Talk:A New Theory of the Earth

please state the nature of the dispute
If someone will please illustrate why Ungtss' version is appropriate, do so. Otherwise, we should remove the twoversions tag. Joshuaschroeder 16:44, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * Have you read the book, schroeder? if you had, you'd realize he talks a great deal about sedimentary rocks and fossils, etc.  what is your problem?  Ungtss 21:49, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * Yes, I did read the book. He talks about quite a lot of things, but not in a systematic way -- through no fault of his own: observational sciences were just getting started when he penned the tome. There are things that are blatantly incorrect in the book, there are things that are pretty spot on. It is not a book about flood geology like Henry Morris' books -- it is a book about observation and speculation that took place during the Enlightenment. Joshuaschroeder 23:13, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * i can't help but wonder why a discussion of strata, rocks, and fossils in the context of noah's flood does not qualify as flood geology in your world. thoughts?  Ungtss 23:18, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * Because flood geology was developed as an amalgamation of previously held ideas about geology and a rejection of modern geology. It would be like saying that Ptolemy accepted modern geocentrism. It's simply impossible for him to have done so because modern geocentrism as a modern endeavor wasn't around when Ptolemy was doing his stuff. It would be fine in my estimation to cite Morris or some other flood geology advocate who refered to this work as foundational to his understanding of flood geology, but the work in-and-of-itself isn't an advocate of flood geology. Joshuaschroeder 23:26, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * you're defining flood geology in an unneccesarily limited way to serve your purposes. that seems to be one of your pet tactics.  why are you saying that "flood geology" only came into being in the 18th century, when fossils had been read in terms of the flood for millenia?  i suppose the atheism of epicurus wasn't actually atheism either, because "real atheism" only came into being in the 19th century.  anyways.  your argument is nonsense as usual, but it's not worth the fight.  i'm going to add it as a link, and be done with it.  Ungtss 23:33, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Comet Tail
Are comets a key part of flood accounts? If not that should be reinserted into the article as an inconsistency in the hypothesis. - RoyBoy 800 22:59, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * How is it an inconsistency, rather than a refinement? Ungtss 23:03, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * Uh, its inconsistent if flood accounts make no mention of a massive comet in the sky leading up to the flood. Adding "refinements" requires keeping in mind the existing evidence; if it creates more problems than it solves; it should be taken with a pinch of salt. The Earth encountering the tail of a comet... wouldn't occur without comment. :"D - RoyBoy 800 04:58, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * the absence of a particular detail is not an inconsistency -- it's the absence of a detail. but feel free to add your point if you like.  it's not hard to deconstruct whiston's argument.  it's not much fun, either.  Ungtss 12:39, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * Well said! But dude, that's a pretty big "detail", comets coming to close proximity to Earth would be difficult to miss. Not fun for you perhaps, others may have alternative perspectives. - RoyBoy 800 21:51, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * Incidentally, many connect the comet hypothesis with the old superstition that comets were a bad omen, holding that we came to associate comets with bad events because there was a comet right before the flood. just a thought.  have fun deconstructing 300 year old arguments, roy boy.  Ungtss 21:58, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Addition of some stuff
I think I improved the article immensely... TuckerResearch 23:39, 8 October 2006 (UTC)