Talk:Flood geology

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[edit] Obvious bias

In reading the article, a bias and indeed contempt is clearly obvious, flying in the face of what should be a neutral and impartial presentation of the article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by VertigoGames (talk • contribs) 08:27, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

Please cite specific and substantiated instances of partiality. Vague and unsubstantiated accusations, such as your one above, are "as useful as tits on a bull." Please also read WP:UNDUE. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 08:50, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

Firstly I would like to offer my appreciation to Art Carlson and all the other contributors for their discussion on this worthy topic. I understand that what is being discussed here is highly contentious and I would like to strongly encourage all to "do nothing out of selfish ambition or vain conceit, but in humility consider others better than yourselves" (Philippians 2:3). With this in mind I confess that I am not an expert in these matters, however in my humble opinion I would like to point out an example that I believe may contravene NPOV. I believe that Paragraph 2 typifies an unfairness in tone in this article. In particular I consider phrases such as "routinely been evaluated, refuted and dismissed unequivocally" as "Peacock Terms" (refer WP:APT). Further attributing this refutation and dismissal to the "Scientific Community" in its entirety could be considered a "Weasel Word" (refer WP:AWT) and is in contradiction with WP's own article on Scientific Community where it states that "there are no singular bodies which can be said today to speak for all of science". Such a paragraph biases this article in a number of ways including: (1) implying that Flood Geologists are not members of the Scientific Community therefore making this a de facto debate between faith and science; (2) it asserts a number of opinions as fact (refer WP:ASF) including that Creation views of Flood Geology are false and consequently that currently held evolutionary theories are true. It is my recommendation that this paragraph be deleted and further efforts be made to ensure that a dispassionate and neutral tone be carried throughout this article.Siyrtur (talk) 13:42, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 14:15, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Well we have evidence for the standard accepted theories in geology, and no evidence or evidence that contradicts the flood geology theories. And well in excess of 99% of all geologists reject flood geology, so I would say that is a pretty clear sign of the position of the "scientific community" on this issue. What NPOV states is that the views must be presented in relation to their prominence. Now the flood geology interpretation of the data is a teeny tiny minority WP:FRINGE view, and by this policy, should be less than 1% of the space in this article. We are more generous than that, but we are just following WP:NPOV and WP:FRINGE. Sorry.--Filll (talk) 14:33, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

This is not a "geology" article, so the 99% vs 1% doesn't apply here. 99% of all "flood geologists" accept flood geology. Therefore the current "scientific consensus" is the minority/fringe view here. On another tack, Wikipedia is not a science reference - the content should take the general public's views into account to some degree. ^rossnixon 01:09, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

By that logic, in an article on 'Flat Earth' we should take the view of Flat-Earth-believers as the 'majority' view. This is an absurd argument. Flood Geology purports to be science, therefore the article should reflect the mainstream scientific view of the topic. Flood Geologists can't have it both ways -- they can't proclaim this (essentially religious) belief to be 'science', and expect it to not be assessed from a scientific viewpoint. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 03:21, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

Hrafn I think that you miss the point. Sure the terms I highlighted are not noted specifically in WP:Peacock however that document is not prescriptive. The nature of a “peacock term†is that the word or phrase is not sufficiently specific and that it grandstands about a particular opinion, which is exactly as you have portrayed it. Please be specific! If you have verifiable instances where creation arguments have been put forward and repudiated within legitimate scholarly debate and reported in reputable sources then state that with a valid citation.
Similarly Filll, if you can provide a valid source where 99% of geologists reject flood geology (or even some other percentage) FANTASTIC please put it in the article.
I think that to overcome the inherent contention in this aspect of the discussion perhaps we should confine our descriptions of those in favour of Flood Geology as either Flood Geologists or proponents of Flood Geology. These terms neither infer that they are scientific nor that they are unscientific just that they refer to themselves as Flood Geologists. Similarly when describing an opponent of Flood Geology, if they are a Geologist then describe then as a Geologist, if they are Evolutionary Bologists then describe them as such. Reference to the “Scientific Community†as a collective noun is unhelpful because the term includes those whose expertise has no relevance to this topic (i.e. computer science) nor does it give those whose expertise are relevant sufficient credence.
I also agree with rossnixon about “undue weightâ€. I believe that if this was an article about the more general topic of “geology†then both Hrafn and Filll would have a legitimate point. However as Flood Geology is the sole topic of this article then its purpose is to describe what the key tenets of Flood Geology are, who the key proponents and opponents are and the context in which it exists. This article is not the place to assert that Flood Geology is true, nor that it is false. My aim in this particular discussion is not to debate which point of view is correct, simply that this article maintains the key policies of WP. If some choose to believe that Flood Geology is true, then good luck to them, if others believe that it is all bunkum then good for them. I believe that as it is hailed in WP:NPOV, “Let the facts speak for themselvesâ€.Siyrtur (talk) 14:06, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

