Talk:Flood geology/Archive 4

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

Organization of the article

This article is rather a mess. I suppose a major reason for this is that flood geology itself is a mess, but I still think we can do better. Before I start chipping away, I'd like to make sure there are no fundamental objections to my way of looking at the article. First, I think it is appropriate to deal with the contentions of flood geology and the view of the scientific community interspersed. This approach is mostly used already, but sections called "Creationist interpretations of evidence" and "Scientific analysis of flood geology" make it sound otherwise. I would like to rearrange sections 3-5 so that each topic only appears once and rename Section 3 to "Evidence claimed to support a global flood" and Section 5 to "Additional evidence against a global flood". How does that sound? --Art Carlson (talk) 21:26, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

I can't see anything wrong with the current sequence. Perhaps you could find a small topic to rewrite so we can see it here? rossnixon 01:20, 25 November 2007 (UTC)
Take the vapor canopy. It is mentioned in Section 3 under "Frozen mammoths", where the mammoth business doesn't seem to have independent relevance, except as an argument for one particular version of the vapor canopy. It is mentioned again in Section 4, where you might expect to find it, but only very briefly. Finally, it is discussed in Section 5 under "Physics", but not in a very systematic way. I would move all of this to Section 4. The parts of the physics section that don't have to do with the vapor canopy don't have to do with physics, so this whole subsection could be eliminated, with perhaps some content moved to other sections. --Art Carlson (talk) 10:56, 25 November 2007 (UTC)
It sounds like you know what you are doing. The only concern I have is that putting it all together may result in "debate style" paragraphs. Creationist claim followed by naturalist debunking, followed by creationist counter-debunking. Who would have the last word? rossnixon 00:49, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
rossnixon: please read WP:UNDUE, which clearly indicates that science gets the last word (metaphorically, if not literally). HrafnTalkStalk 03:53, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
I'm not sure I really know what I'm doing. I have good editing and science skills, but I don't know a whole lot about the subject. I'll go slow to give everyone a chance to pull the brakes. --Art Carlson (talk) 08:37, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
As a Biblical Flood catastrophist, I'd like to point out that the canopy theory as the major source for the flood water has been abandoned long ago by creationary Flood geologists. It has been criticized in creationary literature and has few proponents among degreed creationary geologists. However, because old creationary flood books are still in publication or in libraries, the idea is still popular among the general population of Christians. The mention of canopy theory in this article as the major creationary position displays the vastly out of date and uninformed knowledge of the editors. Christian Skeptic (talk) 17:28, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
Great. As I said, my knowledge is limited. I hope you can help keep this article on the right track, accurately describing the history and beliefs of flood geologists, based as closely as possible on reliable sources. Of course, the idea of a vapor canopy will have its place in the article, for historical reasons and because it "is still popular among the general population of Christians". But maybe we need to de-emphasize it. What would you say is the current thinking of flood geology on the source of the water? --Art Carlson (talk) 21:46, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
I know of about 4 different flood models in creationary circles; Brown's Hydroplate model, Baumgardner's CPT model (each of which have been published), and two others that involve a storm of asteroids impacting the earth initiating the flood with impact tsunami, associated torrential rains and earthquake tsunami. One calls for vertical tectonics caused by the impacts, the other calls for the initiating of CPT. The first has been briefly outlined in a couple publications, the latter has not yet reached publication. The latter two are largely talked about on email nets and over coffee tables.
In Brown's model, the source of water is a global layer of water beneath the crust. In the other three models, the source of water is the oceans.
Among CRS geologists, Brown's model is in disfavor, despite being popular among the general public. Many are on the Baumgardner bandwagon, but a significant number reject CPT in favor of vertical tectonics. I favor the asteroid storm/CPT combined model. Nearly all creationary geologist consider multiple models a good thing. Each has its strong points and weak points. All creationary geologist feel that flood models may come and go, but the Flood itself is a fact not an hypothesis that can be falsified.
Unfortunatly, this is just what I know personally and so is useless on Wikipedia. It really doesn't matter what creationary geologist are actually doing and thinking, but only what evolutionists can selectively quote to give a twisted view of it. Christian Skeptic (talk) 16:44, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
I don't think your information is useless. The article currently doesn't mention the possibility at all that the water came from the oceans. I find your statement plausible that most creationary geologists go this route. (It is not as simple to debunk as the vapor canopy.) I am willing to rewrite the article to this effect, but we need to try to find reliable sources to support such a version. Shouldn't be too hard, should it? --Art Carlson (talk) 21:12, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

<undent> Christian Skeptic, the contribution you can make here is to produce as many published references as possible for what you have described about the different flood theories and other theories. THAT would be valuable and useful, instead of efforts to debate us and your pitiful assorted insults against your fellow editors, many of who have about 20 times as much education as you and 200 times as much experience in science. Don't just whine about how awful big bad science is. If you have information about assorted fruitcake creationist interpretations and theories, let's have them. Especially if they are published someplace, hopefully not on table napkins or blogs.--Filll (talk) 21:57, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

