Talk:Flood geology/Archive 3

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


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

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

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

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

7:11 In the six hundredth year of Noah's life, in the second month, the seventeenth day of the month, the same day were all the fountains of the great deep broken up, and the windows of heaven were opened.

12 And the rain was upon the earth forty days and forty nights ...

17 And the flood was forty days upon the earth; and the waters increased, and bare up the ark, and it was lift up above the earth.

18 And the waters prevailed, and were increased greatly upon the earth; and the ark went upon the face of the waters.

19 And the waters prevailed exceedingly upon the earth; and all the high hills, that were under the whole heaven, were covered.

20 Fifteen cubits upward did the waters prevail; and the mountains were covered.

24 And the waters prevailed upon the earth an hundred and fifty days ....

8:1 And God remembered Noah, and every living thing, and all the cattle that was with him in the ark: and God made a wind to pass over the earth, and the waters assuaged;

2 The fountains also of the deep and the windows of heaven were stopped, and the rain from heaven was restrained;

3 And the waters returned from off the earth continually: and after the end of the hundred and fifty days the waters were abated.

4 And the ark rested in the seventh month, on the seventeenth day of the month, (150th day) upon the mountains of Ararat.

5 And the waters decreased continually until the tenth month: in the tenth month, on the first day of the month, were the tops of the mountains seen.

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

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

Allenroyboy 14:59, 24 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Personally, since I don't believe in this myth, write whatever you want in the religious section. However, be aware that YEC is not the only creationist POV, so you might get into an edit war with OEC's.  Don't make ay scientific claims, because it's not going to fly.  Good luck :)  Orangemarlin 18:39, 24 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Remember also you have to deal with the Islamic version of the same myth.--Filll 18:56, 24 July 2007 (UTC)


 * I would object to calling the "breaking of fountains of the great deep" and the "opening of the windows of heaven" as "physical events". One might argue about the fountains of the deep, but the windows of heaven are clearly metaphorical. --Stephan Schulz 19:30, 24 July 2007 (UTC)


 * So are "fountains of the great deep", relying as it does on a mythological cosmology where the earth is suspended upon a watery abyss. However, both are plainly intended to be metaphorical descriptions of physical events: water both falling from the sky and rising up from underground. TCC (talk) (contribs) 19:45, 24 July 2007 (UTC)


 * I know that. But cretinists do sometimes insist on literal fountains of the deep. Even among them, literal "windows of heaven" are rare. --Stephan Schulz 20:00, 24 July 2007 (UTC)


 * If I might enter an editorial comment here. This is what I don't get about biblical inerrancy.  The translation can be off.  How does one interpret the metaphorical descriptions (unless you don't think any of its metaphor)?  One word difference can throw off the who interpretation.  Never understood this.  Orangemarlin 20:29, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

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


 * You forget that the King James Bible was translated under the benevolent guidance of God, and is hence unquestioningly more correct than any older or newer version. The proof is trivial: Good would not allow so many Christians believe in an inferior Bible! --Stephan Schulz 20:59, 24 July 2007 (UTC)


 * just image all those poor people who cannot read english how lost they are!!!