Wait I think you are missing the point. We have policies and principles on WP that we follow. One of those is WP:FRINGE. Flood geology is definitely a FRINGE subject and topic. And it should be treated accordingly. That means we need a good sized helping of the mainstream views from the relevant discipline in the article. Now you cannot claim that "flood geology" should not be viewed as part of science or geology, when the proponents of "flood geology" have clearly gone out of their way to adopt the terminology of geology and ape the methods of geology, and to claim that geology supports their biblical literalism. By this argument, no belief could ever be described as a FRINGE belief since within their community, it is the majority opinion. That just will not fly. Flood geologists claim that science supports their interpretation of the bible. And mainstream scientists disagree, at least currently. So that should be recognized in this article. That is just reality; it might change in the future, and it was different in the past, but that is current reality. Why would we try to hide that?--Filll (talk) 14:38, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

[Edit conflicted parallel reply to Filll's]

Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 14:43, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

Filll, I totally agree with you when you state that I cannot claim that "Flood Geology" is not a part of science or geology. In fact if you go back to my original statement I was arguing for their inclusion. Now I also understand that you consider "Flood Geology" as a fringe science topic but WP:Fringe also explicitly states that Creationism (and subsequently Flood Geology as a "prominent subset") should be evaluated on a scientific AND a theological basis (see "Evaluating Scientific and Non-Scientific Claims") and from a theological perspective the belief in a world-wide flood is definitely not a fringe topic. Therefore a clear, dispassionate and BALANCED explanation of the claims for and against the Flood as explored by Flood Geology is necessary.
Hrafn, My, my, you do have a talent for hyperbole! As a compromise I propose the following text in the place of the current version of Para 2:

I think this new paragraph recognises the existence of the debate, who the key groups are, and a number of verifiable sources from both sides of the fence. This now allows the interested reader to access the debate from primary and secondary sources where they can make up their own mind. Would you agree?Siyrtur (talk) 15:52, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

Except that there is no debate, except in the minds of the Creationists. The scientific community is not "similarly divided." It is worth pointing out that the reference you cite for the existence of a debate is an unapologetically Creationist group. Perhaps the proposed addition should be adjusted to reflect this: "Creationist groups such as the American Science Affiliation claim that there is a debate within the scientific community as to the occurrence of a world-wide flood." At least this gives appropriate attribution that the POV being presented is hardly a neutral one. silly rabbit (talk) 16:10, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

I agree with Silly rabbit, the proposed paragraph is a gross violation of WP:UNDUE in that it pretends a false equivalence between science and the religious dogma of Creationism. I also object to applying the adjective "evolutionary" to scientists who oppose Creationism, many of whom are not involved in fields that directly deal with "evolutionary" mechanisms. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 16:41, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

Even in religious circles, those who believe in a literal worldwide flood are a minority, as near as I can determine. So this is a FRINGE belief both scientifically and theologically, at least at the moment.--Filll (talk) 17:23, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

Recent (2004? 2003?) ABC News poll[1] of 1,011 adults. 60 percent believe in the story of Noah's ark, the global flood, and God's covenant to never destroy the Earth again. Looks more like MAJORITY view! But this will be a minority view if the rest of the english speaking world is surveyed. But "fringe", surely not! ^rossnixon 01:37, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

It is almost as difficult to justify relying on the viewpoint of the uninformed masses on points of theology as it is on points of science. In dealing with the theological aspects of creationism (which should not attempt to obfuscate its complete lack of scientific foundation), the range of learned theological positions, both opposed to an accepting, should be given WP:DUE weight. A good starting point would be the opinions of Augustine of Hippo on the literal interpretation of Genesis.

Silly Rabbit, WP even has an article Creation-evolution controversy. You can't serious say that there is not an ongoing debate??! I can see that the matter is clearly decided in your mind but yet in the public arena the discussion goes on... With regards to my citation from the ASA, perhaps you need to read it. The ASA is an association of scientists (Science Degree minimum for membership) who state, "The ASA has no official position on evolution; its members hold a diversity of views with varying degrees of intensity". So I totally reject your assessment of the neutrality of this source. My only concession to you and Hrafn on this paragraph would be to substitute "modern secular scientist" as opposed to "evolutionary scientist".
Hrafn, Your reading of WP:Undue is completely inaccurate. "Undue weight" talks of minority views not religion vs science. WP:Fringe in fact states that this subject must consider both the religious and the scientific aspects of this matter equally.
Filll, perhaps you might want to examine the Chapter 4 of the Westminster Confession of Faith ^[6] which articulates a literal interpretation of Creation. This document is the founding creed upon which all Presbyterian and Reformed Protestant churchs are founded including many independent and Baptist churchs. These churches are mainstream churches therefore the belief in a literal flood could hardly be considered fringe.
Unsigned, I hope my reference to the founding creeds of major churches as a step in the right direction. I think that you are have made a good point in suggesting that the range of 'learned' theological positions should be explored. Siyrtur (talk) 15:16, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

The ASA is explicitly Creationist: 'It should be well known to readers of the Journal ASA that the ASA does not take an official position on controversial questions. Creation is not a controversial question. I have no hestancy in affirming, "We believe in creation," for every ASA member.' [2] Nice try, though. silly rabbit (talk) 15:23, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

Furthermore, if you would care to read the article on Creation-evolution controversy, you would see that the "controversy" in question is between the scientific consensus on the one hand (coming down nearly unanimously in favor of the modern theory of evolution) and religious zealots on the other hand who espouse a doctrine of creation. There is zero controversy within the scientific mainstream. So, again, nice try, but it isn't going to fly. silly rabbit (talk) 15:28, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

