody knows that. the point of wikipedia is not to constantly remind people how many people believe what, but at ACCURATELY and FAIRLY report their points of view. what i can't figure out is, why is it so important for evolutionists and uniformitarian geologists to plaster, "We think this is wrong!" all over every creation page. of course they think it's wrong. seems like a desperate attempt to pull rank to me. Ungtss 03:10, 20 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I agree that it is not mainstream and that labelling it non-mainstream does not affect whether or not it is true. But the point I was making is the one that Ungtss has now put in other words, is there really any need to keep putting that everywhere, particularly in the introduction? And to take the point a step further, it is probably better known that creation and flood geology are not widely accepted than it is that evolution is not universally accepted, so there is more reason to put a disclaimer on the evolution article than there is on creation-related articles! Philip J. Rayment 05:37, 20 Dec 2004 (UTC)

i have moved the critique to the end. it is inappropriate to critique something before you've described it. Ungtss 08:07, 20 Dec 2004 (UTC)

dreamguy: why do they not consider it scientific? let's get beyond the namecalling and get to some factual basis for these accusations? Ungtss 21:23, 20 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Simply put, anything that has a scientific-sounding name that is not considered scientific by the majority of scientists should have that mentioned briefly in the lead so as not to confuse anyone. The reasons why it isn't considered scientific as described by Ungtss is complete nonsense, so that shouldn't stay either. The problem with it is that it does not test hypotheses against evidence with the idea that the hypothesis will be rewritten if evidence shows it is wrong, it takes what the Bible says as fact and then tries to find evidence to support it while ignoring evidence against it. This is not science, it's the opposite of science. A simple objective statement at the end of the lead saying that most scientist considered it unscientific ("today" should be assumed, but Ungtss likes it there and it doesn't hurt anything so I have no objection) -- especially considering that nobody disputes the factualness of that statement -- is the absolute minimum needed to make this go from a pro-flood geology page to a at least partially NPOV page. DreamGuy 21:31, Dec 20, 2004 (UTC)

<<The problem with it is that it does not test hypotheses against evidence with the idea that the hypothesis will be rewritten if evidence shows it is wrong,...>>

This is anti-creationist dogma speaking, and it is wrong. Creationists have tested their ideas against evidence, and in some cases have rejected the idea. Two that come to mind are the c-decay hypothesis and the vapour canopy hypothesis. What is not open to question is whether creation itself occurred, but this is no different to the evolutionists questioning various aspects and models of evolution but not questioning evolution itself. Both are starting assumptions into which the scientific investigation is done.

Nope. Evolution is not a starting assumption, but the result of the scientific method applied to the available evidence. Of course, many scientists nowadays use evolution as a working assumption, as it is one of the best established scientific theories around. But they are still open to (and in fact would be thrilled to find) serious evidence againt evolution. --Stephan Schulz 01:34, 21 Dec 2004 (UTC)

<<Evolution is ... the result of the scientific method applied to the available evidence.>>

That is a disputed POV. Gould said that Darwin's motive was to eliminate God.

When, where, and in what context?
Of course, Gould's opinion on this is rather irrelevant - he is not a historian.
Of course, Darwin's motive is also totally irrelevant if his methods and results hold up - motive may be a reason to question the methodology, but if the theory stands on its own, it does not matter. This seems to be a major misunderstanding among many people. Science does not care about motive or intention. You can choose what to investigate, but if you do it honestly, you will get consistent results (and if not, peer reviewing will, sooner or later, catch you). As a scientist, I don't set out to prove X. I may assume X as a working hypothesis, and set up some experiments to validate it. If they do, well. If not, I have to change my hypothesis, even if I'm very much in love with it. It happens to me rather often, and it is often much more useful than a result that strengthens my hypothesis - essentially, because I learn something unexpected and new.

--Stephan Schulz 14:21, 21 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Gould apparently said this at a talk in Wellington, New Zealand, in 1990, titled "The Darwinian Revolution in Thought" [2]

Gould was a historian (of science) [3].

It's true that Darwin's motive was irrelevent if the results are there, but I was responding to your claim that evolution was the result of the scientific method applied to the evidence. If his motive was to eliminate God, that puts a big question mark over whether it really was just the method applied to the evidence.

Science may not care about motive or intention, but scientists do have motives. And there's plenty of examples of scientists hanging on to ideas long after they've been discredited. It's also funny how creationists can be criticised for being unscientific because of their motives, but not evolutionists!

Philip J. Rayment 01:55, 22 Dec 2004 (UTC)

<<...it is one of the best established scientific theories around>>

Another disputed POV, and demonstrably wrong, given that it involves much speculation about the unobserved past, unlike many other scientific theories that involve observations of the present.