 * The purpose of this article was to recap the Genesis record and so it ought to do so accurately, irregardless whether anyone believes it or not. I'll leave out the word physical.  Allenroyboy 21:02, 24 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Actually, that is most definitely not the purpose of this article. It's to describe the the Flood, why it might have happened, and the scientific analysis.  That's all.  It's not a Genesis article by any means.  Orangemarlin 22:35, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
 * I think he meant "section" or "paragraph". TCC (talk) (contribs) 22:51, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Irregardless is not a word. ornis ( t ) 22:59, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Apparently you missed out on the outstanding US educational system. The same one that tries to teach Intelligent Design and produces kids incapable of pointing to Australia on a map.  Orangemarlin 23:09, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Surely it's the Genesis record? ... dave souza, talk 23:14, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Of course. How could I miss that!!!!  Orange Marlin  Talk  23:47, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Cool sig! :) Firsfron of Ronchester  01:04, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
 * http://dictionary.reference.com/search?r=2&q=irregardless  Allenroyboy 02:48, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
 * I repeat. Irregardless is not a word. ornis ( t ) 03:44, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
 * I happen to agree. It's a non-standard word, more or less invented to sound intelligent.  So, if the word were real, what you'd be saying is that the purpose of the article is to NOT recap the Genesis record etc. etc.  The actual word you want is "irrespective of anyone's belief," because even "regardless" makes no sense.  "Irregardless" has no meaning in English, and is approximately equivalent to "ain't".  I used to laugh when flammable liquids had a big bold warning that said, "Inflammable."  In the desire to make words sound more important than they really are, we've actually created worthless words.   Orange Marlin  Talk• Contributions 22:40, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
 * The "in-" in "inflammable" doesn't mean the same thing as the "in-" in words like "inflexible" but is like the "in-" in "inflame". It's a synonym for "flammable" and is actually the older word. But so many people assume the same thing you did here that it's rarely used anymore to avoid confusion.


 * There's nothing all that wrong about "ain't" in some spoken dialects. It's mainly improper in formal speech and written English. TCC (talk) (contribs) 23:12, 25 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Now I knew I could learn something here that had nothing to do with Noah's Ark. I prefer formal English.  I doubt I've used the word "ain't" since I was a kid.   Orange Marlin  Talk• Contributions 23:39, 25 July 2007 (UTC)


 * (ri)Irregardless, were it a word, would literally mean "without without regard" (ir = without, less = without), thus we have a double negative that means "with regard". &#0149;Jim 62 sch&#0149;  22:52, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

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

Just explaining at more length than ConfuciusOrnis's edit summary, because it seems we need to be very explicit here. Aplomado's confusion is inexplicable. TCC (talk) (contribs) 04:33, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Thank you, yes I should have been more explicit, but I was two dumbfounded to do so. Clearly you're more patient than I. ornis</b> <b style="color:#C11B17; font-size:smaller;">( t )</b> 06:16, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Not really; I just haven't gotten wound up yet. I seem to remember reverting the same edit a couple of weeks ago. TCC (talk) (contribs) 06:36, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Nah I think that was me, I got snarky note left on my talk page to prove it and all [1] your last revert was the "Creationary" one ;) <b style="font-family:courier; color:#737CA1;">ornis</b> <b style="color:#C11B17; font-size:smaller;">( t )</b> 06:51, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Oh well. I thought I reverted it. Maybe you beat me to it by a few seconds. I've had that happen before. It doesn't say there was an edit conflict, it just silently ignores the attempt to save a version identical to the current one. TCC (talk) (contribs) 06:55, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Probably, happens to me all the time. <b style="font-family:courier; color:#737CA1;">ornis</b> <b style="color:#C11B17; font-size:smaller;">( t )</b> 06:57, 6 September 2007 (UTC)re

Beware: apologetics!
From the "theological basis" section:

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

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


 * I also had trouble finding this narrative when I reread the Biblical account. Do you know enough Biblical exegesis to give a brief summary of the main ways that the story is interpreted? It seems to me that the only points that are important for this article are that all the high mountains were covered with water, that the events happened on a scale of months, and that the "fountains of the deep" are mentioned in addition to rain (possibly, though not unambiguously indicating a subterranean source of water). Can't we trim the rest? --Art Carlson 14:14, 28 September 2007 (UTC)


 * I'd like to trim it, but it's going to be difficult. "Flood Geology" isn't really the place to be getting into a detailed discussion of the Documentary Hypothesis and related Bible issues, but the casual reader IS likely to want to know how long the Flood lasted.  That's a very basic question with an over-complicated answer! --Robert Stevens 20:54, 28 September 2007 (UTC)