"Don't mention big bad science". Just post a link to the Expelled video documentary showing how fruitcake anti-creationists are perhaps? rossnixon 00:56, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

Do a bit of research. Einstein was not a creationist. Einstein did not even believe in miracles, and there is plenty of documentation of this. Neither did Newton who was at best an Arianist, a group that the vast majority of creationists would favor burning at the stake. And on and on and on. It will be a stupid movie full of lies. But go ahead and believe lies if you prefer.--Filll (talk) 01:34, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

I have no trouble with science and the scientific method. The problem lies in people thinking evolution is science.
Hard copies of Brown’s “In the Beginning:” can be ordered on-line, or printed off the web site or simple read on-line:
http://www.creationscience.com/onlinebook/IntheBeginningTOC.html
This page links to all of Baumgardner’s CPT papers. Hard copies can be ordered from your local library.
http://www.globalflood.org/papers/papers.html
Asteroid impacts during Flood model. First papers.
Spencer, Wayne
“Catastrophic impact bombardment surrounding the Genesis Flood” 1998, Proceedings of the International Creation Conference.
“Geophysical Effects of Impacts during the Genesis Flood” 1998, Proceedings of the International Creation Conference.
I’ll try to find sources for vertical tectonics model. Christian Skeptic (talk) 05:59, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
Reed, J K, 2000, Plate Tectonics: A different view, CRS books. 190 pgs. Presents arguments from conventional literature against PT and CPT.
McIntosh, A C, 2000 "Flood models: the need for an integrated approach" http://www.answersingenesis.org/tj/v14/i1/flood_models.asp Discusses some flood models and problems.
Oard, M., 1990, An Ice Age caused by the Genesis Flood, ICR pub. 240 pgs. Argues that the flood made conditions ripe for an ice age that lasted several centuries after the flood. Mammoths were not quick-froze to death. Christian Skeptic (talk) 14:21, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

First Conference on Creation Geology

Rock of Ages, Ages of Rock -- New York Times. Probably a useful resource for the article. HrafnTalkStalk 07:52, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

Here's a novel idea. How about actually quoting from creationary sources who were actually there and actually took part rather than from some uninformed, biased 3rd party? Christian Skeptic (talk) 16:53, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
Why do you consider this reporter to be uninformed? Why do you think she is biased? As a rule, I would expect "3rd parties" to be less biased than direct participants. Can you give us an alternative source that you think is more reliable? --Art Carlson (talk) 21:00, 27 November 2007 (UTC)


I read the article. It is fantastic and would be an excellent source for this article. What is wrong with this article? It includes plenty of direct quotes from creationists and creation scientists. I see no bias whatsoever. Where is the bias? It balances both sides of the argument, which is what is required for NPOV on Wikipedia. I might also remind you that Wikipedia is not a primary source, or a secondary source, but a tertiary source, by and large. That is, Wikipedia must mainly draw on sources that summarize primary source material. What Christian Skeptic is perhaps missing is that we cannot use primary sources, or if we do, it must be sparingly, so his suggestion of going directly to the participants in the conference would not really be useful for Wikipedia. This NY Times article is a secondary source, which is perfect for WP.--Filll (talk) 21:33, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

I read the article. It did not have any good references regarding "ages of rock". How about this[1] one? rossnixon 01:07, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

I think you are confused. That is a title meant to draw people's attention. It is a newspaper article. It is not a list of references. And there is so much confusion about ages, I think all creationists should just give up and subscribe to the Omphalos Conjecture because that is the only way they can save face, if at all.--Filll (talk) 01:11, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

There is a reason that less than 0.1% of all professional scientists in the relevant areas actually can read that material you linked in and not double up laughing. It is just outrageous. Dozens of radioactive dating techniques and they all agree. The National Institute of Standards and Technology even works on calibrating the methods and producing error bars. There are methods involved with counting layers of tree growth dendochronology and layers of snowfall and layers of ocean bottom mud and river sediments and lake sediments and layers of coral ring growth and magnetic stripes and wolf number proxies and dozens of other layer counting methods they all agree with each other and the magnetic decay methods of dating. There are methods associated with glacial rebound and other isostatic properties and tectonic drift and they agree with the previous methods and each other. There are racemic acid techniques which agree with all the previous methods. There are chemical methods and radiation based methods and oceanographic methods and biological based methods and deposition methods and many others and they all agree with each other. Hundreds of dating techniques. Different parts of science. All consistent. If the earth is a few thousand years old, throw out all of science. Throw away your computer. It does not really work and you have been mislead. All of science is crap if you believe that the earth is a few thousand years old. Do not go to a doctor. Live in a cave. And be happy glorifing your god. Which has nothing to do with reality. But be happy.--Filll (talk) 01:30, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

Biased and condescending. Christian Skeptic (talk) 05:44, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

But accurate.

