Talk:Flood geology/Archive 3

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Archive This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Contents

Organisation of sections

I just moved "Theological basis" to the top of the article, as the logical place to find it, but it still has problems - it still seems as if each section considers itself to be the introductory section. I think the entire organisation of the sections needs to be considered very closely, with a view to reorganisation and possibly heavy amalgamation. PiCo 23:51, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

I moved it down so it prefaces "Interpretation of evidence". IMO History should probably be the first section after the lead, but in anycase, theology needs to precede "theories" to provide context. ornis (t) 13:20, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

Flawed Paragraph

In the following paragraph the bold sentence does not recount the flood events accurately. The last sentence pushes a strong POV.

For the cause of the flood, Genesis states only that God deliberately caused the flood, indicating that the cause of the flood was supernatural in origin. Beyond that, the account states that the "fountains of the great deep" broke open and the "windows of heaven" were opened, which brought the flood. It rained for 40 days, but the waters continued to rise for 110 more days, indicating that there was another water-source, probably the subterranean "fountains of the great deep." The waters then slowly began to recede amidst a "great wind," until the ark came to rest on the mountains of Ararat (not necessarily Mount Ararat, but the mountains in that region). Beyond that account of the events, creationists have very little basis for determining exactly what caused the flood.

This list of texts form the basis for the better paragraph below. Note the phrases in bold font.

7:11 In the six hundredth year of Noah's life, in the second month, the seventeenth day of the month, the same day were all the fountains of the great deep broken up, and the windows of heaven were opened. 12 And the rain was upon the earth forty days and forty nights ... 17 And the flood was forty days upon the earth; and the waters increased, and bare up the ark, and it was lift up above the earth. 18 And the waters prevailed, and were increased greatly upon the earth; and the ark went upon the face of the waters. 19 And the waters prevailed exceedingly upon the earth; and all the high hills, that were under the whole heaven, were covered. 20 Fifteen cubits upward did the waters prevail; and the mountains were covered. 24 And the waters prevailed upon the earth an hundred and fifty days .... 8:1 And God remembered Noah, and every living thing, and all the cattle that was with him in the ark: and God made a wind to pass over the earth, and the waters assuaged; 2 The fountains also of the deep and the windows of heaven were stopped, and the rain from heaven was restrained; 3 And the waters returned from off the earth continually: and after the end of the hundred and fifty days the waters were abated. 4 And the ark rested in the seventh month, on the seventeenth day of the month, (150th day) upon the mountains of Ararat. 5 And the waters decreased continually until the tenth month: in the tenth month, on the first day of the month, were the tops of the mountains seen.

The paragraph much better reflects the Genesis account and removes antagonistic POV.

For the cause of the flood, Genesis states that God deliberately caused the flood, indicating that the ultimate cause of the flood was supernatural in origin. However, the account denotes two physical events which brought on the flood, the "fountains of the great deep were broken up" and the "windows of heaven were opened". It rained for 40 days then the Ark began to float. Rains continued for another 110 days which, along with the waters from the breaking up of the "fountains of the great deep", keep the land flooded. At that time, 150 days, the Ark came to rest on the mountains of Ararat (not necessarily Mount Ararat, but the mountains in that region). The waters then receded amidst a "great wind." Based upon this spare outline and geologic evidence, flood catastrophists have developed an assortment of flood models.

Allenroyboy 14:59, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

Personally, since I don't believe in this myth, write whatever you want in the religious section. However, be aware that YEC is not the only creationist POV, so you might get into an edit war with OEC's. Don't make ay scientific claims, because it's not going to fly. Good luck :) Orangemarlin 18:39, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
Remember also you have to deal with the Islamic version of the same myth.--Filll 18:56, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
I would object to calling the "breaking of fountains of the great deep" and the "opening of the windows of heaven" as "physical events". One might argue about the fountains of the deep, but the windows of heaven are clearly metaphorical. --Stephan Schulz 19:30, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
So are "fountains of the great deep", relying as it does on a mythological cosmology where the earth is suspended upon a watery abyss. However, both are plainly intended to be metaphorical descriptions of physical events: water both falling from the sky and rising up from underground. TCC (talk) (contribs) 19:45, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
I know that. But cretinists do sometimes insist on literal fountains of the deep. Even among them, literal "windows of heaven" are rare. --Stephan Schulz 20:00, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
If I might enter an editorial comment here. This is what I don't get about biblical inerrancy. The translation can be off. How does one interpret the metaphorical descriptions (unless you don't think any of its metaphor)? One word difference can throw off the who interpretation. Never understood this. Orangemarlin 20:29, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

