Talk:Flood geology

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You have new messages (last change).

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Flood geology article.
This is a controversial topic, which may be under dispute.
Please read this talk page and discuss substantial changes here before making them.
Make sure you supply full citations when adding information to highly controversial articles.

/Archive 1 – Unscientific?, NPOV, Plate tectonic, Mammoths

Contents

[edit] Reliability of Genesis

This section is certainly relevant (I think the discussion of Augustine's views is especially interesting). However, it is mostly a general discussion of Biblical accuracy and does not focus on the Flood. I'd like to prune it (maybe moving part of it to another article... Young Earth creationism or Biblical inerrancy). Any thoughts? -- Jpacold 21:20, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

I'm not sure that would make sense given how wrapped up flood geology is with the doctrine of inerrancy. JoshuaZ 21:38, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
I don't want to delete the whole section -- just shorten it and add a link to one of the broader articles on inerrancy. My objection is that most of it (especially the second and last paragraphs) is too general for this article. It deals with the overall debate instead of flood geology in particular. -- Jpacold 22:31, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Age of the Earth

O.K. Schroeder, since you have reverted the edit on Age of the Earth, PLEASE supply a REFERENCE for the unneeded initial concentrations and non-closed-system hypotheses. I.e., SHOW haw isochron analyses sidestep these issues. Dan Watts 00:12, 13 May 2005 (UTC)

From the perspective of the creation/evolution debate, this website is informative, though very basic in how it illustrates this. It would be better if you looked at one of the textbooks they reference. However, the paragraph in the above work is quite illuminating:

Some doubters have tried to dismiss geologic dating with a sleight of hand by saying that no rocks are completely closed systems (that is, that no rocks are so isolated from their surroundings that they have not lost or gained some of the isotopes used for dating). Speaking from an extreme technical viewpoint this might be true--perhaps 1 atom out of 1,000,000,000,000 of a certain isotope has leaked out of nearly all rocks, but such a change would make an immeasurably small change in the result. The real question to ask is, "is the rock sufficiently close to a closed system that the results will be same as a really closed system?" Since the early 1960s many books have been written on this subject. These books detail experiments showing, for a given dating system, which minerals work all of the time, which minerals work under some certain conditions, and which minerals are likely to lose atoms and give incorrect results. Understanding these conditions is part of the science of geology. Geologists are careful to use the most reliable methods whenever possible, and as discussed above, to test for agreement between different methods.

To really "SHOW" how the isochrons "sidestep" the issues, we'd have to go into detail about each condition in which you were interested: all the energy regimes, and the particular parameter analysis that is done. Joshuaschroeder 00:52, 13 May 2005 (UTC)

By the way the "initial amount" argument doesn't really make any sense since the dating is done by means of parameter fitting where the initial amount itself is a parameter that is fit -- not assumed. As explained in the above article:

A good part of this article is devoted to explaining how one can tell how much of a given element or isotope was originally present. Usually it involves using more than one sample from a given rock. It is done by comparing the ratios of parent and daughter isotopes relative to a stable isotope for samples with different relative amounts of the parent isotope. For example, in the rubidium-strontium method one compares rubidium-87/strontium-86 to strontium-87/strontium-86 for different minerals. From this one can determine how much of the daughter isotope would be present if there had been no parent isotope. This is the same as the initial amount (it would not change if there were no parent isotope to decay). Figures 4 and 5, and the accompanying explanation, tell how this is done most of the time. While this is not absolutely 100% foolproof, comparison of several dating methods will always show whether the given date is reliable.

What the article doesn't do is say exactly how the "comparisons" get done which is by means of normal parameter fitting. It is fully rigorous from a physical standpoint and the errors are characterized well by the central limit theorem since there are enough systems to give a decent gaussian model. Joshuaschroeder 00:56, 13 May 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Fossilization

Why is there an incorrect characterization of the T. Rex bone in this article? The investigator in the linked article was reprted as saying "This is fossilised bone in the sense that it's from an extinct animal but it doesn't have a lot of the characteristics of what people would call a fossil.... It still has places where there are no secondary minerals, and it's not any more dense than modern bone; it's bone more than anything." Why (other than dislike of the article subject) is there a rejection of the bone not being completely fossilized (mineral replacement)? In an online Washington Post article [1] it gives more detail concerning the demineralization: '[They] remove[d] the mineralized calcium', i.e. the solid matrix of the bone. If there is no explanation forthcoming within a few days, I propose that the (not supported by evidence) sentence ("But the tissue is fossilized, and appears to be flexible and contain cells and vessels only after demineralization."), which is at LEAST misleading, be removed. Dan Watts 15:24, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I agree, if the process used is more analogous to demineralising recent bone than true fossilised bone. It would be best if percentages of biogene and exogene calcium (and other minerals) could be given (if it's technologically possible-which I doubt). But it should be mentioned that an alive appearance does not infer the bone to be recent. Given this, dinosaur and Tyrannosaurus rex need an update. Phlebas 10:13, Jun 25, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] The flood IS disproved

If the global flood actually occured, then it would have had a radical effect on geology, and evidence of that flood would be observable today, making the idea falsifiable. Conclusive evidence exists that such a flood did not occur, making a global flood in historic times a myth according to science. Belief in the supernatural allows for belief in such a flood, but because it relies on the supernatural to explain away evidence, it is not a valid scientific theory. 4.250.177.59 4 July 2005 23:31 (UTC)