If I can count yearly layers back well over 100 million years, then either the earth is not young, or my assumption that a layer per year gets laid down is wrong, or the earth was created to look old on purpose, even though it is not. And so which does science choose? Since it agrees with thousands of other clues about an old earth, mainstream science has chosen the first conclusion. Do you dispute this? It should be fairly obvious. If you cannot understand that mainstream science has made this choice, then there is a fundamental problem some place. And it is not with us or this Wikipedia article.

You are free to draw another conclusion. However, you are not free to force others to choose the conclusion you chose, or to lie and state that science did not choose the first one, or to ask Wikipedia to lie and not state that science did not choose the first one. Clear enough? --Filll (talk) 17:32, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

All Geology is evolutionary

Creationary

Cut the philosophical skirmishes!

I believe in being tolerant of occasional digressions, and indeed I have been known to indulge from time to time myself. CS, the reason you should stop this discussion is not because anybody is trying to suppress your sharp observations and exemplary point of view, but because it no longer has any relevance to the question of how to improve the article. If you think it does, then make the connection to a concrete edit suggestion and argue for it clearly and succinctly. General discussions of the philosophy os science are out of place here. Take it to a newsgroup or an email exchange. And, Filll, that goes for you, too. (WP:NOFEEDING) --Art Carlson 11:59, 1 December 2007 (UTC) - And for Hrafn. And, for that matter, for me, too!--Art Carlson 14:39, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

Section "Evidence cited to support a global flood"

There are a number of problems with this section.

Liquifaction: This seems to belong under "mechanisms" more than "evidence". Either way, I can't figure out what the claims are supposed to be, and they are certainly not cited. Does anybody know about this?

Radiometric dating: I don't think creationists ever claim that radiometric dating proves that the flood occurs. The topic belongs under "evidence against a flood", with the arguments of the creationists, that the methods are not reliable, as a rebuttal.

Fossils: Similarly here. Do creationists say that the fossil evidence proves there was a flood, or that the evidence, despite appearances to the contrary, is consistent with a flood?

Submarine canyon formation: This one might be OK (once the citations have been provided).

--Art Carlson 14:58, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

Agree. It might be worth while creating a "Creationist explanations of evidence against a global flood" or similar section for radiometric dating & fossils. Incidentally, did you see my suggestion on Talk:Creation geophysics that your new "Runaway subduction" section needs a more up-front & explicit definition of the term? HrafnTalkStalk 15:08, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
Roger, but I'm kind of strapped right now, so don't expect anything soon. (Or else feel free to do it yourself.) --Art Carlson 19:55, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

This is the kind of thing that CS could productively help with, if he so chose, rather than grandstanding and arguing. At least he provided some references above; did anyone check them and integrate the appropriate references? My impression is that the fossil record supposedly "proves" that a flood occurred, since it looks like a whole bunch of things died. The dating methods are said to be unreliable or to support a young earth and possibly "simultaneous" death of a large number of animals.--Filll 15:29, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

Some creationists have lately done some research on liquefaction in a liquefaction tank. The results can be seen at: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1-8C4KFdx_4 The results are in the process of publication. Basically, the results are completely opposite from what Dr. Brown claims. Liquefaction DESTROYS layers, not make them. Liquefaction is a real geologic event usually associated with earthquakes. The Grand Banks Turbidity current that cut several under Sea telegraph cables in 1929 started by an earthquake that liquefied hundreds of cubic kilometers of sediment on the Bank which then flowed downslope across the ocean floor. The turbidite covered thousands of square miles. However, it is a by-product of liquefaction. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Christian Skeptic (talk • contribs) 01:18, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
I watched the video but it seems a bit strange. Strata layers aren't sorted by density in the real world, whilst if they were formed in one go that is what you would expect. That's pretty much falsification of the flood. Jefffire 09:09, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
The particles in individual rock layers in the geologic record are sorted by density. The problem appears to be than many people, including some creationists, think that the flood that Creationists propose was like putting dirt and water into a tub, mixing it all up, and then letting everything settle and the water drain off. Most Flood catastropists have abandoned such a silly notion long ago. The flood is now perceived as a series of closely space catastrophic events each of which put down one or more layers. This is especially true with the asteroid impact model with hundreds of associated impact-tsunami and their depositions. Included would be other related events and depositions, some high energy some low energy, during the space of a ~12 months. Christian Skeptic 16:42, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
This is a delightful example of why creationist "science" simply isn't science. A prediction is made (density sorting) but falsified by the observations. But rather than throw out the hypothesis, it's retained and embellished (a succession of density sorting events). I'd love to know how asteroid impacts were able to selectively kill and bury plants and animals (and isotopes) in an order that looks suspiciously evolutionary. Perhaps when this work is published (whatever that means in this case) there'll be an explanation for this faux evolutionary sequence (might it involve "advanced" animals living further away from the coast?). Anyway, a YouTube video does not seem like a notable source for scientific material, and it's difficult to see how this discussion can possibly improve the article. Perhaps we need to move on. --Plumbago 17:16, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
It is impact-tsunami which is selective. The first things to be ripped up and buried would be in marine shallow water environemts along shore lines. Then as closely timed multiple impact-tsunamis moved further and further in land, more continental flora and fauna would be ripped up and buried. Thus the general move from marine to continental flora and fauna found in the geologic record could be formed. I hope to add a section about the asteroid impact-tsunami model.
In the creationary worldview, Noah's Flood is not a hypothesis, but a fact. There have been proposed an assortment of flood model hypotheses based on the fact of the flood that can be falsified, but falsification of any one or all of them will not falsify the flood. Evolutionism is exactly the same. Christian Skeptic 17:45, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
"Evolutionism is exactly the same"? OK. Anyway, it's clear we're going to have to agree to disagree. If you plan to add more evidence for the impact tsunami model, can you please ensure that it's fully sourced? While the YouTube movie's quite amusing, it's really not an ideal source. As I'm sure you're aware, there are a fair number of catastrophist hypotheses out there, some of which are only supported by their developers — adding these is akin to adding original research, so we need to ensure that only notable (and, obviously, verifiable) material is added. Cheers, --Plumbago 18:01, 4 December 2007 (UTC)