<<But they are still open to (and in fact would be thrilled to find) serious evidence againt evolution.>>

[convulsive laughter]

Philip J. Rayment 02:43, 21 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Your restatement of your opinion that there should be a clarifying statement at the start of the article still has no good reason for doing so.

Philip J. Rayment 01:14, 21 Dec 2004 (UTC)

An encyclopedia article should reflect the current state of the art. The current state of the art in geology is incompatible with flood geology. Hence, this should be clearly stated in the introduction. --Stephan Schulz 01:34, 21 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Current naturalistic opinion is that they are incompatible. Why should an encyclopedia article have such an opinion in the introduction? Philip J. Rayment 02:43, 21 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Because naturalism is the base of all science and all useful understanding of the physical world. Once you reject naturalism, you have no common base at all. Last Tuesdayism is as valid as any other unnaturalistic world view. --Stephan Schulz 14:21, 21 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Naturalism—the belief that nature is all there is—is not the basis of science (most early scientists believed that they were studying God's creation), but is simply a metaphysical assumption that many scientists have. It is very possible to do science with an assumption that there is a Creator. Philip J. Rayment 01:55, 22 Dec 2004 (UTC)

dreamguy ...

hey dreamguy ... i'd appreciate it if you would stop treating me like an idiot. despite the fact that i disagree with you, i'm not a fool. there are in fact people that disagree with you on a rational basis -- why don't you try listening to us once in a while -- maybe we can learn from each other. here's my problem with your intro: 1) it's namecalling without providing a basis for the accusation. if you want to call it unscientific, then you have to explain why you think it's unscientific. i've tried to articulate your reasons for thinking it's unscientific, but i find that difficult to do, because (in my opinion) it is ridiculous to call it unscientific, as it is no more unscientific than any of the "mainstream" interpretations of science. you explained on the talkpage that you think it's unscientific because you think flood geologists start with the bible and refuse to consider contrary evidence. that's not being unscientific. it's just being opinionated. and beyond that, your "mainstream community" starts out by REJECTING flood geology (and the bible in general) and instead tries to fit everything into their myth of evolution. so what i want is for you to either articulate or quote exactly WHY you think flood geology is unscientific, and put it in there, so it's not just empty authority-pulling and name calling. are you willing to do that?

2) as to "contemporary definitions of science," the bible was taken as a guide to history for 2000 years, and used to guide interpretation of the evidence. it was considered accurate and historical. it was used to create calenders, to develop the beginnings of flood geology, and to trace the races of people through the geneologies. it was considered "scientific." only since atheism took the reins in the late-19th century has it become "unscientific." that is the "contemporary definition of science" to which i was referring.

3) as to the repeated references to it being a minority view ... what do you want, dreamguy? every paragraph ending with, "we think this is wrong but we don't know why!?" why don't you provide some FACTS to back up these accusations?

4) why is it that you were so insistent on keeping the REASONS for belief in the history of noah's flood out of the deluge mythology page, and are now so insistent on keeping the REASONS for belief that flood geology is unscientific out of this page? aren't the reasons the most important thing, not the accusations? why don't you find some geologist who thought flood geology was a crock, and quote him on why he thinks so?

5) i'm gonna try and articulate your stated reason for why you think flood geology is unscientific in the intro, and a creationist response. please tweak it instead of deleting it. people need to know WHY "mainstream" geologists think it's unscientific, so they can decide whether or not they give a rat's ass what your geologists think. Ungtss 20:41, 21 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I am not calling you an idiot or treating you like one, but it's extremely clear that your bias on this topic is so strong that you are uallow objective statements in the article. You constantly attack mainstream science and make accusations against its motives that are completely unfounded, and that shows in your reluctance to discuss this field's issue in proper perspective. Frankly, I have no problem with putting the reasons why Flood geology is considered unscientific into the article, as this piece could use perspective from the critics who far outnumber its supporters. What I do have a problem with was you creating ridiculous straw man arguments for science's perspective on this issue, and that's what I removed. You and Phillip above both objected to discussing criticism so I figured labeling it a minority view that was considered to be not real science would be plenty enough and people would kjnow to take what it says with a huge grain of salt. If you want the other side then be prepared for it to take up a good portion of the article, as every single one of the theories' assertions is widely cricitized or ignored as ridiculous by scientists. Up to you whether you want a short but obvious label or a thorough debunking. DreamGuy 22:10, Dec 21, 2004 (UTC)

<<it's extremely clear that your bias on this topic is so strong that you are uallow objective statements in the article>>

accusations of bias cut both ways ... let's stick to the facts.