<undent>Exactly correct OM. This is where biblical literalism and biblical inerrancy start to look completely foolish. We have some bits of text that are thousands of years old. They are written in a dead language that has been dead for thousands of years (which has recently had a modern version of it resurrected, but which is not the same language, for sure). These texts were written in this dead language without vowels, introducing plent of ambiguity and room for error. We also have multiple copies of these texts which do not agree with each other, some translated into Greek or other languages, and might be transcriptions of oral traditions before that, possibly for many generations. We also have clear evidence of poetry, poetic license, parables, metaphors, similes, etc. And yet people get up on their hind legs, knowing almost nothing, and proceed to attack each other. Please, people do a little scholarship here instead of blindly blathering like fools and braying like donkeys. This is just pure nonsense to rely on some nth generation English translation of a text that may not be anything like what you think it is.--Filll 20:49, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

You forget that the King James Bible was translated under the benevolent guidance of God, and is hence unquestioningly more correct than any older or newer version. The proof is trivial: Good would not allow so many Christians believe in an inferior Bible! --Stephan Schulz 20:59, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
just image all those poor people who cannot read english how lost they are!!!
The purpose of this article was to recap the Genesis record and so it ought to do so accurately, irregardless whether anyone believes it or not. I'll leave out the word physical. Allenroyboy 21:02, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
Actually, that is most definitely not the purpose of this article. It's to describe the the Flood, why it might have happened, and the scientific analysis. That's all. It's not a Genesis article by any means. Orangemarlin 22:35, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
I think he meant "section" or "paragraph". TCC (talk) (contribs) 22:51, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
Irregardless is not a word. ornis (t) 22:59, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
Apparently you missed out on the outstanding US educational system. The same one that tries to teach Intelligent Design and produces kids incapable of pointing to Australia on a map. Orangemarlin 23:09, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
Surely it's the Genesis record? ... dave souza, talk 23:14, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
Of course. How could I miss that!!!! OrangeMarlinTalk 23:47, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
Cool sig! :) Firsfron of Ronchester 01:04, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
http://dictionary.reference.com/search?r=2&q=irregardless Allenroyboy 02:48, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
I repeat. Irregardless is not a word. ornis (t) 03:44, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
I happen to agree. It's a non-standard word, more or less invented to sound intelligent. So, if the word were real, what you'd be saying is that the purpose of the article is to NOT recap the Genesis record etc. etc. The actual word you want is "irrespective of anyone's belief," because even "regardless" makes no sense. "Irregardless" has no meaning in English, and is approximately equivalent to "ain't". I used to laugh when flammable liquids had a big bold warning that said, "Inflammable." In the desire to make words sound more important than they really are, we've actually created worthless words. OrangeMarlin Talk• Contributions 22:40, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
The "in-" in "inflammable" doesn't mean the same thing as the "in-" in words like "inflexible" but is like the "in-" in "inflame". It's a synonym for "flammable" and is actually the older word. [1] But so many people assume the same thing you did here that it's rarely used anymore to avoid confusion.
There's nothing all that wrong about "ain't" in some spoken dialects. It's mainly improper in formal speech and written English. TCC (talk) (contribs) 23:12, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
Now I knew I could learn something here that had nothing to do with Noah's Ark. I prefer formal English. I doubt I've used the word "ain't" since I was a kid. OrangeMarlin Talk• Contributions 23:39, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
(ri)Irregardless, were it a word, would literally mean "without without regard" (ir = without, less = without), thus we have a double negative that means "with regard". •Jim62sch• 22:52, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

Footnote

The footnote belongs where it has been, and not where Aplomado wants it, becuase the phrase "are not taken seriously by scientists." is part of what the citation supports. You put the footnote after material you are referencing from it, not at some random point in the middle.