Perhaps you would be so kind as to point out this conclusive evidence. Dan Watts 5 July 2005 13:06 (UTC)
If you do so please do so privately not on this talk page. Talk pages are for discussing edits to the articles (although on reading this one that may not be clear) Barnaby dawson 5 July 2005 15:06 (UTC)
Which is EXACTLY the point of my request. The above wording is now in the article, therefore discussion of it is MOST germaine. Why do you feel otherwise? Dan Watts 5 July 2005 16:08 (UTC)
Apologies. I didn't see the edit by our non member friend. I interpreted what he wrote above as just being his opinion stated on the talk page. Something which does happen quite frequently. Barnaby dawson 5 July 2005 18:45 (UTC)
I rewrote the passage our anonomous friend wrote to become "Mainstream scientists hold that the evidence available is sufficient to conclusively disprove the notion of a recent global flood." Barnaby dawson 5 July 2005 18:54 (UTC)
There is conclusive evidence presented on the page itself. Joshuaschroeder 5 July 2005 19:10 (UTC)

One thing I've noticed is that this (on the page) seems to be a battle between "creationists" and "mainstream scientists", but in reality it is against a very small group (we could call them "creationists" or "flood geologists" or whatever) versus pretty much the entire population of the planet in the developed world, and most of it which isn't in the developed world to boot. This seems to be a common problem; evolution also essentially has the same problem in the creation v evolution articles, that far more people support it than is presented. And as for their obviously being conclusive evidence that there was no flood - yes, there is, but we aren't allowed to say so much. We are supposed to show reality, though - a mistake many make is that NPOV = give everyone equal time or equal credence to all opinions. That is not the case; we are supposed to present all opinions and not draw conclusions for the reader, but we are supposed to present evidence as well which (in this case at the very least) should show the reader that flood geology is in fact incorrect. If you feel that this is not presented strongly enough at the criticisms section at the end of the article, please add or reword it. 69.59.212.172 18:37, 9 August 2005 (UTC)

Surely, the attempt of all scientific research and analysis is to find the true science which runs throughout the world. Sadly, as the majority of scientists presume that evolution is the ultimate truth to our origins without questioning it's validity in many cases, Creationism is disregarded as a valid theory. How you can automatically assume that flood geology is incorrect I do not know. There are so many situations which fit perfectly with the flood which do not fit with that of the mainstream scientists' view. For instance, could you please explain to me the prescence of feldspar on the Atlantic Ocean sea bed? Surely this could only have been sedimented if the bed had been formed in a short amount of time. There are several other facts which do not fit with mainstrea geology but do with the Young Earth Creationists' theories. In light of this, I would ask that you present the scientific VIEWS of the Creationist on flood geology at least, and not simply disclaim it in one swift blow. Presumptions are applied to the flood geologists' view which apply to mainstream science, which may not be true if the flood geologists' stance is correct.

Feldspar, a silicate mineral is extremely common on the surface of the Earth wherever igneous rocks are found. Since the ocean floor is formed by divergent plate boundaries, we expect to find common igneous minerals such as feldspar there. --ScienceApologist 14:59, 14 January 2006 (UTC)
Scientific views of flood "geologists"? Please. The concept of a global flood is contradicted left, right and centre by so many strands of evidence from so many different areas of science that it's frankly perverse to continue to believe that it has credability. The only reason for continuing to do so is if one is a member of that minority who refuse to read religious works (such as the Bible) as allegorical in parts. In doing so, they're forced to shoe-horn bits and pieces of science into ridiculous (e.g. dinosaurs-ran-slower-than-mammals stratigraphy) and non-physical (e.g. where did the water come from? where did it go to?) "theories". Just because one piece of evidence can be construed as indicative of a flood doesn't mean that one can disregard all of the evidence that doesn't point to a flood (if one does, that's not science).
As an aside, for fundamentalists, flood geologists are seriously forgetting their fundamentals. One of the cornerstones of religion is faith. How does one square this with the flood geologists' craving for evidence at any cost? --Plumbago 11:16, 16 January 2006 (UTC)
"The concept of a global flood is contradicted left, right and centre by so many strands of evidence from so many different areas of science..."
Could someone please identify any examples of these strands?
Has anyone considered how this evidence (from the 2004 Sumatra Andaman earthquake) backs or contradicts the concept of a Biblical global flood? The earthquake had made a huge impact on the topography of the seabed. Previous activity on the fault over geological periods of time had created large thrust ridges, about 1,500 m high, which collapsed in places during the earthquake to produce large landslides several kilometres across. One landslide consisted of a single block of material some 100 m (300 ft) high and 2 km (1.25 mi) long. The force of the displaced water was such that individual blocks of rock, massing millions of tons apiece, were dragged as much as 10 km (7 mi) across the seabed. An oceanic trench several kilometres wide was exposed in the earthquake zone.[1]
Is it too far fetched to speculate that if a brief earthquake, of just a few minutes, could cause those massive changes, that prolonged continuous seismic activity of 40 days or even a whole year or more could cause much greater changes?
Most certainly, anyone who has read the Biblical account could realize that the description of the source of the flood waters involves continuous massive seismic activity for 40 days. However, the disappointing fact is that few do realize this. Real evidence points to the probability of rapid massive geological changes in the presence of significant seismic activity when geological features are submerged.
Is there a flood geologist that could compare this phenomenon with the section entitled Submarine canyon formation? --Ep9206 11:16, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Augustine -- misquoted