I am afraid I see not much more in your posts than confusion and ignorance. Molleen Matsumura of the National Center for Science Education found, of Americans in the twelve largest Christian denominations, at least 77% belong to churches that support evolution education (and that at one point, this figure was as high as 89.6%).Matsumura 1998, p. 9 notes that, "Table 1 demonstrates that Americans in the 12 largest Christian denominations, 89.6% belong to churches that support evolution education! Indeed, many of the statements in Voices insist quite strongly that evolution must be included in science education and "creation science" must be excluded. Even if we subtract the Southern Baptist Convention, which has changed its view of evolution since McLean v Arkansas and might take a different position now, the percentage those in denominations supporting evolution is still a substantial 77%. Furthermore, many other Christian and non-Christian denominations, including the United Church of Christ and the National Sikh Center, have shown some degree of support for evolution education (as defined by inclusion in 'Voices' or the "Joint Statement")." Matsumura produced her table from a June, 1998 article titled Believers: Dynamic Dozen put out by Religion News Services which in turn cites the 1998 Yearbook of American and Canadian Churches. Matsurmura's calculations include the SBC based on a brief they filed in McLean v. Arkansas, where the SBC took a position it has since changed, according to Matsurmura. See also NCSE 2002. These churches include the United Methodist Church, National Baptist Convention, USA, Evangelical Lutheran Church in America, Presbyterian Church (USA), National Baptist Convention of America, African Methodist Episcopal Church, the Roman Catholic Church, the Episcopal Church, and others.

Also, as Steve Sailer points out, it is also not clear how firmly held the public beliefs in creationism are.^[7] Most creationist claims require a literal reading of Genesis and a belief in biblical inerrancy. However, not all Americans seem to subscribe to biblical literalism. For example, among the 15% that are evangelical Protestants, only 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. Only about 11% of Catholics and mainline Protestants believe the Bible is literally true, and only 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 felt the same about the Torah. These figures make it clear that a large fraction of Christians and Jews do not subscribe to the necessary beliefs to adopt many creationist principles wholeheartedly.^[8]

However, most Christians believe in God as Creator, while also accepting scientific evolution as a natural process.^[9] A minority of Christians rejected evolution from its outset as "heresy", but most attempted to reconcile scientific evolution with Biblical accounts of creation.^[10] Islam accepts the natural evolution of plants and animals, but the origin of man is contested and no consensus has emerged.^[11]

I would also direct you to Clergy Letter Project.

[edit] References

The bottom line is those who believe in biblical literalism are a teeny tiny obscure minority. They are most prominent in the US, but even in the US they are a tiny minority and worldwide, they are nothing; vanishingly small fraction of Christians. Roman Catholicism has explicitly forbid biblical literalism for a long time (decades? centuries?). Origen, Augustine of Hippo, Thomas Aquinas, and Maimonides all explicitly rejected biblical literalism. They are joined by a huge number of others. In scholarly circles, this is not a serious discussion, and has not been one for well over 1000 years.--Filll (talk) 16:07, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

You may need to look at that bottom line some more. "By any measure, the United States remains a highly religious nation, compared to other developed countries. Its citizens tend to hold more conservative beliefs. For example, the percentage of adults who believe that "the Bible is the actual word of God and it is to be taken literally, word for word" is 5 times higher in the U.S. than in Britain. Church attendance is about 4 times higher in the U.S. than it is in Britain. 1 Similarly, according to one opinion poll, belief that "Human beings developed from earlier species of animals..." is much smaller in the United States (35%) than in other countries (as high as 82%)."^[12]Dan Watts (talk) 21:34, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] The whole artical seems fairly one sided and not quite balanced...

That is just an observation. Perhaps this is okay and simply presenting the reality of the situation, or maybe it doesn't appear this way to most individuals. --Emesee (talk) 00:47, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

Please read WP:DUE, WP:FRINGE & WP:NPOVFAQ#Pseudoscience. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 05:05, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] YECism

The article seems preoccupied with the views of Young Earth Creationism. But surely Old Earthers equally accept the idea of a literal flood? Do they not have any developed theories of flood geology? Just curious. PiCo (talk) 11:37, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

See Old Earth creationism. Most OECs do not assume a world-wide flood, but rather interpret the Genesis passages to refer to a local flood (global only in the sense of affecting "all the known Earth"). Of course you will find kooks of any description, but most OECs seem to be ready to accept most of science. They are unshaven, but not totally gaga. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 12:14, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Flood geology and YEC have been synonymous throughout their history. Disputes between YEC/OEC within creationist 'scientific' organisations have historically been mainly about whether FG should be an article of faith. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 13:00, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks to both of you. That's quite enlightening. PiCo (talk) 15:58, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] This Article Needs a Disputed NPOV Flag

I know we're supposed to assume good faith, but given that several peoples' concerns have been summarily dismissed, I find it hard to do so.

This article needs to be either flagged or edited. It is perfectly possible to accurately portray the scientific view of flood geology without using disparaging language such as has been identified by the commenter immediately below.