Just explaining at more length than ConfuciusOrnis's edit summary, because it seems we need to be very explicit here. Aplomado's confusion is inexplicable. TCC (talk) (contribs) 04:33, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

Thank you, yes I should have been more explicit, but I was two dumbfounded to do so. Clearly you're more patient than I. ornis (t) 06:16, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
Not really; I just haven't gotten wound up yet. I seem to remember reverting the same edit a couple of weeks ago. TCC (talk) (contribs) 06:36, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
Nah I think that was me, I got snarky note left on my talk page to prove it and all [1] your last revert was the "Creationary" one ;) ornis (t) 06:51, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
Oh well. I thought I reverted it. Maybe you beat me to it by a few seconds. I've had that happen before. It doesn't say there was an edit conflict, it just silently ignores the attempt to save a version identical to the current one. TCC (talk) (contribs) 06:55, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
Probably, happens to me all the time. ornis (t) 06:57, 6 September 2007 (UTC)re

Beware: apologetics!

From the "theological basis" section:

Genesis states that God deliberately caused the flood, indicating that the cause of the flood was supernatural in origin. The account describes two events which resulted in the flood, the "fountains of the great deep were broken up" and the "windows of heaven were opened". It rained for 40 days then the Ark began to float. Rains continued for another 110 days which, along with the waters from the breaking up of the "fountains of the great deep", keep the land flooded. At that time, 150 days, the Ark came to rest on the mountains of Ararat (not necessarily Mount Ararat, but the mountains in that region). The waters then receded amidst a "great wind."

No, this isn't what Genesis actually says. It's how fundies choose to resolve a Biblical contradiction between the two interwoven stories (the "J" and "P" sources): one Flood is 40 days, the other is 150 days. We may convey that this is how creationists generally interpret this, but we should avoid claiming that "Genesis states" that the Ark started to float after 40 days, or that the rain continued for another 110 days (actually I haven't seen that one before: generally they say that the rain stopped after 40 days, and the waters subsided 110 days later). --Robert Stevens 12:25, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

I also had trouble finding this narrative when I reread the Biblical account. Do you know enough Biblical exegesis to give a brief summary of the main ways that the story is interpreted? It seems to me that the only points that are important for this article are that all the high mountains were covered with water, that the events happened on a scale of months, and that the "fountains of the deep" are mentioned in addition to rain (possibly, though not unambiguously indicating a subterranean source of water). Can't we trim the rest? --Art Carlson 14:14, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
I'd like to trim it, but it's going to be difficult. "Flood Geology" isn't really the place to be getting into a detailed discussion of the Documentary Hypothesis and related Bible issues, but the casual reader IS likely to want to know how long the Flood lasted. That's a very basic question with an over-complicated answer! --Robert Stevens 20:54, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
I've found a reference describing the two accounts and put that in (I think some mention of it is unavoidable). I've also removed the un-Biblical stuff, and mentioned the mountains being covered (a relevant detail for the depth of the Flood). --Robert Stevens 21:39, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
Note: The depth can't be known unless the height of the mountains back then is known. rossnixon —Preceding signed but undated comment was added at 03:28, 29 September 2007 (UTC)
Yes, but reasonable estimates can be made. And even with unreasonably low ones, there is a problem. HrafnTalkStalk 03:46, 29 September 2007 (UTC)
I'd just like to point out that the documentary hypothesis is an unprovable literary hypothesis that has no evidence in any ancient text ever found. It is only hypothesized for the Bible. Yet, It is likely that the account is an combination of accounts by Shem, Ham, and Japeth edited by Moses as indicated by the colophon in 10:6 "This is the account/history of Shem, Ham and Japheth, Noah's sons," Allenroyboy 16:23, 29 September 2007 (UTC)
And "I'd just like to point out that ... it is likely that" Allenroyboy is simply regurgitating religious dogma here. Can they point to a WP:RS that it is the academic consensus (not just the claim of a few conservative scholars) that "the account is an combination of accounts by Shem, Ham, and Japeth edited by Moses"? I think not. HrafnTalkStalk 16:37, 29 September 2007 (UTC)
I'd just like to further point out that most Christians could care less what most "Biblical" scholars have to say, because most scholars are unbelievers. The Bible says that the Bible can only be spiritually discerned: "The man without the Spirit does not accept the things that come from the Spirit of God [i.e. the Bible], for they are foolishness to him, and he cannot understand them, because they are spiritually discerned." Unbelievers, therefore, haven't a clue. As can easily be seen by reading this talk page and the article. Allenroyboy 20:14, 29 September 2007 (UTC)
Quite right. The Koran says the same thing. Maybe we should try to restrict ourselves to discussions relevant to editing the article. --Art Carlson 20:58, 29 September 2007 (UTC)
I'd like to point out to Allenroyboy that I don't give a pair of fetid dingos kidneys what a deviant minority of Christians claim "the Bible says." If you don't have a WP:RS for it then as far as wikipedia is concerned it doesn't exist. So look for a soapbox somewhere else for your sectarian dogma. HrafnTalkStalk 00:51, 30 September 2007 (UTC)
Hrafn, you are skirting the edges of incivility. We don't need to agree on the nature of scripture here. The ground rules of Wikipedia are RS and NPOV. If someone thinks the article can be improved, then they should suggest a change (or at least point out where they see a concrete problem). Then we can discuss the alternatives on the basis of RS and NPOV. Let's quit the bickering (both of you). --Art Carlson 10:16, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