"On the Literal Interpretation of Genesis: an unfinished book", Chapter 19:39

  • Usually, even a non-Christian knows something about the earth, the heavens, and the other elements of this world, about the motion and orbit of the stars and even their size and relative positions, about the predictable eclipses of the sun and moon, the cycles of the years and the seasons, about the kinds of animals, shrubs, stones, and so forth, and this knowledge he holds to as being certain from reason and experience. Now, it is a disgraceful and dangerous thing for an infidel to hear a Christian, presumably giving the meaning of Holy Scripture, talking non-sense on these topics; and we should take all means to prevent such an embarrassing situation, in which people show up vast ignorance in a Christian and laugh it to scorn. The shame is not so much that an ignorant individual is derided, but that people outside the household of the faith think our sacred writers held such opinions, and, to the great loss of those for whose salvation we toil, the writers of our Scripture are criticized and rejected as unlearned men. If they find a Christian mistaken in a field which they themselves know well and hear him maintaining his foolish opinions about our books, how are they going to believe those books in matters concerning the resurrection of the dead, the hope of eternal life, and the kingdom of heaven, when they think their pages are full of falsehoods on facts which they themselves have learnt from experience and the light of reason? Reckless and incompetent expounders of holy Scripture bring untold trouble and sorrow on their wiser brethren when they are caught in one of their mischievous false opinions and are taken to task by those who are not bound by the authority of our sacred books. For then, to defend their utterly foolish and obviously untrue statements, they will try to call upon Holy Scripture for proof and even recite from memory many passages which they think support their position, although “they understand neither what they say nor the things about which they make assertion.”

Augustine was NOT taking to task the 'reliability of Genesis', as the misquoted text is headed; rather, he was speaking about talking nonsense--perhaps, for example, being dogmatic about Arguments creationists should not use--and failing to maintain Christian integrity ("...maintaining his [the Christian's] foolish opinions about our books [the Bible] ..."). Furthermore, this passage is taken out of context of the whole (a/k/a quote mining), as Augustine goes on in Chapter 20 to condemn those that would take the word of men over the Word of God (which definitely shows he was not against the reliability of Scripture):

  • But since the words of Scripture that I have treated are explained in so many senses, critics full of worldly learning should restrain themselves from attacking as ignorant and uncultured these utterances that have been made to nourish all devout souls. Such critics are like wingless creatures that crawl upon the earth and, while soaring no higher than the leap of a frog, mock the birds in their nests above. But more dangerous is the error of certain weak brethren who faint away when they hear these irreligious critics learnedly and eloquently discoursing on the theories of astronomy or on any of the questions relating to the elements of this universe. With a sigh, they esteem these teachers as superior to themselves, looking upon them as great men; and they return with disdain to the books which were written for the good of their souls; and, although they ought to drink from these books with relish, they can scarcely bear to take them up. Turning away in disgust from the unattractive wheat field, they long for the blossoms on the thorn. For they are not free to see how sweet is the Lord,73 and they have no hunger on the Sabbath. And thus they are idle, though they have permission from the Lord to pluck the ears of grain and to work them in their hands and grind them and win-now them until they arrive at the nourishing kernel.

Therefore, I think that the quote from Augustine should be corrected, or stricken entirely. --138.130.203.177 16:31, 14 August 2005 (UTC)

Well, do it yourself. Don't hold your breath for those who disagree with you to change it. Just because you have shown the premise to be false, doesn't meak that it will be retracted. Dan Watts 17:09, 14 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] uniformitarianism

Is there a single quote anywhere that shows a notable proponent of flood geology dismissing "uniformitarianism"? This word is peppered throughout this article, and several statements are made regarding what flood-geologists think of it and what mainstream-geologists think of it. However, there isn't a single quote anywhere to support any of these claims. can anyone find some URL's that show what flood-geologists say in response to "uniformitarianism"? Otherwise, I think some of the article will need rewriting to avoid the term. FuelWagon 17:53, 22 August 2005 (UTC)

I'm not sure that I can find a single, solid quote, so I will try a shotgun approach.
"If it can be shown that the column rests, even in its supposedly empirical aspects, on presuppositions of evolution, uniformitarianism, and deep time, all inimical to creationism, then its role in creationist models should be discontinued." [2]
"Although monolithically applied within historical geology, uniformitarianism itself is a non-scientific axiom. It represents the only possible hold on history for naturalists, since their positivism restricts knowledge to observation. It is demonstrably falsified by at least three tests for truth:
(1) There is imprecision and potential contradiction in the definition itself.
(2) Even a consistent definition contradicts empirical evidence of both modern processes and products of past processes.
(3) Finally, the underlying concept of the uniformity of natural law, a necessary condition for uniformitarianism, cannot be justified within the naturalist worldview." [3]
The second one doesn't look too bad. Dan Watts 18:59, 22 August 2005 (UTC)

fuelwagon, i added a bit from a cited, sourced paper by grimel on the ideological origins of uniformitarians, per your request. Ungtss 19:24, 22 August 2005 (UTC)