The connotation of even the first part of the article feels slanted rather than objective. As I indicated, it is possible to use more objective language to get across the same point. Scientific disagreement is not open license for belittlement. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.140.134.68 (talk) 03:11, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

(i) What "disparaging language such as has been identified by the commenter immediately below"? Yours was the bottommost comment until I added this comment (ii) What "Scientific disagreement"? The only disagreement is between the scientific community and the Creationist branch of the Christian apologetics community. Yes, commenters frequently get "summarily dismissed" for what in legal parlance would be termed "failure to state a case" -- failure to demonstrate that any violation of policy or guidelines exists. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 08:01, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Creationwiki not prominent?

Below are the links allowed on the page ranked according to prominence. Creationwiki with its many creationary editors is at least as prominent as the prominent individuals in the list. It is certainly more prominent as the crackpots.

Prominent Organizations

AiG

   * Answers in Genesis' Geology Questions and Answers Page

Geoscience Research Institutue

   * Biblical Evidence for the Universality of the Genesis Flood - Richard M. Davidson - 

Prominent Individuals

Dr. Baumbardner

   * Unveiling the Mechanism Behind the Genesis Flood

Michael Oard

   * Startling Evidence That Noah's Flood Really Happened

Tas Walker

   * Tas Walker's Biblical Geology

Doug Sharp

   * Revolution against Evolution geology page

Not Prominent Individuals

Mike Brown [biologist]

   * Global Flood Geology from "Creation Science Prophecy"

Steven Robinson

   * Recolonisation Theory

Prominent Individuals (crackpot)

Walt Brown

   * Hydroplate Theory

Not Prominent Individuals (Crackpot)

David Pratt

   * Shock Dynamics geology theory – 

Broken link

   * Christian Geology

---Christian Skeptic (talk) 16:23, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

I see you ignored my comment on your talk page. It's an open Wiki and is such is definitely not allowed as a source. Open means anyone can edit it. I explained this with a link to the basic policy on your talk page. Prominence is not a criterion. Doug Weller (talk) 17:51, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

I did not see your note until now. Your link to a WP policy page is a bad link. I'm not sure at this point what you mean by "open wiki". The Creationwiki is closed to only certain editors that are approved by the administration, so that doesn't seem to me to be open. Also, by your implied definition, then Wikipedia itself is not an allowable source. Christian Skeptic (talk) 20:36, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

Absolutely, you cannot use Wikipedia itself as a reference (ie you can't use other articles as a reference, although you obviously can link to them. Creationwiki is I agree restricted to Creationists, but that doesn't make it acceptable as a reliable source, it is still self-published just as Wikipedia is. The link, which I have fixed, sorry about that, is WP:SPS. Doug Weller (talk) 20:55, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

The list of sites in "External Links" are not sources for the article and therefore are not subject to the WP:SPS policy which has to do with referenced sources for the article. External links are just a list of links to places where similar topics are discussed. I have not yet found a WP policy that says External Links cannot be self published. Apparently no other editor here has a problem with this because ALL of the links listed are self published, including all those that are critical of Flood Geology.

The claim that Creationwiki is not prominent enough is bogus. By that criteria all most all of the external links both for and against Flood Geology would have to be eliminated. Christian Skeptic (talk) 21:29, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

Taking the formal External Links policy:

Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 06:53, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

[edit] The great flood in the history of geology

The order of the paragraphs in this section is weird - couldn't the para on the 18th century be moved so it comes in between the para on the Enlightenment and the 19th century? PiCo (talk) 07:42, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Misleading as written

This paragraph is misleading;

"Generally, the geologic column and the fossil record are used as major pieces of evidence in the modern scientific explanation of the development and evolution of life on Earth as well as a means to establish the age of the Earth. Some creationists deny the existence of these pieces of evidence. This is the approach taken by Morris and Whitcomb in their 1961 book, The Genesis Flood, and it is continued today by leading creationists such as Michael Oard and John Woodmorappe.[23]"

This says that Morris, Oard and Woodmorappe deny that there are fossils in the geologic record, which is innacurate.

They all recognize that the geology of past events of the earth is recorded in the rocks, However, they deny the Geologic Column, which is an interpretation of the rock record as evolution of the earth over millions of years.

They all recognize the existence of fossils in the rock record, but they interpret the fossil record in the rocks as the result of burial in the Flood and not as a record of evolution over millions of years (the typical interpretation).

The difference has to do with interpretation of the geologic rock record and interpretation of the fossil record, not the denial of the either one. Christian Skeptic (talk) 16:30, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

Your version is at least as inaccurate as the original. They do not deny the existence of the fossils themselves, but frequently cherry pick the evidence contained in these fossils (and surrounding geology) to support their predetermined "interpretation". Such cherry-picking of evidence can reasonably be interpreted as implicit 'denial' of the evidence that is left out because it contradicts the interpretation. Thus it would be more accurate to claim that they deny much of the evidence contained in the fossil evidence, rather than the fossils themselves. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 19:13, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