<undent>This is based on a complete misunderstanding of what science is and what constitutes an accepted theory in science. A scientific theory is nothing more than a parsimonious natural explanation for data that can make predictions. If a new theory is simpler and makes the same predictions, then it is more likely to become the accepted theory instead. If the theory makes predictions that are found to not agree with the data, then it is less likely to be accepted and will probably eventually be replaced.

Of course flood geology can explain the data. So can the flat earth hypothesis and Last Thursdayism. However, these explanations are far more involved and involve nonnatural mechanisms, so they are not accepted scientific theories. Often, to explain new data, the explanations associated with flood geology and a Flat Earth have to become more and more complicated.

This is what happened to geocentric theory. I could explain all planetary motions assuming the earth was at the centre of the solar system and even the universe. It is just that the explanation would be far more complicated than the current theory. Paucity wins and so this is not the accepted theory.

The original theory of Evolution has been replaced many times with more complicated theories to explain new data. However, evolution still involves natural phenomena, which many creationist explanations do not. Evolution is also still "simpler" than most creationist explanations, because it does not involve assuming some very complicated being interfering day to day second to second, in the lives of every living thing on earth, forever, and breaking the observed laws of the universe to do so. The same is true of plate tectonics and the theory of gravitation and the theory of quantum mechanics.

The problem with flood geology is that it posits nonnatural mechanisms, very complicated mechanisms, and never discards one or two fundamental axioms (i.e., that a given interpretation of the bible is literally true), even when there is substantial evidence that simpler natural explanations would explain the data. --Filll 18:12, 4 December 2007 (UTC)


The biggest problem is that flood geology and its creationist bretheren require us to accept magic as a scientific mechanism. And this just is unlikely to happen, without extremely compelling evidence to do so. And having it written in a book with several thousand contradictory versions, translation problems, provenance problems, etc just is not compelling scientific evidence. Sorry.--Filll 18:15, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

I also hope that CS realizes that if we accept magic into science, that means we have to let all people out of prison, because of course the evidence they were convicted on could have been put there by magic, and this would be a valid defense. So CS you are not allowed to enforce any laws whatsoever. Close the jails and courts and fire all the police.--Filll 18:17, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

"None of these controversies disputes the FACT that evolution has occurred. They are only about whether Neo-Darwinism is the only mechanism by which it has occurred." Prothero, D, 2004 "Bringing Fossils to Life" pg. 72 {Textbook}
"To the paleontologist evolution appears not as a theory but as a fact of the record. ... Concerning the causes and methods of this evolutionary process he finds wide room for discussion; but the FACT, of the actuality of it he can have no doubt. Evolution is no more a theory to the man who has collected and studied fossils than the city of New York is a theory to the man who lives in it." Matthew, 1925, Natural History 25 (2): 166-168
Evolutionism is a corollary of Naturalism (any kind) and so is a philosophical assumption. It has never been a hypothesis or theory. The controversy between Creationism and Evolutionism/Naturalism has very little to do with science. Christian Skeptic (talk) 01:29, 5 December 2007 (UTC)


Well I have to agree that the creation-evolution controversy is not really about science. That is because creationism includes magic, and science, including evolution, does not include magic. So the controversy cannot be a scientific one, since creationism, creation science, intelligent design, and flood geology are outside of science.

You are incorrect about evolution never being a theory; the observations of evolution constitute data, also known as scientific facts. The explanation for these facts is called the theory of evolution.--Filll (talk) 01:46, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

asteroid impact model

Since the model was introduced not quite 10 years ago, there has not been a lot of publication and discussion published so far. However, references in the following paper show that there has been some discussion in creationary circles.