"The assumption of uniformitarianism is also truly unscientific". Henry Morris, What is Creation Science, 1987, p. 15. --- "The gradual undermining of confidence in the Scriptures, resulting from the rise of uniformitarianism and evolutionism in the nineteenth century, inevitably was followed by a revolt against the social and political institutions erected on that faith." Henry Morris, The Bible Has the Answer, 1976, p. 46. --Ian Pitchford 19:52, 22 August 2005 (UTC)
Is it just me, or is Grimel a bit of an odd source? Among other things, he seems to favour Velikovsky in his paper. There may well be something in his reading of political history around the beginnings of uniformitarianism, but just because particular science has been press-ganged into service for this or that political cause, doesn't mean that it should be thrown out for that reason alone. This whole section in the article seems like it's trying to tar uniformitarianism for its connections to politics rather than its service to science. --Plumbago 09:32, 23 August 2005 (UTC)
Quite, also the name is Grinnell not Grimel and no one ever cites the book chapter! I've restored the deleted sections and have added additional context on Hutton's views and on flood geology's rejection of uniformitarianism. --Ian Pitchford 10:06, 23 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] mea culpa, mea culpa, mea maxima culpa

My browser edit window kills the page after about 30K, which means, when I edited the intro, it cut the page off in the middle of section 6. If somebody could please revert past my edits, I'd me much obliged. My apologies! Neocapitalist 15:51, 27 August 2005 (UTC)

Umm -- proposed incorporation of 'pseudoscience' in the ntro:

Flood geology, creation geology and diluvial geology are terms used by creationists to describe the study of geologic phenomena with reference to the purported events of the Great Flood as reported in Genesis. Creationists regard Genesis as providing a scientifically accurate record for the geological history of the Earth. However, the scientific community widely disputes flood geology as pseudoscience.

Thoughts? Neocapitalist 15:55, 27 August 2005 (UTC)

This makes the pseudoscientific status of flood geology sound like an opinion among scientists, whereas it's a fact of geological science. --Ian Pitchford 17:45, 27 August 2005 (UTC)

Okay. Try two:

Flood geology, creation geology and diluvial geology are terms used by creationists to describe the study of geologic phenomena with reference to the purported events of the Great Flood as reported in Genesis. Creationists regard Genesis as providing a scientifically accurate record for the geological history of the Earth. However, the scientific community widely disputes flood geology, which relegates flood geology to the status of pseudoscience.

Neocapitalist 18:10, 27 August 2005 (UTC)

Flood geology isn't a research program within geology. This is a fact. It's not a matter of opinion or consensus. --Ian Pitchford 11:33, 29 August 2005 (UTC)
I didn't know that the field of geology did any accepting/rejecting. It is sometimes quite surprising what one can learn from reading introductory paragraphs. Dan Watts 13:35, 5 September 2005 (UTC)
Science is a process that is all about accepting and rejecting through the scientific method. Joshuaschroeder 14:21, 5 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] cited material censorship

why, duncharris and ian pitchford, do you insist on removing this cited academic material precisely on topic? is it because you think it's wrong? is your opinion the slighest bit relevent? -- ungtss

It's incorrect, in the wrong historical sequence, by an author that no one cites and from a disreputable source. --Ian Pitchford 20:23, 6 September 2005 (UTC)
those are your opinions, mr. pitchford. you have not presented facts to defend your opinions, in this case. here are my facts: the text is from an academic studying the field, is cited, sourced, and you've provided no evidence to prove it wrong. since when did undefendend opinion come to trump facts? 1859 or so, i guess:(. -- ungtss.
The article was published in a trade book, not an academic book and also appeared in the Velikovsky journal Kronos, not a reputable academic source. The historical facts are wrong and no other academic cites the paper. --Ian Pitchford 20:59, 6 September 2005 (UTC)

I'm wondering if your still unsure how gender evolved. - RoyBoy 800 20:45, 6 September 2005 (UTC)

i'm wondering if you're here to discuss the censorship occuring here, or simply make irrelevent remarks. 64.241.37.140 20:54, 6 September 2005 (UTC)
If I can add my five cents. While I'm not sure about the academic/trade nature of the cited manuscript, if one looks at the PDF of the article, it's clear that it relates to Velikovsky. Hardy a good start. However, while fearful of slippery slopes, I think that citing it briefly would not pose a serious problem. At the moment it appears that the creationist side of the debate is using this single reference as an excuse to shoe-horn a ton of material in, while the science side is seemingly belligerently removing all reference to it. I can live with a short reference to it (while I understand the academic/trade distinction, popular science writing could be classed as trade). However, I would protest at the text that's been inserted up till now. As well as being non-NPOV, it also has a right-wing nut-job flavour to it when it refers to certain scientists as "liberals". Sounds distinctly like one is betraying one's roots methinks. --Plumbago 08:21, 7 September 2005 (UTC)
If the reference is included we'll have to expand the article to say what's wrong with both the material and the source. It would be easier to employ a minimum standard with regard to sources. The fact that no one cites this work is easily verifiable using Google Scholar and other research tools. The status of the book as a trade book published by "Metron Publications" (a catastrophist/self publisher?) is easily verfiable via Amazon.com which shows it ranking #2,727,826 in books. --Ian Pitchford 08:48, 7 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Grass evidence

This article [4] mayhave some bearing on the 'swimming grass' phenomenon. An associated AP report gives a (uniformitarian) date for grass to have appeared of at least 80 Myrs ago. Dan Watts 03:26, 18 November 2005 (UTC)

grasses as we currently know them (ubiquitous to plains) didn't show up until 60 Myrs ago. Joshuaschroeder 18:08, 18 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Paleontological evidence

I'm confused by this section:

"If fossilization took place extremely quickly during the Flood, then — paleontologists claim — fossilized remains should be far more numerous and widespread than is actually seen." "Additionally, paleontologists claim that if all the fossilized animals were killed in the flood, and the flood is responsible for fossilization, then the average density of vertebrates was an abnormally high number."