The fossils and surrounding geology must be interpreted within a paradigm, they do not automatically mean anything. The creationary catastrophists often interpret the evidence differently from typical geologic interpretation because they start with a Flood geology paradigm. The typical geologic interpretation is done within the paradigm of Naturalism which assumes deep time, abiogenesis and evolutionism. So unlike the first sentence of the paragraph, the geologic column and fossil record are not evidence for evolution and deep time, but are rather interpretation of the rocks within naturalism. They do deny the typical interpretation of the fossils and rock, but do not deny the evidence itself. Christian Skeptic (talk) 19:31, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

"Interpret the evidence differently" = Procrustian stretching and omission of evidence to fit their "paradigm", to serve no other purpose than the confirmation of the assumptions underlying this paradigm. Legitimate geology is ubiquitously (not merely typically) done according to the scientific method. "Creationary catastrophists" are generally-unqualified religious zealots performing pseudogeology, as an apologetic for their religious wordlview. Kindly cease your WP:FRINGE WP:POV-pushing attempts to give equal validity to the latter. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 06:57, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

Interestingly enough I read that many of the early geologists of the 19th century were devout Christians. They went out into the field to look for evidence of the global flood and came back with the honest realisation that a global flood had not occurred. Surely each Christian ought to reinterprete their understanding of Genesis rather than peddle flood geology as a science. J. Laurence Kulp once said "flood geology is unscientific, ludicrous and "has done and will do considerable harm to the strong propagation of the gospel among educated people". I wholeheartedly agree with Kulp--Another berean (talk) 07:56, 29 August 2008 (UTC).

Indeed. Many early geologists were in fact parish vicars (the occupation allowing them sufficient free time for amateur geology). They also developed Gap creationism to attempt to reconcile their science with their faith. Darwin himself was a product of this milieu and had a strong early interest in geology (roughly contemporaneous with his studying to be a clergyman). Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 09:10, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

<undent> Herbert's paper has relevance to the above point. Around 1825 there was strong support amongst English clergymen naturalists for the idea that a "diluvium" accounted for geological features, but she goes on to describe on p. 173 "the rapidity of change within the field of geology. For Sedgwick in 1831 there remained a distinction between diluvial and alluvial deposits, but the connection between 'diluvium' and the Noachian flood had been dissolved. Thus when Darwin was actively pursuing the study of geology during his last terms at Cambridge, he would have encountered a diluvial theory separated from connection to the biblical flood." . . dave souza, talk 11:15, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

To support my position above about the paradigm determining how one interprets geology I point to Stephen J. Gould in his 1987 book "Time's Arrow; Time's Cycle" where he say in regard to the assumptions needed to do geology (And those are philosophical assumptions which come from one's world view or paradigm):

"You can't go to an outcrop and observe either the constancy of nature's laws or the vanity of unknown processes. It works the other way round: in order to proceed as a scientist, you assume that nature's laws are invariant and you decide to exhaust the range of familiar causes before inventing any unknown mechanisms. Then you go to the outcrop. The first two uniformities [uniformity of law and process] are geology's versions of fundamental principles-induction and simplicity-embraced by all practicing scientists both today and in Lyell's time." Pg 120 Gould 1987 Time’s Arrow; Time’s Cycle

The point is that these assumptions do not come from science (further reading of Gould's book bears this out), they must be made before one can do science. They come from one's philosophy. And that is what determines how one looks and interprets the rock record. On the one hand you have Naturalism that assumes no God, deep time, Abiogenesis, and Evolutionism. On the other you have Creationism that assumes a creator God, limited time, created origin of life forms, adaptability to environment, and a global cataclysm that caused most of the geologic record and the death and burial of what have become fossils. Most scientists have chosen willfully or ignorantly to do science within the paradigm on Naturalism. Creationists willfully chose to do science within Creationism. --Christian Skeptic (talk) 16:45, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

Creationists "willfully chose" to throw out the facts that don't fit their preconceived conclusions. As a paleoichthyologist and correspondent of George McCready Price described Price's work on flood geology: "based on scattering mistakes, omissions, and exceptions against general truths that anybody familiar with the facts in a general way can not possibly dispute." This is not 'doing science'. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 19:21, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

All Creationary geologists today recognize that Price was an armchair geologist who made many mistakes. You need to get out of the dark ages and read what Creationary geologists today are saying. Read through the issues of CRSQ, Creation Journal, Creation Ex Nihilo Journal, Answers in Genesis on-line Research Journal http://www.answersingenesis.org/arj and Origins by GRI. Until you do that you don't know anything about Creation geology. Christian Skeptic (talk) 19:49, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