Wayne R. Spencer and Michael J. Oard, 2004, "The Chesapeake Bay Impact and Noah’s Flood", CRSQ, Volume 41, no. 3 December.

References: (selected)

Faulkner, D. 1999. A biblically based cratering theory. Creation Ex Nihilo Technical Journal 13(1):100–104.

–—–—–. 2000. Danny Faulkner replies. Creation Ex Nihilo Technical Journal 14(1):47–48.

Faulkner, D. and W. Spencer 2000. Danny Faulkner and Wayne Spencer reply. Creation Ex Nihilo Technical Journal 14(3):75–77.2004

Froede, C.R., Jr. and D.B. DeYoung 1996. Impact events within the Young–Earth Flood Model. CRSQ 33:23–34.

Froede, C.R., Jr. and E.L. Williams 1999. The Wetumpka Impact Crater, Elmore County, Alabama: an interpretation within the Young-Earth Flood Model. CRSQ 36(1):32–37.

Froede, C.R., Jr. 2002. Extraterrestrial bombardment of the Inner Solar System: a review with questions and comments based on new information. CRSQ 38:209–212.

Hovis, J. 2000. Biblically-based cratering theory. Creation Ex Nihilo Technical Journal. 14(3):74–75.

Oard, M.J. 1994. Response to comments on the asteroid hypothesis for dinosaur extinction. CRSQ 31:12.

–—–—–. 2001a. Vertical tectonics and the drainage of Floodwater: a model for the middle and late Diluvian period—Part I. CRSQ 38:3–17.

–—–—–. 2001b. Vertical tectonics and the drainage of Floodwater: a model for the middle and late Diluvian period—Part II. CRSQ 38:79–95.

Spencer, W. R. 1994. The origin and history of the Solar System. In Walsh, R.E. (editor), Proceedings of the Third International Conference on Creationism (technical symposium sessions), pp. 513–523, Creation Science Fellowship, Pittsburgh, PA.

–—–—–. 1998a. Catastrophic impact bombardment surrounding the Genesis Flood. In Walsh, R.E. (editor), Proceedings of the Fourth International Conference on Creationism (technical symposium sessions), pp. 553–566, Creation Science Fellowship, Pittsburgh, PA.

–—–—–. 1998b. Geophysical effects of impacts during the Genesis Flood. In Walsh, R.E. (editor), Proceedings of the Fourth International Conference on Creationism (technical symposium sessions), pp. 567–579, Creation Science Fellowship, Pittsburgh, PA.

–—–—–. 1999. Earth impacts, the geologic column, and Chicxulub. CRSQ 36:163–165.

–—–—–. 2000. Response to Faulkner’s ‘Biblically-based cratering theory.’ Creation Ex Nihilo Technical Journal 14(1):46–47.

–—–—–. 2002. Response to Carl Froede on extraterrestrial bombardment. CRSQ 39:142–145.

Walker, T. 1994. A biblical geologic model. In Walsh, R.E. (editor), Proceedings of the Third International Conference on Creationism (technical symposium sessions), pp. 581–592, Creation Science Fellowship, Pittsburgh, PA. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Christian Skeptic (talk • contribs) 19:35, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

Philosophical objections

In my opinion the Philosophical objections is totally unneccesairy. These are just general objections to creationism in total, not specifically for a flood. The piece is written in a very biased way too. I recommend deleting it. 62.41.69.18 (talk) 15:03, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

Arguably it applies to all creation science, as it specifically references Occam's razor as it applies to science. And as Flood Geology is by far the largest and most prominent subset of creation science, it is not unreasonable to mention it here. HrafnTalkStalk 15:18, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
DELETE I did a draft of the rewrite. Occam's Razor also would deny catastraphism that is discussed earlier in the article. I would just delete it, but people get mad. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.164.46.152 (talk) 01:11, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
Your edit was grossly POV. Please read WP:NPOV (particularly the section on undue weight) and WP:NPOVFAQ (particularly the sections on Pseudoscience, and on Giving "equal validity") before attempting any further edits. HrafnTalkStalk 10:04, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
Occam's Razor would NOT "deny catastophism". There are specific situations (e.g. meteorite impacts) where the "catastrophic" explanation is the most parsimonious one that accounts for the evidence. This is not the case with "Flood geology", which is contradicted by the evidence. --Robert Stevens (talk) 10:23, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
In my opinion, Occam's Razor is inappropriate in this case, one might just as easily apply the quote: "For every complex problem, there is a solution that is simple, neat, and wrong. - H.L. Mencken". Which, in my experience, when applied to scientific problems is often the case. Occam's Razor could be just as easily used to deny the existence of God: the existence of God is more complex than the non existence of God and therefore he does not exist. This is perfectly reasonable until you consider a universe where God does in fact exist and you have now reached the wrong conclusion. Occam's Razor is a tool scientists use to judge possible conclusions but in and of itself it does not amount to evidence for these conclusions. So therefore it cannot be an objection, merely an observation (Flood geology is more complex). In my opinion this is not a very useful observation. —Preceding unsigned comment added by PCLogston (talk • contribs) 14:07, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
Except that evolution is neither simple nor neat -- it is rather incredibly complicated and messy, it also explains a sufficiently large amount of the facts of biology and palaeontology that the odds against it being proved "wrong" (as opposed to merely "slightly inaccurate") are astronomical. Your quotation is therefore completely inappropriate. When considering "a universe where God does in fact exist" you then have to add a mountain of special pleading to shoehorn what we know about the universe into the orthodox conception of God. To cut this out as absurd, you don't need "Occam's Razor", but merely "Occam's butter knife". HrafnTalkStalk 15:37, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