<unindent>Art: biblical literalism is a minority view within Christianity, and a recent doctrinal deviation. It can thus legitimately be described as a "deviant minority of Christians". In times past such deviations would probably have resulted in heresy trials and burnings-at-the-stake. "A pair of fetid dingos kidneys" is an allusion to The Hitchhikers Guide to the Galaxy, and too off-the-wall a phrase to be likely to be offensive. I also note that you seemed to find nothing uncivil about Allenroyboy's anti-intellectual bigotry: "I'd just like to further point out that most Christians could care less what most "Biblical" scholars have to say, because most scholars are unbelievers." I would suggest that such a viewpoint is antithetical to wikipedia's aims. I have, perfectly legitimately, challenged Allenroyboy to substantiate the claims he saw fit to insert into this discussion with WP:RSs -- he responded by collectively denigrating the experts in the field. This resulted in a perhaps-intemperate response from myself -- but people who go around calling others "unbelievers" have earned little right to have others avoid trampling on their own religious sensibilities. HrafnTalkStalk 11:10, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

On further consideration, I'm striking my earlier statements and simply stating that Allenroyboy's remarks are wholly WP:SOAP, wholly lacking WP:RS and, by attacking those he brands "unbelievers" (a category that could indicate atheists, non-Christians or even Christians who don't share his doctrinal beliefs), a violation of WP:CIVIL. HrafnTalkStalk 11:25, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

I was merely informing you that in general many Christians do not pay much attention to what unbelievers have to say about the Bible for the Biblical reason given above. It does not matter whether you like it or not. It is not a WP:SOAP. It is simply a fact.
What minority of Christians believe is of no relevance to what goes into wikipedia (except in articles like Biblical literalism, where they are simply reporting these minority beliefs). Therefore your "facts" are nothing but irrelevant WP:SOAP, as stated. What does matter is the views of the experts you denigrate. That is the meaning of WP:RS & WP:UNDUE. HrafnTalkStalk 02:14, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
An unbeliever is someone, according to the Bible, who does not have a loving, faith relationship with the God of the Bible. What I may or may not think or believe is not the litmus test for who or who is not a believer. The Bible is the litmus test. And it is obvious to most anyone who will read the Bible, who is or is not a believer in God.
"According to the Bible"? Please state chapter and verse where it literally give this exact definition of an "unbeliever." When you project your beliefs onto the Bible, by equating your interpretation of it with what the Bible "says" you are most certainly making "what [you] may or may not think or believe is not the litmus test for who or who is not a believer" -- and (re)creating God in your own image. HrafnTalkStalk 02:14, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
And the charge that conservative or 'fundamentalist' Christians are a insignificant minority does not jive with the many poles taken over the last several decades (which can be found on the internet--check it out). In the over-all US population it typically runs: ~40% conservative Christian, ~40% liberal Christian, ~15% atheist/agnostic, and ~5% other. [I've seen a pole from the 1920s which gave essentially the same break down.] About 80% of the population is Christian with about 1/2 of those being conservative.
I did not use the word "conservative", "fundamentalist" or "insignificant". Kindly do not put words in my mouth -- it is dishonest. According to Biblical literalism#Level of support for biblical literalism:

Belief in biblical literalism is fairly rare among most Christians. Unfortunately, good statistics are not easy to come by. However, at least for the United States, some information exists.