The first paragraph seems to say that fossilized remains are too few. The second paragraph seems to say that fossilized remains are too many. I'm not sure what was intended, but it should be fixed.

I think you're right, the text reads rather strangely and appears to contradict itself. Not knowing very much about fossils and fossilisation, I can only speculate about the point that the writer/s is/are trying to make.
As regards the first point, it could be that, for an individual modern species, their density in the fossil record is low relative to that which we encounter today (which wouldn't make sense were a flood to be responsible for fossils).
On the second point, it could be that, when one adds up all of the fossils of all species in a particular area, and if one assumes that they were all laid down in a very short period of time, then this suggests a standing stock of biomass much greater than that observed today.
If this is what's meant, then it could be expressed better. Further, if this is what's meant, there's still a problem. Namely, the first point assumes modern population sizes, while the Genesis world purportedly contained all of the species, extant and extinct, at the same time (i.e. a lot more species than the present day). Thus, the populations of ecologically similar dinosaur and mammal species would be sharing a resource that the modern mammal species would have all to themselves. So one should expect modern populations to be larger.
Anyway, either way this is a rather ambiguous section. Would anyone more qualified (e.g. its author(s)) care to comment? Cheers, --Plumbago 09:21, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Mainstream

I'm sure this will have been discussed before, but is it really necessary to describe science as "mainstream science" (or geology as "mainstream geology")? It gives the impression that flood geology is also science, albeit a minority viewpoint, despite the point at the head of the article that specifically relegates flood "geology" to pseudoscience. Furthermore, in a media-savvy world, "mainstream" has connotations that don't flatter science. --Plumbago 09:32, 18 November 2005 (UTC)

Agreed. I would be happy with the removal of the weasel adjectives. Joshuaschroeder 18:08, 18 November 2005 (UTC)


I worked as a Geologist with the British Geological Survey, and was interested to see that there are none of Velikovsky's books in the library there. In fact, Velikovsky drew together a large amount of geological evidence for catastrophic events - which are now the basis for mainstream geology. In the 1950's we liked to think of nature as being stable and predictable rather than producing catastrophic events of civilisation-shattering proportions in short timeframes. But he did it in such a controversial manner, too many years before his time, that he's been expunged to the dungeons of pseudoscience. Since rapid gelogical events have become acceptable, even some large quartzitic metal deposits are thought to be capable of being created in a matter of hours or days. I'm not sure about the biblical flood covering the whole world, but there is now some pretty good evidence for something along that scale when the Black Sea flooded about 5600BC.

The thing about the bible is that if you don't believe every word is true, there is a lot of historical basis. And I guess some of it must be allegory. However, given the discovery of mercury under the Chinese emperor's tomb, it makes you wonder how much old "mythology" is really based on fact. Dictostelium 16:49, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Radiometric dating assumptions

There is no assumption made about loss or retention of either parent or daughter nuclei when one makes a determination of an age based on radiometric dating. All that is assumed is that the rates are known and then the parameters are fit. If one of the nuclei is out of equilibrium with other radionuclides, then the composition problems can be parametrized. However, no assumption is made as to the retention of components since the parameter fitting analysis allows for this to be fitted along with the age. --Joshuaschroeder 20:29, 23 November 2005 (UTC)

Let me understand this. We have some N parent-daughter nuclide ratios. Then a fit of the 2N+1 {n*(parent(time0) + daughter(time0)) + (time - time0)} parameters is taken and the process does not need the initial daughter concentration? Isn't this set of equations somewhat underdetermined? Wouldn't there be a family of {time,Daughter(time0)} values which would be solutions? Dan Watts 21:26, 23 November 2005 (UTC)
There also is the ratio of parent and non-radiogenic-isotope of daughter. This constrains the solution space to one. There is a rather good FAQ at talkorigins.org. --Stephan Schulz 22:26, 23 November 2005 (UTC)
To one, but that's no fun. Or is it? I'm confused. - RoyBoy 800 06:52, 30 November 2005 (UTC)


[edit] Biased attempt at labelling uniformtarianism as dogmatic

This passage does not show a "priori" when examining data. It merely shows a SCIENTIFIC approach and thus i resolve it should be deleted. I haven't done it yet, to allow for commentary and so a consensus can be formed. The offending passage is

"It is worth noting that the founders of uniformitarianism likewise had an a priori commitment before examining the evidence. For example, James Hutton, the "Founder of Modern Geology", suggested :

"the past history of our globe must be explained by what can be seen to be happening now … No powers are to be employed that are not natural to the globe, no action to be admitted except those of which we know the principle" (emphasis added)

(from ‘Theory of the Earth’, a paper (with the same title of his 1795 book) communicated to the Royal Society of Edinburgh, and published in Transactions of the Royal Society of Edinburgh, 1785)"

Keio

Agreed. I have been bold and editted this. --ScienceApologist 00:18, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] NPOV

Is there support for the statement below which appears in the Vapor Canopy section? If not, this should be removed as it would show a biased point of view.

. The vapor canopy model has lost favour and is no longer accepted by most creationist scientists.

65.165.142.98 21:12, 17 May 2006 (UTC) Pat

[edit] what?

mammoths with grass in their mouths is proof of rapid freezing? er........ how?

the flood does not explain any sedimentary phenomena whatsoever.

this page gives this farce of a science way too much attention. someone shorten it.