Up to you whether you want a short but obvious label or a thorough debunking.

i'm up for a full discussion of the issues ... contrary to your accusations, i have no axe to grind here ... i just see things differently than you, and i think an article requires both of our povs to make it fair. so i want the critique. but it has gotta come after the description of what it is and be thoroughly cited and factually accurate -- the article so far is based entirely on quotes, cites, and empirical science, and i want to keep it that way. what i don't want is personal research and namecalling. there's enough of that on every page even remotely related to christianity:). Ungtss 02:06, 22 Dec 2004 (UTC)

<<You and Phillip above both objected to discussing criticism so I figured labeling it a minority view that was considered to be not real science would be plenty enough and people would kjnow to take what it says with a huge grain of salt.>> (emphasis added)

Thanks for being honest with your motives! Your stated intention therefore is to eliminate any credibility from Flood Geology, which is not what an encyclopedia article on it should be trying to do.

Philip J. Rayment 02:14, 22 Dec 2004 (UTC)

But differentiating between mainstream and non-mainstream thought is part of what an encyclopedia should do. I'm comfortable with the current disclaimer, but would suggest that this might be a minority viewpoint within the current "majority" viewpoint (which does not seem to be the majority of the users/readers/editors of this page). Rlquall 03:17, 22 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Claims and facts

I reverted the changes made by Stephan Schulz and the attempt at a compromise by Ungtss, because Stephan's changes were unacceptably anti-flood-geology (even if they weren't intended to be) and Ungtss' changes didn't adequately resolve the issue.

To specifics:

"Flood Geologist" is a nonsensical term (it presumes what a geologist would try to find out)

No, it describes the object of study. If you disagree with that, I trust that you would also disagree with exobiologist, which Carl Sagan claimed to be?

But the object of study is geology. If you restrict it to Flood Geology, there would be no reason to search for evidence for the flood, as that is assumed in the field. This is not science, but preaching. Exobiology is a subfield of biology that deals with a somewhat hypothetical topic on a mostly theoretical level. It may, in fact reason about the empty set. It does not, however, claim to replace (much of) mainstreaim biology.--Stephan Schulz 22:09, 22 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Okay, lets just call Flood Geologists, "geologists", and not make the distinction. Okay? Philip J. Rayment 13:11, 23 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Finding evidence is POV

Not necessarily. People can "find" evidence where none exists. Also, saying that someone "finds evidence to support their views" has a connotation that it is just their opinion that it supports their views. That is, they really do find evidence (which is the claim), but does it really support their views? To put it another way, I didn't say "they find evidence that does support their views". That would be POV.

I find this a little bit like splitting hairs, but not quite splitting them fine enough. You cannot find evidence for a non-existent event. You can find evidence that supports belief in a non-existent even. You can also find things you believe support a non-existent event.--Stephan Schulz 22:09, 22 Dec 2004 (UTC)

<<You can find evidence that supports believe in a non-existent [event]>>

Isn't that pretty well what I said?

I'm happy with Ungtss' revised wording, by the way.

Philip J. Rayment 13:11, 23 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Supporters of flood geology, however, claim they do not base their belief in a global flood solely on the Bible

This is more than a claim. This is demonstrable fact. If the original claim (that "they claim it interprets geology solely in light of a religious text instead on the basis of the evidence") is true, that would mean that creationists do not even bother looking at the geological evidence, let along studying it and writing papers on it. But the indisputable fact is that creationists do look at the geological evidence and do write papers on it. So the anti-flood-geology claim is clearly wrong, and in the interests of honesty and fairness, that needs to be pointed out. The alternative is to not make the original claim in the first place; then it doesn't need to be refuted.

And finally, Ungtss' compromise wording failed to adequately refute that false claim.

Philip J. Rayment 15:23, 22 Dec 2004 (UTC)

The original text was not by me. But it is a fact that many so-called flood geologists do indeed subscribe to something like the AiG Statement of Faith that restricts their interpretation of geology to those compatible with a certain semi-literal interpretation of the bible. They can still look at the evidence in that framework, they can write papers about hydrographic sorting and the properties of gopher wood. What they cannot do is interprete the evidence from a different, more general viewpoint. Thus, I think the original claim is fairly true. Flood geologists look for evidence to support their theory (and possibly refine it), they do not look at the evidence to find the best theory. --Stephan Schulz 22:09, 22 Dec 2004 (UTC)

There is a big difference between basing their research on a framework taken from the Bible, and interpreting geology "solely in light of a religious text" (emphasis added).

But there's not much of a difference between basing their research on a framework taken from the Bible, and basing research on a framework that specifically rejects the Bible. Both are metaphysical starting assumptions.