According to a recent study, among the 15% of U. S. citizens that are evangelical Protestants, 47.8% believe that the Bible is literally true, and 6.5% believe that the Bible is an ancient book full of history and legends. About 11% of Catholics and mainline Protestants believe the Bible is literally true, and 9% of Jews believe the Torah is literally true. About 20% of Catholics and Protestants reported that the Bible is a book of history and legends, and 52.6% of Jewish respondents feel the same about the Torah.

Combining their stats with yours, 18% of US Christians, and approximately 15% of US citizens, believe in Biblical literalism. HrafnTalkStalk 02:14, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
As for "anti-intellectual"? I am currently studying to obtain my BS in Paleontology. And I expect to get my MS and PhD. Also, I'm a member of MENSA. Anti-intellectual? Hardly! Creationist? Absolutely! Allenroyboy 21:40, 30 September 2007 (UTC)
That's "poll".
A YEC with a BS in Paleontology? Does anybody believe that he isn't studying this field solely in order to better misrepresent this field's clear findings (that overwhelming evidence exists of a pattern of evolution of species spanning millions of years)? Is this anti-intellectual? Absolutely!
The Christian world is much larger than the United States. It is, in any event, incorrect for you to conflate "conservative Christian" with "fundamentalist" or a belief in Biblical literalism. I am, in the strict sense of the word, a far more conservative Christian than you. Although my church does not deny the literal truth of the Old Testament, it doesn't really require belief in it that way either since to read it a an historical account is to miss the point. TCC (talk) (contribs) 21:54, 30 September 2007 (UTC)
Don't know. Could care less. I'm attending a State University. Allenroyboy 22:07, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

The poll at this URL (http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2004/11/22/opinion/polls/main657083.shtml) states that 55% of Christians believe that God Created Humans in there present form. 27% of Christians believe that God used Evolution. (That's 82% of the USA population). Allenroyboy 22:28, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

Ummm, this poll is of Americans not Christians, so it states nothing of the sort! Not all Americans are Christians, and only a small minority of Christians are Americans. Nor for that matter are all Creationists Biblical literalists (Old Earth creationists and Progressive creationists often aren't). HrafnTalkStalk 02:21, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
55% of all Americans agreed with the statement that "God created humans in present form." What group of Americans are going to agree with that statement? Atheists? Buddhists?
It will be a group who believe that there is a God and that he created humans as they are. The only groups of Americans likely to believe that are Christian, Jewish and Muslim believers. Polls indicate that ~82% of the USA population is Christian, ~1% is Jewish, and ~1% Muslim. So what does logic tell us about who are going to make up the 55% of American who believe God created humans in the present form? Could it be Christians????????
The logical conclusion is that about 55% of Americans are Christians who believe in a special creation. They are NOT a whimpering minority. You had better get used to it. More and more American Christians rejecting the Federal Governments established religion of Naturalism and its dogma of Evolutionism. 69.145.64.156 02:41, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
This is just silly and has no place here since it is essentially a violation of WP:SOAP. --Filll 20:03, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
Literal-Genesis creationism is virtually unknown in "Christian" countries outside America (in the developed world, at least: not sure about Africa etc). However, what does any of this have to do with the article? "This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Flood geology article. This is not a forum for general discussion about the article's subject". --Robert Stevens 08:28, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

<undent>I agree. Biblical literalism is fairly rare in the US, and even more rare in the Western world. This is a fringe belief in several different ways. However, creationists have managed to confuse the issue a bit in the US. Be that as it maybe, this is not the place to discuss such things.--Filll 20:03, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Fossilization (the third)

I don't understand the section on fossilization as it currently stands. Do creationists say that one should expect no fossils at all without a flood? Why is there a counter-argument about index fossils when the argument itself has not been stated? If this is an important point for either side, the arguments need to be presented more clearly. If it is not, let's cut it. --Art Carlson 21:21, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

Since I got no comments, I starting reworking this section. I didn't simply cut it, as I had planned. --Art Carlson 14:19, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Who all bit the dust?