[edit] When a scientist explains a single finding

it isn't a "hypothesis" unless it is going to be tested with observations. Since the explanation for the single fossil found is not going to be tested, the explanation is not a hypothesis. However, neither is it a guess because it is based on the understanding provided by context and other observations as well as knowledge of physical processes. --ScienceApologist 05:15, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

It still could be a hypothesis that is not going to be tested. But how about conjecture or surmisal? rossnixon 11:14, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
Hmmm. To me, "explanation" is a rather strong word which would suggest that the expert completely understands what's going on here. I see what you're (ScienceApologist) getting at re: hypothesis (given the fossil's uniqueness, I doubt anyone's allowed to breathe on the specimen, let alone destructively test hypotheses on it), but it seems a more appropriate word either than "explain" or "guess". Cheers, --Plumbago 11:25, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
"My suspicion" is not a solid basis for an explanation (at least in my experience). This does not have to be a one-of-a-kind test. "Schweitzer and Wittmeyer have now found probable blood vessels, bone-building cells and connective tissue in another T. rex, in a theropod from Argentina and in a 300,000-year-old woolly mammoth fossil." [5] But then, I am biased and put in "scare quotes" (as I have been told). Dan Watts 13:06, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
The issue with the "scare quotes" is that it wasn't an actual quote. I wasn't trying to insinuate you were biased. --ScienceApologist 13:47, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Neutrality

This article seems to me not to be neutral. I for one do not believe in a young earth, but the article as a whole seems bent towards an old-earth, evolutionist standpoint, and does not appear objective. Maybe a disputed neutrality tag should be added? --scienceman 01:09, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