So modern creationist pseudogeologists are less crude in their Procrustian efforts than Price was, that's hardly a cause to take them seriously. From somebody who is advocating the abandonment of two centuries of modern geology, a field pioneered by many devout Christians, an exhortation to "get out of the dark ages" is ludicrous. If I read a bunch of journals from organisations whose mandatory doctrinal statements can be paraphrased as 'God did it and there was a global flood', and discover that they reach the conclusion that 'God did it and there was a global flood' is neither the least bit surprising nor compelling. I have no particular interest in the details of the latest incarnation of this pseudoscientific apologetic -- I no doubt would need to gain myself a geology degree in order to trace down their precise omissions, misrepresentations and deceptions. Both by individual choice, and according to wikipedia policy, I should instead rely on what the real experts say -- real geologists doing real science within a real scientific paradigm, that yields real results (rather than solely the parroting back of their core assumption). Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 06:14, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Okay so by "real results (rather than solely the parroting back of their core assumption)" I am guessing you are not referring to the fact that deep time and the geologic column are both core assumptions AND results. You also openly acknowledge that you assume misrepresentations and deceptions based on the say so of experts that you consider real (i.e. the flood geologists are therefore NOT real scientists) apparently BECAUSE these same comments. So when the conclusion meets with your approval it comes from a real scientist and when it does not then it is pseudoscience - even though psuedoscience is about the METHOD not the conclusion. LowKey (talk) 00:15, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Your assertion about "the fact that deep time and the geologic column are both core assumptions AND results" is blatantly untrue. Both were established in the 1820s onwards by the very clergymen / natural philosophers who at the start of that decade were proposing diluvianism to explain features in terms of a worldwide flood – see Herbert's paper linked above. Adam Sedgwick and William Buckland were Christians and honest geologists. . . dave souza, talk 08:21, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Apologies for weighing in on this. I didn't mean to start debating, & I don't wish to. Now weighing out.LowKey (talk) 00:05, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Proposal to change the order of the information as presented on this page

Hi, I am new to this particular page. I am not a YEC, but I was curious about the particular beliefs associated with Flood Geology, and I have to say that it is difficult to glean objective information from this site. To those who feel strongly about debunking Flood Geology: The inclusion of negative comments in just about every paragraph is not helping your cause; I ended up clicking on the link to the "answers in genesis" site in order to obtain a more readable (albeit certainly not objective) account of Flood Geology's basic tenets.

My suggestion is that we retain all the information on this page, but structure it in the following way:

1. Keep the very first paragraph that summarizes Flood Geology's basic beliefs.

2. Name specific organizations that support or oppose Flood Geology. Avoid loaded/undefined terms such as "scientists". However, if we could find a direct quote about Flood Geology or YEC in general from the National Academy of Science, that would be acceptable. In this section, it would be great if we could find some specific statistics describing the percentage of (North American?) individuals who claim to believe in the veracity of the Flood account. If this is not possible, we could cite the percentage of individuals claiming to believe in Young Earth Creationism, and note that belief in a worldwide flood is strongly associated with YEC.

I think we should avoid the temptation to comment on the significance of these statistics with remarks such as "the people who believe in Flood Geology are not really scientists". In general, readers of this page will have enough familiarity with notable organizations such as the Discovery Institute, or the NAS, and can decide for themselves which are reliable sources of scientific information. If not, they can click on the links and learn more. The idea is to present Flood Geology's incidence of belief in a neutral, encyclopedic fashion.

Now, the fact that this is a "hot topic" is not insignificant. However, we should attempt to treat the matter professionally and, to limit emotional outbursts petitioning the reader to believe one thing or another. Hence:

3. Describe the arguments in favor of the Flood Geology model, including historical arguments (i.e. arguments originally made in the 1600s, etc. along with a description of the current popularity of those arguments).

4. Describe the arguments against the Flood Geology model, also including historical counter-arguments.

Sections 3 and 4 would eliminate the need for a "history of flood geology" section.

5. Describe the various models of "where did all that water come from", along with counter-arguments.

6. Keep the links for further reading classified into pro- and anti- flood stances.

If this proposal seems reasonable, I look forward to restructuring the page with you all, sometime in the near future.

Cynthia1981 (talk) 15:15, 1 September 2008 (UTC)Posted by Cynthia1981 on September 1, 2008.Cynthia1981 (talk) 15:15, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 16:50, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

The emergence of Flood Geology section is key and needs to be retained, it shows its roots (by an armchair geologist holding a questionable belief system - work from the Devil?), its decline and its current popularity. --Another berean (talk) 16:58, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

The discovery institute is nothing more than a propaganda house for creationism and views that fall outside "science" and into "pseudoscience" as far as I know.. It isn't a scientific organisation, but a lobbying organisation (responsible for the rebranding of creationism as ID). There are articles which state "geologists have rejected" and similar.. I think that is enough to warrant that wording. There's no big list of scientific minded people who don't believe a story that has its origins from mythology: they're simply outside the field of science. It was never a result of scientific findings in the first place.

Classification of pro and anti links sounds a bit silly, there's almost no debate whatsoever in science (geology, biology etc), the occasional "we've found the ark" followed by scamming a bunch of money for expeditions which later turn out to be scams or "inconclusive". NathanLee (talk) 17:00, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

I don't think I have much to add to the responses above, except to agree. I don't like the proposal. Doug Weller (talk) 18:54, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Bretz

Why is he addressed in the introduction and the issue is never broached again? It's unclear what point is being served. The cites appear to be examples of his work which don't support the claims a) that he was dismissed by scientists, b) that it's accepted science now or c) that his story has relevance to Flood geology. There isn't any explanation of the differences between episodic catastrophism and flood geology which adds to the confusion, why it's paid any mind in the intro?Professor marginalia (talk) 20:59, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Clarification needed

"The ordering of fossil layers is often used as evidence for the scientific explanation of geological features." This claim doesn't say how or why this is so. I think the idea needs clarification.Professor marginalia (talk) 00:44, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