Philip J. Rayment 13:11, 23 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Perhaps we're just continuing to generate more heat than light, but at least (from my POV) we've finally gotten around to some interesting discussion and a little less of "I'm right!" "Sez you!" which is where we seemed to be for a while. Rlquall 04:24, 24 Dec 2004 (UTC)

new edits

welcome -- and i greatly appreciate your promise of many edits and corrections to come. here are my thoughts on my recent changes to a few of your changes: Ungtss 23:42, 6 Jan 2005 (UTC)

<<inconsistent with all geological facts>>

this is a pov, and has to be qualified. Ungtss 23:42, 6 Jan 2005 (UTC)

<<many years of slow deposition of sediment>>

this is also a pov -- with which flood geologists disagree. the more general, npov statement, is that they precipitate from solution -- whether slowly on a riverbank (although it seems to me that erosion is the rule everywhere but the rivermouth) or quickly during a flood. Ungtss 23:42, 6 Jan 2005 (UTC)

<<Still, these ideas fail to take into account that liquifaction occurs only on areas with massive amounts of unconsolidated sediment.>>

i would really appreciate a mainstream geologist's critique of flood geology, but it must be stated as a pov, and must follow the description of flood geology itself. the article cannot state as fact that flood geology fails -- it must say WHO says flood geology fails, and why. Ungtss 23:42, 6 Jan 2005 (UTC)

"Layered rock strata are laid down by precipitation from solution." This is simply not true. Not trying to be contrary, it's just that some things need a bit more comment and explaination. I was asked to peek at this page because of my knowledge of geology, but I think now I will keep my distance for the time being. Thanks. --DanielCD 14:45, 7 Jan 2005 (UTC)

New counterpoints

great to have them here! it would be nice, tho, if there could be some cited facts or scholars to support these arguments? i intend this for the sake of the quality and persuasiveness of the counterarguments -- as they are, they don't seem to really hit the points made in the front section -- they're primariliy personal research, and they attack the weak points of some proposed models ... but don't cut to the core -- how did the sedimentary rocks actually get there? how are the frozen mammoths explained? what about the submarine canyon extensions? it's cool if y'all wanna leave them like that -- i'd just like to see some rebuttals that actually address the issues. Ungtss 04:42, 23 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Cool. Yeah, those counterpoints are personal research, but I already returned the books to the library. Most of what is there, though, can be found at the talk.origins archive here.

I'll go ahead and add the counterpoints to specific Flood Geology points now. Neocapitalist 22:11, 23 Jan 2005 (UTC).

I think "personal research" is when you come up with it yourself rather than get it from another source. So finding it in library books doesn't count as personal research. Philip J. Rayment 13:17, 24 Jan 2005 (UTC)

i guess what i meant was, they're not attributed to any source -- who said these things? when? why? most of the rest of the page is attributed to people ... it would be nice if the counterpoints were too. Ungtss 13:31, 24 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Sorry about last night; I couldn't update: internet problems. I'll work on that now. Neocapitalist 19:16, 24 Jan 2005 (UTC)

good job:). Ungtss 20:54, 24 Jan 2005 (UTC)

models

phillip -- it would seem we should add some of the proposed flood models to put the counterpoint criticisms in context -- any ideas on how to do that? Ungtss 04:42, 23 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I'll give it some thought, but so far I've edited the mainstream stuff where it was responding to straw-man arguments and the like. Philip J. Rayment 13:49, 24 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I'm interested in seeing some of the new ones. Neocapitalist 02:38, 25 Jan 2005 (UTC)

new minor edits

The major restructuring to cure the Creationist POV looks to be about done; there's probably a few controversial edits still to go, but I don't foresee anything major. So, if anyone sees anything too POV, then go ahead and change it, and then point it out here. For starters, the opposition links header seemed to be unnecessarily POV: "Sites criticising Flood Geology". I changed it. Neocapitalist 02:43, 25 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Who edited this, William Shatner?