While I think the article is somewhat bloated and overwritten in places, it's bent towards an objective treatment of pseudoscientific "evidence" of the so-called flood "geologists". Flood geology consists of cherry-picking those bits and pieces of the vast body of geological knowledge that suit one particular literal reading of a religious work. For flood geology to be correct, the whole of geological science would have to be thrown out. This is not a case of a rival theory trying to explain the data, and it certainly should not be presented as such for "balance". Most readers of WP have a non-technical background, and it'd be a disservice to them to present this as anything other than a disingenuous attempt to rubberstamp a particular religious myth (in the proper sense) as fact. That said, if you'd like to discuss particular changes to content or structure, I'm all ears. Cheers, --Plumbago 08:56, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
This article seems not to be discussing Flood Geology so much as arguing that it's wrong. Surely the main thrust of the article should be explaining what Flood Geology is and what it's proponents actually believe, and then, if it deemed necessary and appropriate, it could link to another article that discusses the problems with Flood Geology. As it is, this article is highly biased. --Ephrathah 1548, 8 Sep 2006 (BST)
Any article that deals with the subject without mentioning the problems is automatically biased. This article, as it stands explains what flood geology is and what it's proponents actually believe, and then, discusses the problems with Flood Geology. -- Ec5618 14:52, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
Echoing Ec5618, Flood Geology presents itself first and foremost as science, so it would be remiss of any article on it to avoid seriously discussing the scientific case for it. That no such case exists, and that Flood Geology is literalist theology masquerading as science, is difficult to avoid mentioning. Even on an operational level, Flood Geology has no ongoing research programme and has no presence in the scientific literature. For something that wants to be accepted as science, this is pretty damning, and it is crucial that the evidence, or absence of evidence, is presented up front and not consigned to a separate article. Otherwise, we would be giving licence to all manner of patent nonsense to present glowing articles up front, while brushing overwhelming critiques to secondary articles. Cheers, --Plumbago 09:22, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
"That no such case exists, and that Flood Geology is literalist theology masquerading as science" - this is an opinion that you hold, but is not shared by all. I concede the point that there should be discussion of the problems with FG - my previous post implied (unintentionally) that there should be none. However, much of the article seems to be written by someone antagonistic to FG, not remotely sympathetic (which makes me wonder why they wrote it at all), and this shows in the way that FG is presented only in order to debunk it, which - whether you agree with it or not - is not neutral presentation. --Ephrathah 15:48, 12 Sep 2006 (UTC)
You might not like it, but it is an opinion shared by the scientific community. Were Flood Geology to have the slightest grounding in fact, there'd be research effort exploring it, and papers in the scientific literature. There just aren't, and Flood Geology's claims are so extraordinary they'd merit treatment in Nature or Science were support discovered for them. What "research" there is, is simply the cherry-picking of geological evidence that appears to fit a literal reading of the Bible (cf. most of the examples in the article). That the vast majority of the body of geological evidence collected over centuries flatly contradicts Flood Geology is studiously ignored by so-called Flood Geologists.
Fundamentally, the problems with Flood Geology pretty much begin and end with its foundation : that the Bible should be interpreted literally. The contortions of common sense and scientific method required to fulfil this are quite breathtaking in their audacity (flash-frozen mammouths; running-speed stratigraphy; etc.). It would be irresponsible for an article on the subject not to draw attention to these flaws. And neutral point of view is not a blanket 50-50 treatment of viewpoints on subjects of science. The minority point of view (here pseudoscientific Flood Geology) should be described clearly as such. Something can't claim to be science and then completely avoid all of science's methodologies and standards. Hence the page as is. --Plumbago 16:07, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
"Were Flood Geology to have the slightest grounding in fact, there'd be research effort exploring it, and papers in the scientific literature." Somewhat question-begging. Lots of areas of now-accepted science have been left out in the cold by the scientific community for a long time before anyone started taking them seriously.
Ah, the classic "they said Einstein was mad but now look ..." objection. Flood Geology was taken seriously in the early days of geology. It was then rejected because evidence continued to be found that was inexplicable by it. This is already detailed in the article. Although, as you've noted in a good section of the article, there are several flavours of FG at this time, all fall in the same way as "classic" FG. If anything, they're in much worse shape now because of the plethora of data sources we have about Earth history now (e.g. radioisotopes were unheard of when FG was originally rejected). --Plumbago 08:30, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
"The contortions of common sense and scientific method required to fulfil this are quite breathtaking in their audacity" Another highly subjective assessment. Whether they are breath-taking or not depends on your starting assumptions. I am highly critical of much that passes under the name of creation "science", but there's nothing intrinsically stupid in its basic ideas, as you imply.
True, it does depend on one's starting assumptions. But there is something intrinsically stupid in starting with the assumption that Book X is correct, and then searching for evidence to back up the extraordinary assertions in said book. Not only stupid, but not science, end of story. This is why FG is correctly labelled pseudoscience (as has been debated endlessly here before). --Plumbago 08:30, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
"The minority point of view (here pseudoscientific Flood Geology) should be described clearly as such." You can clearly describe it as the minority point of view (accurately and neutrally) without any need to vilify it (which demonstrates bias). You can even say that many people regard it as pseudo-science (accurately and neutrally) without needing to be perjorative and biased in insisting that this is the only reasonable interpretation. An intelligent reader can make up their own mind about whether the charge of pseudo-science is a fair one.
By any reasonable definition of science, FG is not science. They may use some geological evidence, they may even use fancy measurement devices or clever computer programs, but starting from the answer then working backwards to find evidence for it is simply not science. It is not POV to assert this (unless one takes the lawyer's view that all views are POV). Regarding WP's readers, all of them are non-specialists in at least some areas of the encyclopedia, and it's important we cater for everyone by expressing things clearly when dealing with pseudoscience. A superficially balanced article (half camp A's points, half camp B's points) would give the impression that both camps had equal validity. Fine on matters of subjective politics or art, but emphatically not fine on matters of science. --Plumbago 08:30, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
"Something can't claim to be science and then completely avoid all of science's methodologies and standards." I don't think that is a fair reflection of Flood Geology in general - certainly not in recent years - although as I said before, I am always critical of the creationist community when they publish sub-standard material, as they have rather too often been guilty of. But then, anti-creationists have been known to use very unscientific methods of argument too.--Ephrathah 17:18, 12 Sep 2006 (UTC)
Even publishing "sub-standard material" might be a start for FG. They haven't published anything in the peer-reviewed scientific literature - there isn't a single item of primary science literature in the references section of this article. To date all of their work has appeared in publications by creationist organisations, which simply doesn't count as scientific publication. The old maxim "if you can't stand the heat, get out of the kitchen" has been rigidly followed by FG - it can't take the criticism doled out by the scientific community, so it only publishes in friendly venues where its disregard for evidence is forgiven because it adheres to the principles of creationism (Book X is literally correct above all else). Regarding anti-creationists, I'm sure that rhetoric is often used in place of reasoned argument (I'm sure, for that matter, you could find it in many of my edits), but that doesn't deflate the charge that FG is unscientific against all its protestations to the contrary.
Anyway, it's pretty clear that we're going to have to agree to disagree here. Perhaps contrary to the above, I do agree with your point about the article bloating and containing only semi-relevant material at times. It's also lost much much of its structure, and some of the items you've flagged up below are at least partially to blame. So I'm happy to try to follow your suggestions to improve it. Cheers, --Plumbago 08:30, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
By "Book X" I assume you mean Theory of the Earth or Principles of Geology - since FG is no more dependent on Genesis than conventional geology is on books such as those. Genesis is not treated as a science textbook, but it is considered a valid historical resource, which would be accepted in other historical sciences such as archaeology, and is also accepted in geology for more recent events (eg. volcanic eruptions). You also imply that FG today is the same thing as that which was thrown out 150 years ago: this is not correct as you will discover if you do a small amount of research. FG is as much science as conventional geology (hypothesis -> field observations -> modify hypothesis). Creationists have tried to publish in the secdular journals, but their contributions are usually ruled out due to bias such as yours, so that is not in itself evidence that FG is not science and is circular reasoning (FG can't be published because it's not science because if it was science it would be published ...) -- Ephrathah 11:38, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
Ah, the old "ruled out due to bias" ruse. Listen, were there any basis to FG ambitious scientists would be rushing to embrace it. It would herald such a revolution in geology that people would be clamouring to claim a piece of it, whether for fame or for research funding. Just think about it : billions of years of Earth history slashed to just ten thousand years; brilliant new explanations for why dinosaurs precede mammals in the geological record; a quantum leap in atomic physics as new modes of radioisotope decay are discovered; untapped reserves of Flood water used to irrigate the Sahara; etc. Scientists are pretty much as egocentric as everyone else, and wouldn't miss a trick capitalising on the sorts of opportunities that FG would offer. And journals like Nature and Science, ever eager to pull one over on each other, would sell their grandmothers to be the first into print with such revelations in science. That this doesn't happen should tell you something about where the evidence lies, or it would do if conspiracy theories about bias weren't promulgated by creationists.
Regarding your model of FG, it emphatically is not "hypothesis -> field observations -> modify hypothesis". Were this applied honestly the "modify" bit would be replaced with "bin hypothesis and start again". Too much evidence simply points the wrong way, whether it's geology, biology or even physics. To give just one simple example : the Antarctic ice sheet preserves a year-by-year record of atmospheric and climate properties for hundreds of thousands of years. We know that it does this because we can look at its recent record and compare it to those we've made in more conventional ways. What possible grounds do we have for saying, "well, these records are fine up to ~2000 BC, but further back than that they're rubbish"? Not least because it can be successfully tied to other records from completely different proxies (tree rings, ocean sediment cores, etc.). This is the sort of evidence that FG is quite simply turning a blind eye to. And there's no shortage of it - and almost none of it is addressed, let alone taken account of, by FG. --Plumbago 12:15, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Irrelevant Sections and Misrepresentation of Facts