 * I've found a reference describing the two accounts and put that in (I think some mention of it is unavoidable). I've also removed the un-Biblical stuff, and mentioned the mountains being covered (a relevant detail for the depth of the Flood). --Robert Stevens 21:39, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Note: The depth can't be known unless the height of the mountains back then is known. rossnixon —Preceding signed but undated comment was added at 03:28, 29 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Yes, but reasonable estimates can be made. And even with unreasonably low ones, there is a problem. <font face="Antiqua, serif">HrafnTalkStalk 03:46, 29 September 2007 (UTC)


 * I'd just like to point out that the documentary hypothesis is an unprovable literary hypothesis that has no evidence in any ancient text ever found. It is only hypothesized for the Bible.  Yet, It is likely that the account is an combination of accounts by Shem, Ham, and Japeth edited by Moses as indicated by the colophon in 10:6  "This is the account/history of Shem, Ham and Japheth, Noah's sons,"  Allenroyboy 16:23, 29 September 2007 (UTC)


 * And "I'd just like to point out that ... it is likely that" Allenroyboy is simply regurgitating religious dogma here. Can they point to a WP:RS that it is the academic consensus (not just the claim of a few conservative scholars) that "the account is an combination of accounts by Shem, Ham, and Japeth edited by Moses"? I think not. <font face="Antiqua, serif">HrafnTalkStalk 16:37, 29 September 2007 (UTC)


 * I'd just like to further point out that most Christians could care less what most "Biblical" scholars have to say, because most scholars are unbelievers. The Bible says that the Bible can only be spiritually discerned: "The man without the Spirit does not accept the things that come from the Spirit of God [i.e. the Bible], for they are foolishness to him, and he cannot understand them, because they are spiritually discerned."  Unbelievers, therefore, haven't a clue.  As can easily be seen by reading this talk page and the article.  Allenroyboy 20:14, 29 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Quite right. The Koran says the same thing. Maybe we should try to restrict ourselves to discussions relevant to editing the article. --Art Carlson 20:58, 29 September 2007 (UTC)
 * I'd like to point out to Allenroyboy that I don't give a pair of fetid dingos kidneys what a deviant minority of Christians claim "the Bible says." If you don't have a WP:RS for it then as far as wikipedia is concerned it doesn't exist. So look for a soapbox somewhere else for your sectarian dogma. <font face="Antiqua, serif">HrafnTalkStalk 00:51, 30 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Hrafn, you are skirting the edges of incivility. We don't need to agree on the nature of scripture here. The ground rules of Wikipedia are RS and NPOV. If someone thinks the article can be improved, then they should suggest a change (or at least point out where they see a concrete problem). Then we can discuss the alternatives on the basis of RS and NPOV. Let's quit the bickering (both of you). --Art Carlson 10:16, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

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

On further consideration, I'm striking my earlier statements and simply stating that Allenroyboy's remarks are wholly WP:SOAP, wholly lacking WP:RS and, by attacking those he brands "unbelievers" (a category that could indicate atheists, non-Christians or even Christians who don't share his doctrinal beliefs), a violation of WP:CIVIL. <font face="Antiqua, serif">HrafnTalkStalk 11:25, 30 September 2007 (UTC)
 * I was merely informing you that in general many Christians do not pay much attention to what unbelievers have to say about the Bible for the Biblical reason given above. It does not matter whether you like it or not.  It is not a WP:SOAP. It is simply a fact.
 * What minority of Christians believe is of no relevance to what goes into wikipedia (except in articles like Biblical literalism, where they are simply reporting these minority beliefs). Therefore your "facts" are nothing but irrelevant WP:SOAP, as stated. What does matter is the views of the experts you denigrate. That is the meaning of WP:RS & WP:UNDUE. <font face="Antiqua, serif">HrafnTalkStalk 02:14, 1 October 2007 (UTC)