And for a pseudoscientific explanation (useful for article?), see tinyurl.com/6dfrq7 ^rossnixon 02:12, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Dubious Assertion re contradicting evidence

The statement about flood geology contradicting much of the evidence underlying the current consensus is dubious at best. This needs RS showing flood geologist actually contradicting actual evidence, and much of it. And it needs to be based on what flood geologist actually say, rather than what others say they say. Otherwise the statement is shown to be weaselly and POV.LowKey (talk) 00:14, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

I've sourced this to TalkOrigins Archive list of creationist geological claims. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 10:16, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

and I've counter sourced this to Creationary refutations to Isaac's bogus "refutations" to counter Hrafn's POV pushing. Christian Skeptic (talk) 13:58, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

And I've removed that crappy source. Anyways, the CN is in the lede, which usually has no citations, but summarizes the articles. Refs are in the main body, and there are plenty. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 14:11, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

It's a crappy source because you don't agree with it. Talk of POV!!!! Since you remove this citations because it is supposed to be in the main body, then I'm removing the other for the same reason. Christian Skeptic (talk) 14:22, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Talk about double standards!!!! This topic is about what a "fringe" group proposes, but you do not quote anything that the "fringe" group actually says because they are "fringe". That is just plain stupidity! Christian Skeptic (talk) 14:26, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Talk about tendentious claptrap. WP:FRINGE pseudoscientists are clearly not a WP:RS for how their crank claims conflict with science. They can be used as primary sources for their claims -- though even here reliable secondary sources are to be preferred, but not for anything else. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 14:35, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

It's not a reliable source because it's a wiki. Disputing these other objections serves no point.Professor marginalia (talk) 14:42, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Agreed. It's a wiki, end of story. I note that CS doesn't understand policy on OR either: [3]. Doug Weller (talk) 15:56, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

WHAT crank claims???? Provide a source for the EVIDENCE that these claims contradict: from what flood geologists claim. Spell out what they say, not what someone else says they say. IF they contradict then quote their contradiction or get rid of the statement. The statement does not say how any claims contradict science; it merely asserts that flood geology (and we will have to assume that some specific claims are implied here) contradicts much (non-specific weasel word) of the evidence (and we note it says evidence, not interpretation or method or conclusion). Back it up or cut it out.LowKey (talk) 22:48, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

<outdent>Hrafn's source does not match the statement anyway. It is a list of claims with responses, but the claims AND the response are offering explanations of THE SAME EVIDENCE. No one is contradicting anyone else's evidence in that list. The source fails verification. And it is incorrect to say that the lead usually has no citations. The lead should avoid redundant citations. What we have here is a tendentious, weasel-worded POV assertion with no RS, parenthetical to boot. So far only Hrafn has attempted to source it. The source reference dealt with interpretations and conclusions but I could not see any contradiction of evidence in it. The others objecting to the challenge seem to think the statement is self-evident without needing verification. A) that's a pretty good indicator of POVblindness; and B) if is so self-evident and uncontroversial RS should be very easy to provide. And can we please strive to recognise the difference between evidence and interpretation or conclusion?

 Example: Water on my desk is evidence, leaky roof and spilled drink are both interpretations.
 Water marks on the ceiling are also evidence.  If I still say spilled drink because there is no 
 water mark on the ceiling I have contradicted the evidence.  If I say that the water mark on the
 ceiling could be from water that splashed there when the drink was spilled then I have NOT contradicted
 the evidence.