Since this article is already longer than the recommended Wikpedia article length, I want to suggest some changes to move less relevant information to more relevant pages. In particular "Reliability of Genesis" has nothing to do with Geology, and shouldn't be on this page. "Philosophical Objections" doesn't really belong here either - perhaps a one-sentence comment would be merited, but not a whole section. [edit: I have subsequently extended this section to make it more balanced, but maintain it would be better for the whole section to be moved elsewhere.] Similarly "Age of the Earth" is not directly relevant to Flood Geology, so merits a single sentence in the introduction, and then should be dealt with more fully under other creationist topics.

In addition to this, much of the information presented as being what Flood Geologists believe is actually not correct because, as my inclusion of the section "How creationists interpret the GC" was intended to show, there is no single "Flood Geology" paradigm. This page would be better off giving a general overview of things that are broadly agreed today (rather than 30 years ago) in the creationist community, particularly discussing the problems with conventional geology that a new (catastrophist) geological paradigm has the potential to solve. Information specific to particular Flood models should then be discussed in separate articles, rather than giving the impression that Flood Geology is a monolithic entity. This would improve both the accuracy and the clarity of this article.

As an an example of how this page ought to look, I just looked up "Physics", "Chemistry" and "Geology" - each of which contains a brief overview of the history and main ideas of the discipline, and links to other pages that explore the detail, rather than trying to prove or disprove everything on one page. Any comments? -- Ephrathah 15:39 (UTC) 12 September 2006

Controversial subjects must be dealt with differently than non-controversial subjects as per WP:NPOV. --ScienceApologist 10:57, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Strong Bias in Philosophical Objections

If you're going to include philosophical points from one side you must allow a response or the article is strongly POV. What was wrong with my additions? Please put them back (edited if you must). I request a disputed neutrality flag be added to this page. -- Ephrathah 11:42, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

The issue is that there are no "sides" to speak of. There is the flood geology supported by the creation science advocates and then there is mainstream science. The philosophical criticism is dependent on mainstream science demonstrating the flaws with flood geology. The general creationist critiques of mainstream science belong on the creation science or creationism page because they are not about flood geology per se. --ScienceApologist 11:49, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
But it's very difficult to separate Flood Geology from the rest of creation science, as the first sentence recognises: "Mainstream scientists object to Flood Geology, and Creationism in general..." The criticisms levelled were really against all of creationism, not just FG. If the responses are to be removed to "creationism" then so should the criticisms be. -- Ephrathah 14:57, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
Erm, so Flood Geology isn't a manifestation of creationism? It's just an amazing coincidence that it uses the same source material as creationism for its theories, and suffers from all of the same methodological flaws? What are the odds ... (And are they less than the universal probability bound?)
Anyway, you'll have to explain more clearly why ScienceApologist's point is contentious. Pointing towards someone who was a flood geologist but not a creationist would be a start. --Plumbago 15:58, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Where did the water go?

Where do flood geologists believe the flood waters went to? How can thousands of feet of water just disappear after a flood? I think there should be some discussion, at least, on this topic. Brokenskittles 02:13, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

Short answer: Into the ocean. Note: The mountains weren't so tall and the ocean was shallower before the flood. Long answer: Here is a creationist geophysicist's theory http://www.globalflood.org/papers/2003ICCcpt.html rossnixon 10:38, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] How creationists interpret the Geologic Column today

Have removed link to 'recolonisation' – no article under this head and any such article would transgress the Wikipedia prohibition of original research. ‘Recolonisation’ amended to ‘recolonisation theory’ to limit the term.

Have added some detail to say what recolonisation theory is.

Have deleted:

The main reasons put forward to support this hypothesis are (1) that it offers an explanation for why the fossils (particularly vertebrate trackways) are concentrated towards the end of the fossil record, not the beginning as would be expected if the Flood laid down the rocks, and (2) that it offers an explanation for rocks that don't appear to have been laid down underwater or that appear to have taken years or decades to form. The main arguments against recolonisation are (1) that it appears to require a far longer timescale than a straightforward reading of Genesis would allow, and (2) that it requires a lot of post-Flood destruction in a relatively short time, which humans, animals and plants may not have been able to survive outside the Ark.

This is on the grounds of space, which is perhaps more usefully devoted to explaining what the theory consists of. The 'main arguments against recolonisation' are main arguments only from the point of view of YECs. Proponents of recolonisation have gone to some length to explain why the YEC interpretation of the genealogies as if they gave a chronology is not a straightforward exercise. When making the second criticism YECs understand 'a relatively short time' to mean a few hundred years, not the possibly tens of thousands that the main proponent of recolonisation (Steven Robinson) has been suggesting for post-Flood time. Fastnet 10:25, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../f/l/o/Talk%7EFlood_geology_9cec.html"