 * An unbeliever is someone, according to the Bible, who does not have a loving, faith relationship with the God of the Bible.  What I may or may not think or believe is not the litmus test for who or who is not a believer.  The Bible is the litmus test.  And it is obvious to most anyone who will read the Bible, who is or is not a believer in God.
 * "According to the Bible"? Please state chapter and verse where it literally give this exact definition of an "unbeliever." When you project your beliefs onto the Bible, by equating your interpretation of it with what the Bible "says" you are most certainly making "what [you] may or may not think or believe is not the litmus test for who or who is not a believer" -- and (re)creating God in your own image. <font face="Antiqua, serif">HrafnTalkStalk 02:14, 1 October 2007 (UTC)


 * And the charge that conservative or 'fundamentalist' Christians are a insignificant minority does not jive with the many poles taken over the last several decades (which can be found on the internet--check it out). In the over-all US population it typically runs: ~40% conservative Christian, ~40% liberal Christian, ~15% atheist/agnostic, and ~5% other.  [I've seen a pole from the 1920s which gave essentially the same break down.]  About 80% of the population is Christian with about 1/2 of those being conservative.


 * I did not use the word "conservative", "fundamentalist" or "insignificant". Kindly do not put words in my mouth -- it is dishonest. According to Biblical literalism:


 * Combining their stats with yours, 18% of US Christians, and approximately 15% of US citizens, believe in Biblical literalism. <font face="Antiqua, serif">HrafnTalkStalk 02:14, 1 October 2007 (UTC)


 * As for "anti-intellectual"? I am currently studying to obtain my BS in Paleontology. And I expect to get my MS and PhD.  Also, I'm a member of MENSA.  Anti-intellectual?  Hardly!  Creationist?  Absolutely! Allenroyboy 21:40, 30 September 2007 (UTC)
 * That's "poll".
 * A YEC with a BS in Paleontology? Does anybody believe that he isn't studying this field solely in order to better misrepresent this field's clear findings (that overwhelming evidence exists of a pattern of evolution of species spanning millions of years)? Is this anti-intellectual? Absolutely!


 * The Christian world is much larger than the United States. It is, in any event, incorrect for you to conflate "conservative Christian" with "fundamentalist" or a belief in Biblical literalism. I am, in the strict sense of the word, a far more conservative Christian than you. Although my church does not deny the literal truth of the Old Testament, it doesn't really require belief in it that way either since to read it a an historical account is to miss the point. TCC (talk) (contribs) 21:54, 30 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Does Liberty University offer Paleontology? (sorry, couldn't resist) --Stephan Schulz 22:03, 30 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Don't know. Could care less.  I'm attending a State University.   Allenroyboy 22:07, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

The poll at this URL (http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2004/11/22/opinion/polls/main657083.shtml) states that 55% of Christians believe that God Created Humans in there present form. 27% of Christians believe that God used Evolution. (That's 82% of the USA population). Allenroyboy 22:28, 30 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Ummm, this poll is of Americans not Christians, so it states nothing of the sort! Not all Americans are Christians, and only a small minority of Christians are Americans. Nor for that matter are all Creationists Biblical literalists (Old Earth creationists and Progressive creationists often aren't). <font face="Antiqua, serif">HrafnTalkStalk 02:21, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
 * 55% of all Americans agreed with the statement that "God created humans in present form." What group of Americans are going to agree with that statement?   Atheists?  Buddhists?


 * It will be a group who believe that there is a God and that he created humans as they are. The only groups of Americans likely to believe that are Christian, Jewish and Muslim believers.  Polls indicate that ~82% of the USA population is Christian, ~1% is Jewish, and ~1% Muslim.   So what does logic tell us about who are going to make up the 55% of American who believe God created humans in the present form?    Could it be Christians????????