LowKey (talk) 23:48, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

No. Flood geology is not even close to being an 'explanation' of "THE SAME EVIDENCE". The "evidence" (and the snear-quotes are entirely intentional) that flood geology is based upon is a gross cherry-picking and misrepresentation (e.g. by quote mining) of the real evidence. This is made easier by the fact that most prominent flood geologists have had no formal training in geology (and thus are often quite quite genuinely ignorant of the full evidence and how it fits together). LowKey's position would appear to be an attempt to give equal validity to the long-debunked claims of flood geologists that, a mountain of documentation not withstanding, their half-baked hypotheses are "explanations of THE SAME EVIDENCE" -- in spite of the fact that they have repeatedly demonstrated themselves to be ignorant (wilfully or otherwise) of the bulk of this evidence. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 03:37, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Then it shouldn't have been difficult to provide a source that actually backed up the actual statement. None of the sources so far have done that. The most recent one that I saw was STILL the author disagreeing with the interpretation of the evidence. Provide a quote of a flood geologist CONTRADICTING an actual piece of evidence (i.e. either saying that it does not exist or saying it is other than it is). The reference about the geologic column was probably about the closest to doing this, except for the fact the geologic column is an interpretive synthesis. I am not attacking these interpretations, but they are not the evidence.LowKey (talk) 05:09, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Silly Rabbit has cited the Geologic Column as evidence that is contradicted. Notice that WP has no such article but redirects to Geologic Timescale, which is an interpretation. I am not debating the validity of the interpretation; I am merely pointing out that it is one. The cited source has Morton quoting YEC's on the Geologic Column and saying that he can show where it exists in entirety according to their own definition. He then goes on to change the definition to either what he THINKS they mean or what he HOPES they mean and then attacks that definition. He demonstrates quite ably that the GC is not an objective piece of evidence, but a synthesis of evidence which may be synthesised different ways by different people.LowKey (talk) 02:29, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Flood geology contradicts just about every piece of relevant geochronometric data: including radiometric dating, existence of the geologic column, and the fossil record. If you don't believe that these are "evidence", then fine. It's your own prerogative to do so. But in order to conform to WP:NPOV, the article should try to represent accurately the views of the vast majority of experts (geologists) for whom the geologic column is a fact and is a piece of evidence, not just an interpretation of evidence. We could dance around the issue of what constitutes "evidence" all evening. Maybe there really is no such thing as "evidence" for you. Maybe it all comes down to interpretation. This sort of thin-edge-of-the-wedge reasoning typifies Creationist objections to science. siâ„“â„“y rabbit (talk) 02:47, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Who is objecting to science? I challenged the statement because it makes weaselly POV assertions that have YET to be backed up. The article reflects majority views just fine without making unsubstanitated claims in the leader. Part of the problem is a serious conflation of evidence and interpretation. You even show it above where you call "dating" evidence. Dating is the interpretation of the underlying data. The fact there are those for whom the geologic column is a fact only highlights that they consider it well supported enough to become an assumption. It does not change the fact that it is an interpretation. I laid out a nice neat example so anyone could understand my meaning in the differentiation of evidence and interpretation. The statement does not say that the "scientific community" (which has essentially become a weasel word anyway) think this. It says that flood geology contradicts the evidence. So far not one of the provided sources has backed that up. All the sources seem to be "Here's what we say they say, and here's what we say that means, and here's how it doesn't fit" but they all come up short of actually supporting the actual statement.LowKey (talk) 03:03, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

You persistently deny that any possible reference would support the claim being made that flood geology contradicts the evidence underlying the current scientific consensus: even a direct quote which says explicitly that the geological evidence is incompatible with the assertions of flood geologists. Could you perhaps give an example of the kind of direct quote that would satisfy you? I'm really intrigued. Also, your sophomoric dismantling of the "evidence" as only an "assumption" doesn't help your case. siâ„“â„“y rabbit (talk) 03:19, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Not "any possible" reference, just the poor references that were supplied. The direct quote was again that author's interpretation of the evidence opposed to flood geologists interpretation. I spelled out above what I am looking for, more than once. As the statement is parenthical anyway, and apparently redundant (based on the general conflation I am seeing here) it should go.LowKey (talk) 05:09, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

This is getting increasingly tendentious. Sources have been given that explicitly stated that flood geology contradicted modern geological evidence, and you still refuse to accept the statement as adequately sourced. By the way, this is a statement which is totally uncontroversial (outside your own mind): flood geology was rejected by science over a century ago as inconsistent with the evidence. Period. Moreover, you have been totally overruled by several editors, and yet continue to make edits against the obvious consensus. siâ„“â„“y rabbit (talk) 01:23, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

They did not explicitly state any such thing. And the statement is that FG contradicts MUCH of the evidence of several scientific disciplines. Point to examples of FG contradictions of actual evidence and in sufficient numbers to justify "much". FG has been rejected by the "scientific concensus"- fine, provide RS and say so. FG contradicts "scientific concensus" - fine, provide RS and say so. But the parenthetical statement aslo needs RS that that matches the statement. Check what YEC's say and you will see that the statement is not "uncontroversial" at all. This started out tendentious because the statement is tendentious.LowKey (talk) 02:04, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Discussion preparatory to RfC

Er... Excuse me. What's the point of the usual editors of this page re-hashing their old arguments yet again, only this time it's under the header Request for Comment? What has been requested, per the RfC page instructions, is outside opinion; it's not the same old arguments from regular editors such as Christian Sceptic (who started the regular-editors'-discussion ball rolling). Could everybody please read the RfC instructions, because if those instructions are followed, the procedure will have a much better chance of being useful. "Requests for comment (RfC) is an informal, lightweight process for requesting outside input," "Before asking outside opinion here, it generally helps to simply discuss the matter on the article talk page first." (Italics in the original.) The usual editors of this page are kindly asked to a) not keep repeating the same everlasting comments, and b) to leave the RfC section for that outside opinion which they have requested by listing the article on the RfC page. If an outsider should come here to respond, it's highly dis-inviting for them to find, of all things, a straw poll between the usual suspects! I have not removed any comments, but merely re-named this section to "preparatory discussion", and moved the RfC header down. If there is in fact any outside input hidden in this section, I ask the regular editors to please move that outside input down into the actual RfC section below. I hope this helps. Bishonen | talk 22:32, 19 September 2008 (UTC).

I have moved to the section below threads initiated by users who had not edited the article for the three months preceding the RfC. Please feel free to move comments about further if I missed one or anyone feels that a different definition of uninvolved should be used. - Eldereft (cont.) 23:28, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

Good work, Eldereft. Thank you very much. Bishonen | talk 19:43, 22 September 2008 (UTC).

It was probably my fault. I notified some editors of the RfC (both yae and nae). Insufficient reading of the guidelines. Please accept my apologies.LowKey (talk) 23:29, 21 September 2008 (UTC)