Asteroid impact energy partition quotes from reference

John D. O'Keefe, 1982, “ The interaction of the Cretaceous/Tertiary Extinction Bolide with the atmosphere, ocean, and Italic textsolid Earth,” Geological Society of America, Special Paper 190, p. 111, 117.

"Most of the energy is transferred to the planetary material in the case of an asteroidal impact (~ 85%)" p. 111

"Notably from 13% to 15% of the projectile energy resides in the water ejecta [when impacting ocean water]." p.111

"Note that less than 5% of impact energy is directly transferred [by shock wave from explosion] to the atmosphere." pg 117

Note: That adds up to ~100%. ~85% + <15% + <5% = ~100% Christian Skeptic (talk) 05:27, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

Yes, they don't add up to 100%because the percentages are talking about different scenarios. And we have no way of knowing which scenarios, with which percentages, match the "170+ known asteroid impact craters" under discussion. The whole piece appears to be illegitimate WP:SYNTH of disparate sources. HrafnTalkStalk 05:43, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
No reliable source seems to support this idea. I removed it as original research that lacked notability. ScienceApologist (talk) 05:50, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
It is obvious, neither one of you have bothered to read the original papers. Which is typical of evolutionists. ignorance is bliss, blind and stupid. Hrafn... They don't add up perfectly because they are approximations drawn from several illustrations in the paper. If you would bother to read the paper you would find that ALL impacts of certain large sizes, whether on land or in the ocean of act the same. About 80% of the KE goes directly into the planet. About 15% goes into throwing things around on the surface and about 5% goes into the explosion and its shock wave. This is not creationary invention.
The paper by Spencer quotes from the impact paper. In the synopsis here, I merely added the actual percentages from the original impactor paper referred to in Spenser's paper. Again, if you had read the papers you would see this.
The Abstract from Spencer's paper: "There is clear evidence that impacts have occurred on Earth. to evaluate the possibility of a large number of impacts occurring During the Flood, it is important to consider their geophysical effects. The major effects include powerful shock waves that could trigger mineralogical crystal structure changes in the 400-600 Km depth region in the mantle. The could trigger subduction of the pre-flood ocean floor as suggested by Dr. John Baumgardner. A large number of impacts would also vaporize great quantities of water, some of which would condense as rain. Huge quantities of dust would be ejected by the impacts into the stratosphere. This would lead to low light levels for approximately 3 to 6 months and cold temperatures at the surface for a few months after this. Mano other local and regional catastrophic effects would be produced by the impacts, including large tsunami waves, unusual winds, and possibly acid rain. It is concluded that though impacts would make the Flood more violent and more uncomfortable for Noah and his family, it would be a survivable event and is not in conflict with chronology of the Flood as given in Genesis."
This is a real creationary flood model that has been discussed in creationary literature for aboutr 10 years now, like it or not. Only someone really dumb would expect it to be discussed in anti-creationary literature. Sheshh... It should be included in the list of creationary flood models. Christian Skeptic (talk) 14:05, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
If you want it included, you will have to provide some reliable source that it is actually used as a prop for creationists. Spencer, I'm afraid, just isn't notable enough for inclusion at Wikipedia. He has an extremely low-profile even for a creationist. If we really want to discuss this idea, we need to source it to something more famous. For example, do any major creationist organizations promote this idea? Are there apostles of the Lord going around and preaching this idea from the pulpits? Are there any cases of notable debunking of this fantasy? You need to come up with something to establish the notability of the idea for us to think about inclusion. CSRQ is just plain not a notable source because they publish just about any speculative nonsense that can come down the pipe as long as the author is a creationist. So we need some other way of sourcing the idea and showing its prominence. ScienceApologist (talk) 15:10, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
There are 4 major YEC Creationary groups--Answers in Genesis (AiG), Creation Research Society (CRS), Institute for Creation Research (ICR), and Geoscience Research Institute (GRI). Both AiG and GRI have given at least passing reference to the theory (http://www.answersingenesis.org/tj/v15/i1/permian.asp) (http://www.grisda.org/jgibson/faq2002.htm). CRSQ does not promote any particular theory, It's primary purpose is to publish CRSQ. As noted in the above section, the theory has been discussed in both CRSQ and Journal of Creation. You need to support your allegation that CRSQ publishes nearly anything so long as the author is a creationist, otherwise it is just malicious gossip (AKA a lie). CRSQ, Origins (GRI) and Journal of Creation {formerly Technical Journal, and Creation Ex Nihlo Technical Journal} are the major publications of creationism. If you want to learn what creationists are actually saying you need to go to the horse's mouth, not secondary misinterpretations.
The "passing references" are simply not good enough, in my book. These sources have too little on the subject to allow us to properly source the idea. I understand that the major creationist journals publish a lot of ideas. That doesn't mean that they deserve inclusion at Wikipedia. You will need to do better than that. ScienceApologist (talk) 18:37, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
John Baumgardner is one of the best known Flood theorists among Creationists. I don't know who your are comparing him with. If it is K. Hovind, you need to realize that most Creationists consider Hovind to be just a creationary evangelist and many are embarrassed to be associated with him.
Unfortunately, the fame of Hovind guarantees a spot for his ideas at Wikipedia. John Baumgardner is harder to justify. You'll have to check WP:BIO and WP:PROF to see if he qualifies as a notable enough person for his own article. It would certainly help to have an article on the creationist arguing for the idea to help establish notability. ScienceApologist (talk) 18:37, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
Update -- I have placed the article on John Baumgardner up for deletion. ScienceApologist (talk) 18:54, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
Spencer only mentions Baumgardner in relation to CPT not as a supporter of the Asteroid Impact theory. Spencer is recognized as the major theorist of the Asteroid Impact Theory. The references in the above section show that the theory is being discussed among the creationary group. I can testify from personal experience and that I am acquainted with most creationary scientists, that the Asteroid Impact theory is quickly eclipsing the Hydroplate and Canopy theories (and slowly displacing CPT), but I don't have a reference to that effect. It doesn't matter if you have never heard of Spencer until now, he IS the primary promoter of the Asteroid Impact Theory and as such he is notable in creationary circles. Whether evolutionists know of him or not is irrelevant. Christian Skeptic (talk) 18:22, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
CPT is notable enough for mention in our article, I wager. However, Spencer seems to me to be so obscure that his ideas are probably best left out of here. Your personal experience, unfortunately, is not verifiable. Also, realize that Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. If the Asteroid Impact theory really does eclipse these other two ideas, then there will certainly be some secondary sources that will aid us in being able to source it. Right now it is probably a bit too early to have mention of it here. We just cannot be that cutting edge with the fringe due to the problems associated with sourcing. ScienceApologist (talk) 18:37, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