 * The logical conclusion is that about 55% of Americans are Christians who believe in a special creation. They are NOT a whimpering minority.  You had better get used to it.  More and more American Christians rejecting the Federal Governments established religion of Naturalism and its dogma of Evolutionism.  69.145.64.156 02:41, 2 October 2007 (UTC)


 * This is just silly and has no place here since it is essentially a violation of WP:SOAP. --Filll 20:03, 2 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Literal-Genesis creationism is virtually unknown in "Christian" countries outside America (in the developed world, at least: not sure about Africa etc). However, what does any of this have to do with the article? "This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Flood geology article. This is not a forum for general discussion about the article's subject". --Robert Stevens 08:28, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

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

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

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

Who all bit the dust?
In the section on Theological basis, in the sentence The waters of the flood rose so high that "all the high mountains that were under the whole heaven were covered", drowning all life on Earth except the occupants of Noah's Ark. I changed "all life" to "all land animals". It's not at issue here what would make sense, for heaven's sake, (that freshwater fish & many plants wouldn't survive), but what is written in the Biblical account. In Genesis 7 it is written, e.g., All flesh that moved on the earth perished, birds and cattle and beasts and every swarming thing that swarms upon the earth, and all mankind; of all that was on the dry land, all in whose nostrils was the breath of the spirit of life, died. Thus He blotted out every living thing that was upon the face of the land, from man to animals to creeping things and to birds of the sky, and they were blotted out from the earth; and only Noah was left, together with those that were with him in the ark. No mention of plants or fish dying (although they "must" have). And you don't hear of Noah taking fish bowls and potted plants into the ark either. No, the Bible only talks of land animals. --Art Carlson 13:59, 2 October 2007 (UTC)


 * The phrase "in whose nostrils was the breath of life" excludes insects from needing to be saved on the Ark. Insects do not have nostrils on their heads by which to breath.  To be sure it would have been impossible to keep all insects off the ark, but the hundreds of thousands of species would not need to be on it to survive.  This is especially true when they are in their larval form.


 * The phrase "creeping things" elsewhere in the Bible refers to small animals and sometimes reptiles, but not to insects.


 * Also, in the Bible only animals are considered to be "alive," having the "breath of life". Plants are, for the most part, just food stuffs for animals and are not considered really "alive."  It is just in our age that plants are considered life forms, because of the study of the cell.  Christian Skeptic 15:16, 2 October 2007 (UTC)


 * I think that everyone here is taking the Bible far too literally. Obviously there are some flaws in this particular story, however you have to remeber that God is omnipotent, so if he really wanted, he could have saved the plants and the fish, as he evidently did, as I quote:

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

Removed image


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

ScienceApologist 17:54, 2 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Seems to come directly from a creationist website, direct link is: . In turn, this picture or the facts it is related to seem to come from "Arthur V. Chadwick, “Megabreccias: Evidence for Catastrophism,” Origins, Vol. 5, No. 1, 1978, pp. 39–46.". Homestarmy 18:08, 2 October 2007 (UTC)


 * So Art Chadwick in 1978 believed that erratics were evidence for liquefaction? I think to be honest about this claim we need to evaluate both the reliability and the relevance of this source to general claims of flood geology. ScienceApologist 18:24, 2 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Is that really necessary just to state that Creationists claim the picture represents evidence for large-scale liquefaction? Homestarmy 18:51, 2 October 2007 (UTC)


 * I think so. We have a picture that is 30-years-old standing in for claimed evidence of a global flood. That's a pretty tall order even for a creationist claim. We should have more than a single book if we are using it to declare what "creationists claim". ScienceApologist 18:59, 2 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Chadwick has never proposed large scale liquefaction. See: http://www.grisda.org/origins/05039.pdf So far as I know, Brown is the only one who has proposed liquefaction.  Which other creationists are disproving with experiments.   http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1-8C4KFdx_4  [last couple minutes] --Christian Skeptic 19:46, 2 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Then this definitely doesn't belong here. ScienceApologist 21:29, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