In the section on Theological basis, in the sentence

The waters of the flood rose so high that "all the high mountains that were under the whole heaven were covered", drowning all life on Earth except the occupants of Noah's Ark.

I changed "all life" to "all land animals". It's not at issue here what would make sense, for heaven's sake, (that freshwater fish & many plants wouldn't survive), but what is written in the Biblical account. In Genesis 7 it is written, e.g.,

All flesh that moved on the earth perished, birds and cattle and beasts and every swarming thing that swarms upon the earth, and all mankind; of all that was on the dry land, all in whose nostrils was the breath of the spirit of life, died. Thus He blotted out every living thing that was upon the face of the land, from man to animals to creeping things and to birds of the sky, and they were blotted out from the earth; and only Noah was left, together with those that were with him in the ark.

No mention of plants or fish dying (although they "must" have). And you don't hear of Noah taking fish bowls and potted plants into the ark either. No, the Bible only talks of land animals. --Art Carlson 13:59, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

The phrase "in whose nostrils was the breath of life" excludes insects from needing to be saved on the Ark. Insects do not have nostrils on their heads by which to breath. To be sure it would have been impossible to keep all insects off the ark, but the hundreds of thousands of species would not need to be on it to survive. This is especially true when they are in their larval form.
The phrase "creeping things" elsewhere in the Bible refers to small animals and sometimes reptiles, but not to insects.
Also, in the Bible only animals are considered to be "alive," having the "breath of life". Plants are, for the most part, just food stuffs for animals and are not considered really "alive." It is just in our age that plants are considered life forms, because of the study of the cell. Christian Skeptic 15:16, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
I think that everyone here is taking the Bible far too literally. Obviously there are some flaws in this particular story, however you have to remeber that God is omnipotent, so if he really wanted, he could have saved the plants and the fish, as he evidently did, as I quote:

"When the dove returned to him in the evening, there in its beak was a freshly plucked olive leaf! Then Noah knew that the water had receded from the earth." Therefore at least one olive tree had survived the flood! Chameleon 16:59, 12 October 2007 (GMT)

Removed image

[[Image:Transported quartzite block in layered sedimentary strata.JPG|thumb|200px|right|A quartzite block in Cambrian sedimentary strata, identical to quartzite found in the Precambrian layer, which creationists believe came to rest there due to large-scale liquefaction.]]

This image is claimed to be creationist evidence of liquefaction, but it needs to be sourced by a reliable source before we can reinclude it.

ScienceApologist 17:54, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Seems to come directly from a creationist website, direct link is: [2]. In turn, this picture or the facts it is related to seem to come from "Arthur V. Chadwick, “Megabreccias: Evidence for Catastrophism,” Origins, Vol. 5, No. 1, 1978, pp. 39–46.". Homestarmy 18:08, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
So Art Chadwick in 1978 believed that erratics were evidence for liquefaction? I think to be honest about this claim we need to evaluate both the reliability and the relevance of this source to general claims of flood geology. ScienceApologist 18:24, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
Is that really necessary just to state that Creationists claim the picture represents evidence for large-scale liquefaction? Homestarmy 18:51, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
I think so. We have a picture that is 30-years-old standing in for claimed evidence of a global flood. That's a pretty tall order even for a creationist claim. We should have more than a single book if we are using it to declare what "creationists claim". ScienceApologist 18:59, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
Chadwick has never proposed large scale liquefaction. See: http://www.grisda.org/origins/05039.pdf So far as I know, Brown is the only one who has proposed liquefaction. Which other creationists are disproving with experiments. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1-8C4KFdx_4 [last couple minutes] --Christian Skeptic 19:46, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
Then this definitely doesn't belong here. ScienceApologist 21:29, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

I've nowiki'd the image so the code remains but the photo doesn't show. It's tagged as fair use, and we can't have fair use images in talk space.