Which is typical of evolutionists. ignorance is bliss, blind and stupid. Try to control yourself. People in glass houses should not throw stones.--Filll (talk) 16:02, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

As a paleontology student I read, understand, and am quizzed on technical evolutionary geology and paleontology papers on a regular basis. I am not ignorant of evolutionary interpretation of geology. I must know it to pass my classes. Just because I know it, does not mean I accept it as valid.
Are you a geologist? How often do you read technical geology papers? What do you know personally of the creationary view through reading and understanding creationary papers? If you don't read them yourself, you know nothing. If you rely on others, especially Talk.Origins, you have much, much greater faith in others than I. Christian Skeptic (talk) 18:22, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
If you want this to get personal, believe me, you will end up on the short end of the stick. My credentials, which should not really be relevant in this discussion, dwarf your insignificant embarassingly paltry efforts. So give it a rest and stop trying to insult others here. Thanks.--Filll (talk) 18:50, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
If you are a qualified geologist---great. But the point is not about credentials but about reading and knowing what creationists are actually saying, not what evolutionists think creationists are saying. I haven't seen that here yet. Christian Skeptic (talk) 04:47, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
This isn't about any person, it's about sourcing. We need to find good sources that are beyond primary sources. Good summaries, review articles, and even debunking can be used to help us figure out whether this idea is worthy of inclusion. ScienceApologist (talk) 18:37, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
I don't get it, CS. Why do call this a "flood model"? According to the abstract you cite, impacts are "not in conflict with chronology of the Flood as given in Genesis". If they are irrelevant, then they don't explain anything either. The only thing mentioned that might make it a model is the bit about catastophic plate tectonics, but we already have that covered in the article. Am I missing something? --Art Carlson (talk) 17:31, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
What Spencer means by not in conflict with chronology of the Bible is once the timing of the asteroid impacts is placed within the 1 year time period of the Flood, the impacts do not conflict with the chronology of the Bible. Placing the asteroid impact within the time period of the Flood is the theory. Christian Skeptic (talk) 18:22, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
Again @CS: Your accusations of ignorance, blindness, and stupidity are not only uncivil, they are unfounded. It is reasonable to expect the numbers in any article, whether a scientific publication or Wikipedia, to add up. If they are very uncertain, then they should be listed as ranges. The other argument had to do with the notability of the idea, not its content. The notability can be discussed without reading original sources. --Art Carlson (talk) 17:31, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
I said ~85%, which means ABOUT 85% (as it is used in the article). <15$ means LESS THAN 15%. The actually amount less is variable. And I noted that the numbers added up to ~100$ which means ABOUT 100%. There are other partitions of the energy which I did not discuss, but are explained in the original article. Read the article.
Notability among who???? Evolutionists? This article is about creationary ideas so the ideas reported should be notable among creationists. Would you really expect evolutionists to know much at all about actual creationists and creationary theories? I have yet to meet any evolutionists who know much more that superficial concepts; and then, usually wrongly, as evidence here. Christian Skeptic (talk) 18:22, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
Notability among creationists needs to be higher than normal for the idea to be included in a mainstream encyclopedia. Check WP:FRINGE for more on inclusion guidelines. One good way to establish notability is to find instances of the idea being discussed by third parties. This aids in sourcing as well (see WP:PSTS). The problem is that when an idea is so obscure that it has received no attention, we only have primary sources to go on in order to describe it. In such a case, the idea is normally considered too fringe/obscure to warrant inclusion in the encyclopedia since there is no way to verifiably source the idea. ScienceApologist (talk) 18:28, 14 December 2007 (UTC)