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

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

Dismissing out of hand
I made this edit with the summary "out-of-hand" suggests that they don't have any arguments against it, which was reverted by Orangemarlin with the summary Reverting POV. The change was from this sentence However, creationist presentations of what they believe is evidence are routinely dismissed out-of-hand by the scientific community and as such flood geology is considered pseudoscience. Flood geology directly contradicts the current consensus in scientific disciplines such as geology, evolutionary biology and paleontology. to this one The scientific community, however, sees the observations cited as easily interpreted within the consensus framework, and the interpretations of the creationists as being in severe conflict other well-established observations in geology, evolutionary biology and paleontology. As such flood geology is considered pseudoscience. There are several editorial changes that might be weighed against each other. The substantive change is that I removed the statement that flood geology is "rejected out of hand" and added the statement that all the observations fit within the standard paradigm. When I read "rejected out of hand", I get a picture of establishment types, who refuse to even look at a hypothesis, solely because it comes from a religious person. That does the scientific community injustice. Although they surely get tired of refuting the same nonsense over and over again, I contend that the scientific community has dismissed nothing out of hand, but has weighed it and found it wanting. I would like the formulation to reflect that. Can't wait to hear how Orangemarlin sees it. --Art Carlson 13:42, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

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

I think the statement needs to contain two elements: <font face="Antiqua, serif">HrafnTalkStalk 14:20, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
 * 1) that the scientific dismissal is thoughtful, not reflexive; and
 * 2) that this dismissal is unequivocal.


 * That works for me. "unequivocal" is probably what Orangemarlin meant with "out of hand", and if you think that "severe conflict" equivocates, well, OK. I still kind of like my version, but I admit that yours reads better. --Art Carlson 14:45, 3 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Just so you don't have to read my mind, I watch probably 1500 articles, almost all of them controversial (though a bunch like hockey articles aren't...usually). If I don't see one of the "regulars", and I see what appears to be a POV change, I'll revert using Twinkle.  I've never liked the words "scientific consensus" because it sounds like a bunch of old guys sitting around a table, looking at something like Flood geology, and making a grand pronouncement.  I probably did not write the original verbiage, and I probably wouldn't have used "out of hand" because I think science is a bit equivocal.  Anyways, I don't mind Hrafn's language.  Orange Marlin  Talk• Contributions 14:52, 3 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Just read the revision. Strong, but appropriate.   Orange Marlin  Talk• Contributions 16:54, 3 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Yeah, we've crossed paths at Homeopathy. Won't be the last time. Be cool. --Art Carlson 17:49, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

Proposed introductory paragraphs
{{hidden|WP:SOAP|2

Proposed introductory paragraphs
I realize that most editors here feel that the first two paragraphs present a NPOV, however, most creationist would consider them as giving a highly polarized POV. With that in mind I propose the following introductory paragraphs:


 * Flood geology (also creation geology or diluvial geology) is an interpretation of geologic evidence within the paradigm of creationism that assumes the literal truth of a global cataclysm as described in Genesis 7 and 8. Genesis is read as a historically accurate record from which a geologic history of the earth can be derived. The cataclysm and consequential aftermath are thought to explain most of Earth’s geological features including sedimentary strata, fossilization, fossil fuels, sumbarine canyons, plate tectonics, salt domes and frozen mammoths.


 * Creationary geologists develop flood model hypotheses based upon the historicity of the flood. The evaluation, refutation, and dismissal of these models by much of the scientific community calls for better modeling by creationary cataclysmists.  However, to creationists, the rejection of the models does not disprove the accepted historic fact of a global cataclysm.


 * The difference between flood models and the actualistic interpretations that modern geologists commonly make is largely just one of intensity. All geologists today accept the actualistic view that allows for major cataclysms interspersed among large time periods of near stasis.  In contrast, Creationary modelers put a series of closely related cataclysmic events into a short period of time.  For instance, given the reality of impact craters on earth, what would have happened if comet Shoemaker-Levy 9 had hit Earth instead of Jupiter?