Actually, this one can be speedied as replaceable fair use. TCC (talk) (contribs) 02:53, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

Dismissing out of hand

I made this edit with the summary "out-of-hand" suggests that they don't have any arguments against it, which was reverted by Orangemarlin with the summary Reverting POV. The change was from this sentence

However, creationist presentations of what they believe is evidence are routinely dismissed out-of-hand by the scientific community and as such flood geology is considered pseudoscience. Flood geology directly contradicts the current consensus in scientific disciplines such as geology, evolutionary biology and paleontology.

to this one

The scientific community, however, sees the observations cited as easily interpreted within the consensus framework, and the interpretations of the creationists as being in severe conflict other well-established observations in geology, evolutionary biology and paleontology. As such flood geology is considered pseudoscience.

There are several editorial changes that might be weighed against each other. The substantive change is that I removed the statement that flood geology is "rejected out of hand" and added the statement that all the observations fit within the standard paradigm. When I read "rejected out of hand", I get a picture of establishment types, who refuse to even look at a hypothesis, solely because it comes from a religious person. That does the scientific community injustice. Although they surely get tired of refuting the same nonsense over and over again, I contend that the scientific community has dismissed nothing out of hand, but has weighed it and found it wanting. I would like the formulation to reflect that. Can't wait to hear how Orangemarlin sees it. --Art Carlson 13:42, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

I must admit that I don't particularly like either version. I'd prefer something along the lines of:

However, creationist presentations of what they believe is evidence have routinely been evaluated, refuted and dismissed unequivocally by the scientific community and as such flood geology is considered pseudoscience. Flood geology directly contradicts the current consensus (and much of the evidence underlying it) in scientific disciplines such as geology, evolutionary biology and paleontology.

I think the statement needs to contain two elements:

  1. that the scientific dismissal is thoughtful, not reflexive; and
  2. that this dismissal is unequivocal.

HrafnTalkStalk 14:20, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

That works for me. "unequivocal" is probably what Orangemarlin meant with "out of hand", and if you think that "severe conflict" equivocates, well, OK. I still kind of like my version, but I admit that yours reads better. --Art Carlson 14:45, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
Just so you don't have to read my mind, I watch probably 1500 articles, almost all of them controversial (though a bunch like hockey articles aren't...usually). If I don't see one of the "regulars", and I see what appears to be a POV change, I'll revert using Twinkle. I've never liked the words "scientific consensus" because it sounds like a bunch of old guys sitting around a table, looking at something like Flood geology, and making a grand pronouncement. I probably did not write the original verbiage, and I probably wouldn't have used "out of hand" because I think science is a bit equivocal. Anyways, I don't mind Hrafn's language. OrangeMarlin Talk• Contributions 14:52, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
Just read the revision. Strong, but appropriate. OrangeMarlin Talk• Contributions 16:54, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
Yeah, we've crossed paths at Homeopathy. Won't be the last time. Be cool. --Art Carlson 17:49, 3 October 2007 (UTC)


Proposed introductory paragraphs

WP:SOAP

Historical chronologies

A few minutes ago I reverted a {{fact}} tag about the independence of radioisotope dating and historical records. After strolling through Wikipedia looking at the topic, I admit it is not cut and dried. I could not find a clear reference to the latest consistent dating of the earliest event, and there seems to be considerable differences of opinion on the date of the Great Flood itself. Bishop Ussher arrived at 2349 BC for the flood, but dates as early as 3402 BC are proposed. Writing began around 3400 BC, and the Egyptian chronology begins around 3200 BC, but it is not clear how much guesswork is involved or how much radioisotope dating is called in to help establish these dates. Hammurabi definitely began his reign before 1696 BC, but that doesn't help enough. In short, it would be good if a historian could have a look at this, formulate an NPOV statement, and provide an RS. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Art Carlson (talk • contribs) 11:04, 6 October 2007


I think the person just wanted a reference for this. Surely we can find a reference? The creationists have a variety of chronologies. Creationists in general reject radioactive dating because they think it is based on flawed assumptions; for one thing, it finds many objects that are older than entire universe is supposed to be.--Filll 13:58, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