"However, archaeologists state, once the flood had begun, if liquefaction actually took place, heavy, dense objects, such as human artifacts, would be expected to sink to the bottom;"

The problem with slotting all these 'if's, 'but's and 'mainstream scientists claim's into existing sentences is that the whole thing quickly descends into a morass of punctuation. I'll try and hammer this into a decent approximation of English when it isn't quarter to four in the morning. Potatojunkie 03:40, 25 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Aargh! My secret identity has been discovered! Sorry about the convoluted English; it seems I can't write a sentence without it becoming unnecessarily complicated. If you want, point out more things which could be made clearer, and I'll see what I can do to help revise the sentences. Neocapitalist 19:29, 25 Jan 2005 (UTC)

The main problem was with big long strings of clauses seperated by commas. All they really needed was to be rephrased so as to avoid that - juggling the order of clauses, using parentheses, and so on. Shorter sentences are the trick - so long as they are still sentences. I forget what I was still unhappy with, as it seems okay now. I didn't want to rewrite too much - I'd rather leave that to people who are more familiar with the subject in hand.Potatojunkie 12:11, 26 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Can't sleep - clown'll eat me

It still needs work, but the counterpoints do read a little better now.Potatojunkie 04:24, 25 Jan 2005 (UTC)

bias

berzerker, i hate tags because they don't help anything. why does this page need a tag? where's the bias? Ungtss 17:01, 29 Jan 2005 (UTC)

fair enough, I'll move the tag to deluge myths. --BerserkerBen 20:45, 29 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Move it to the Deluge (mythology) page? WHY? If the problems existed on this article, and they do, then the tag should be here. I don;t understand how moving a tag makes sense. It belogns here based upon its own merits and that other article based upon it's merits (which I don't see, personally, mainly because I am able to undo the blatant pro-Creationism comments that keep being added).

I want to thank DreamGuy for correcting my weepiness to give in to these fanatics, thank you. As for "moving it": that was a figure of speach, Deluge (mythology) NEEDS a tag, and was just changing what article I was attacking for gross bias, as this one has some of its problems fixed. --BerserkerBen 01:21, 30 Jan 2005 (UTC)

OK, well, I completely disagree with you on Deluge (mythology) needing a tag, but you can explain your actions on that talk page instead of here. DreamGuy 02:22, Jan 30, 2005 (UTC)

<<correcting my weepiness to give in to these fanatics>>

fanatic is as fanatic does:). Ungtss 21:19, 31 Jan 2005 (UTC)

this page is definitely npov

There are unsubstantiated statements made throughout the page. I'm not going to get into an edit war, so I've reinstated the NPOV tag. Joshuaschroeder 05:21, 7 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I agree that this page is from NPOV (Neutral Point of View). That's what it supposed to be!

Unless a person putting an NPOV tag on is prepared to say what is in dispute, it doesn't warrant the tag.

Philip J. Rayment 12:55, 7 Feb 2005 (UTC)

The entire article is largely one-sided POV. It is not objective in how it reports the facts. The tag should remain until the page is cleaned up. In addition, I'm placing a "cleanup" tag, hopefully people will heed it and spend some time adding some objectivity to the article.--FeloniousMonk 21:04, 7 Feb 2005 (UTC)

would you mind supporting your conclusion that it is pov with some specific examples or explanations of what you think is wrong with it? Ungtss 21:07, 7 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Sure. Here's a couple:

Flood_geology#Frozen_mammoths

"The existence of mammoths in Siberia's present climate is extremely unlikely'... . --assumes the likelihood of need for fur.

fixed. Ungtss 22:00, 7 Feb 2005 (UTC)

"One biologist, after conducting an extension study of the hair and skin of mammoths, wrote in the annual report of the Smithsonian Institution, "It appears to me impossible to find, in the anatomical examination of the skin and [hair], any argument in favor of adaptation to the cold." (Neuville 332)." --quote lacks context and cite to outside link for verification. I've searched all Smithsonian annual reports available and can not find this quote.

it's a good point, and i'll try to dig it up if i can:). Ungtss 22:00, 7 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Flood_geology#Evolutionary_Evidence

"The evolutionary record is preserved largely in sedimentary rocks." --the phrasing implies that the evolutionary record is supported by just geology. By ignoring biology, of which molecular genetics makes a very, very strong case for evolution, the article cherry picks the counter arguments.

--FeloniousMonk 21:38, 7 Feb 2005 (UTC)

there is room for that in the counterargument section -- the "evolutionary evidence" subsection is very short, and i'm sure you could improve it greatly. Ungtss 22:00, 7 Feb 2005 (UTC)

There is enough evidence in Molecular_evolution in support of the evolutionary record to have pages of its own! It should not be hard to find and link them. --BerserkerBen 23:04, 7 Feb 2005 (UTC)

suggestions for improvement? (i really just hate tags, and i would like to fix the article under your kind and fruitful guidance:). Ungtss 21:40, 7 Feb 2005 (UTC)

The very idea that this is being presented as "science" is absurd. It should be titled "Creationist views of Geology" because Flood Geology is trying to make it sound like a legitimate science field. It's presented as if it is science and it is NOT. That in itself is POV. I replaced the NPOV tag. --DanielCD 22:25, 8 Feb 2005 (UTC)