While we are at it CS, try to stop using the term "evolutionist'. Many view it as derogatory. If I used a comparable word for someone with beliefs like those you subscribe to, you might not find it so pleasant. Thanks awfully.--Filll (talk) 18:53, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

Anyone, scientists or non-scientist, Christian or non-Christian, who accepts evolution as a fact or valid theory is an evolutionist. If that is derogatory, so be it. Christian Skeptic (talk) 04:27, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
Do you mind people calling you a pseudoscientist then? ScienceApologist (talk) 04:41, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
So are you saying that citing someone as an evolutionist is as derogatory as calling someone a pseudoscentists? Christian Skeptic (talk) 15:09, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
As they no more self-identify as "evolutionists" than the other side do as "pseudoscientists", yes. Also most would question why such a widely established scientific theory requires any special label for those who accept it. Should we also call those who accept germ theory "germists"? HrafnTalkStalk 15:21, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
Find another example. AFAIK there is not a substantial portion of the population that disputes germ theory. rossnixon 01:08, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
Argumentum ad populum. Similarly "substantial" portions of the population think the sun rotates around the Earth and can't find Florida on a map. I think we can ignore such lowest common denominator arguments as "a substantial portion of scientists" (i.e. those people who actually know what they're talking about on the subject) do not dispute it. HrafnTalkStalk 02:57, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
Not a big deal either way. Anyone like to discuss the article? --Art Carlson (talk) 08:18, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

Off-topic: In the news[3] recently - mammoths and bison were found that had been peppered with high speed projectiles (meteorites, asteroid fragments?) I thought this might have been a 'flood connection', but it appears not as the bison survived for some time afterwards rossnixon 19:17, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

This discussion is getting long-winded. The questions we want to decide are, Should the "asteroid impact model" be covered in this article at all?, and, if so, In which section and in what level of detail?

Some editors have argued that the idea should not be covered at all because it is not notable. This is a legitimate question, but remember that WP:NOTABILITY is a guideline, not a policy (advisory, rather than mandatory), and even then the topics within an article are not each required to meet the standards. So merely citing notability cannot end the discussion. Likewise, any reference to WP:FRINGE is not very helpful unless it is pointed out just which statements are thought to apply in what way to this case. It would help a lot if we could find a good secondary source, whether from an observer of the flood geology community or from within that community. I'd like to see an article with a title like, "Major ideas/prominent trends/hot topics within flood geology". An alternative would be to compare the numbers from a carefully constructed google search. If we have to start analyzing the primary sources ourselves, which is sometimes necessary, we will be doing WP:OR and inviting endless controversy.

I personally am less concerned with the standing of asteroid impacts in the community than I am with the substance (as presented by CS). The material was added as a subsection of "Proposed mechanisms of the flood", but I don't see how it answers the questions of where the water came from or where it went. Perhaps it is meant as an explanation of evidence that "appears" to contradict the Flood hypothesis, such as the sorting of fossils (tsunamis eating their way inland) or the existence of large, thin geological layers (liquifaction). If so, then it would belong in another section. Perhaps it is just meant to round out the picture of the Flood, in which case we would have to re-open the questions of to what degree it represents a consensus and whether this level of detail is appropriate.

I would ask the participants of this dicussion to try to concentrate on these issues, stating their arguments succinctly, (and to definitely avoid personal attacks).

--Art Carlson (talk) 09:16, 17 December 2007 (UTC)