Notable positions

How do we determine which ideas that call themselves "flood geology" are notable, and which have such a small following (at least at present) that they can be ignored (and should be ignored, in order not to give flood geologists a worse name than they already deserve)? The article makes it sound like the one and only organization with a mission in flood geology is the Creation Research Society. Who else could have the authority to define what flood geology is and isn't? Answers in Genesis? --Art Carlson 18:43, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

This is something that I think warrants extremely careful consideration. In my mind, Price is the father of the movement with the vapor canopies, cometary floods, and catastrophic plate tectonics being the notable offshoots. Also receiving some note is the Grand Canyon creationist book. In my mind this is what the article should focus on primarily: the rest should be excised per Wikipedia:Undue weight. ScienceApologist 21:22, 6 October 2007 (UTC)
It often seems that there's very little that YECs say about the detail of their claims that another bunch of YECs elsewhere hasn't disavowed. HrafnTalkStalk 14:51, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

As far as who is/isn't notable, I'd suggest the following as a (current, not historical) rough hierarchy of notability:

  1. Institute for Creation Research (less well known than AiG, but has more gravitas)
  2. Answers in Genesis
  3. Creation Research Society
  4. Kent Hovind (although if there's anybody I've forgotten, they'd probably go above him -- he's more notorious than notable)

HrafnTalkStalk 14:58, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

I would put as even more notable an organization with even more substance than those listed above, the Geoscience Research Institute. The exact ordering of some of the organizations in the middle is a bit difficult. I do admit that Dr. Dino has to be close to the bottom. Historical figures might be even lower than Dr. Dino, however. I think of the Flat Earth Society, for example, or Harry Rimmer.--Filll 15:43, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
Walt Brown's center for scientific creationism needs to be in there too. ScienceApologist 15:58, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
I'd place Walt Brown above Hovind, but below the CRS. I'm not sure where the GRI would go, as I've never seen them mentioned (outside the wikipedia article on them). Do they have any notable creationists (or creationists with notable scientific credentials) working for them? Have they developed any hypotheses that have been accepted by other Creation Science organisations? HrafnTalkStalk 16:06, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
Given that the GRI is closely associated with the Seventh-day Adventist Church, which has only 840,000 members in the US, and as it doesn't have a particularly high profile (and thus little influence outside its own denomination), I'm assuming that it'd be less notable than the other Creationist organisations. I'm not going to even attempt to find an ordering for historic creationists -- too difficult & messy, too many to try to fit in & not really necessary -- if their views aren't still being promoted by notable modern organisations or individuals, then their ideas have died out & are no longer notable (except in a 'History of Creationism' article). HrafnTalkStalk 13:04, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

Mammoths

A section on mammoths has always seemed a little out of place in an article with geology in the title. I might be willing to go with it anyway, but it starts with an unsourced claim from "some proponents of Flood Geology" and ends with a disavowal from Answers in Genesis. The argument itself is so far-fetched that it hardly seems worth debunking. Unless someone can find an RS that indicates that this idea is widespread enough to be notable, I would propose eliminating this section completely. --Art Carlson 11:25, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

Well there's this as a starter [3], I'll see if I can find something else. I tend to think that even if AiG has wised up, there are always people like Hovind and his homskuled supporters that will continue to cite nonsense like this. If we remove it, I am almost prepared to guarantee, that someone in the future will turn up with a link to their angelfire website, demanding that we include this important PROOF!!! of the global flood.  – ornis⚙ 11:50, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

Contradiction in paleontology

In the current version, the section on paleontology states

If fossilization took place extremely quickly during the Flood, then — paleontologists assert — fossilized remains should be far more numerous and widespread than is actually seen.

and then

Additionally, paleontologists note 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, close to 2100 creatures per acre, judging from fossil sites found worldwide.

It seems to me that these statements contradict each other. --Art Carlson 20:13, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

The section has only one citation, which supports the latter quote, not the former. I would therefore recommend deletion of the former as being unsubstantiated & contradictory. I would expect that rapid fossilization due to the Flood would increase the average quality of fossils (and reduce the average variation in quality), not their quantity. HrafnTalkStalk 03:59, 7 October 2007 (UTC)