 * Creationists dismiss the charge of pseudoscience because the global flood is not proposed as a scientific hypothesis. Pseudoscience is the development of hypotheses that cannot be falsified.  The flood is held as a historical fact not a hypothesis.


 * Still, some creationists believe that scientific evidence can be used to prove the accuracy of the Bible. However, Popper has shown that the best that science can do is disprove hypotheses.  Creationists believe that the teachings of the Bible are not scientific hypotheses to be disproved, so their appeal to science is flawed thinking.

--Christian Skeptic 15:48, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

I have three problems with this proposal: <font face="Antiqua, serif">HrafnTalkStalk 16:05, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
 * 1) It is frequently fallacious.
 * 2) It is a violation of WP:UNDUE.
 * 3) It does not have WP:RS supporting it.


 * It gives undue weight to creationist apologetics, especially for the introduction (some of it might be more appropriate for "creationist interpretations of evidence", maybe). Creationists are undoubtedly making scientific claims: they are claiming that much of science (and history etc) is false.  It also lacks qualifiers in places: "based upon the historicity of the flood", " the accepted historic fact of a global cataclysm", "The difference between flood models and the actualistic interpretations that modern geologists commonly make is largely just one of intensity" (not according to geologists, it isn't!).  It fails to clarify that creationism IS pseudoscience, and that it DOES contradict the current consensus (and much of the evidence underlying it) in scientific disciplines such as geology, evolutionary biology and paleontology: as the current introduction correctly states.  And it's entirely lacking in citations (especially those from reliable sources: but it even lacks citations from creationist sources). --Robert Stevens 16:09, 4 October 2007 (UTC)


 * I also disagree with a lot of the way the proposed wording is presented. First of all, flood geology isn't an "interpretation" except in the most bare sense of the term. Flood geology is an endeavor by YEC pseudoscientists to set-up an alternative and parallel discourse to mainstream geology. Moreover, creationism isn't a "paradigm" in the sense of Kuhn's definition of the term since paradigm implies process science. The version also does a fairly poor job of distinguishing what is generally agreed upon by all and what is the specific purview of certain kinds of creationists versus others (e.g. Genesis is read as a historically accurate record only by YECs not by OECs). There are wording issues too. Using the reflexive "are thought to explain" implies acceptance which is not afforded this idea. The term "creationary geologists" is a neologism to be avoided and the "flood model hypothesis" is a misnomer. Claiming that the evaluation, refutation, and dismissal reflexively "calls for better modeling" is a value judgment that Wikipedia cannot allow. Also, claiming that there even exists "flood models" is arguable: a point-of-view which cannot be simply stated as fact. The third paragraph smacks a bit of original research, though I tend to agree with parts of its analysis. The fourth paragraph doesn't make sense in light of the first two paragraphs since scientific terminology and appeals to methodology are used in the beginning and subsequently are claimed to be differentiated. I'll also point out the use of a common misconception which is restated here that pseudoscience is only the development of hypotheses that cannot be falsified. Pseudoscience can also be the continued advocacy of falsified hypotheses. Trying to demarcate between fact and hypothesis is also problematic. The final sentence is also arguable. Popper is not the be-all and end-all of deciding what science "can and cannot do".


 * In short, there are a lot more problems with Christian Skeptic's version than the current version.


 * ScienceApologist 16:13, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

To hrafn: The original two paragraphs do not have any WP:RS quoted or noted either.
 * The WP:RS supporting them are contained in the article body, as well as in related articles (e.g. Creation geophysics). <font face="Antiqua, serif">HrafnTalkStalk 03:54, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

To Robert S: Creationists do not claim that much of science is wrong, but rather that much of the interpretations of the historical sciences (anthropology, geology, paleontology, etc.) is flawed and biased by the paradigm of naturalism. Creationists have no problem is the "hard" sciences like chemistry, physics, biology, etc.
 * As a physicist, I am pleased, although rather surprised, to learn this. But it is good to know that you and I find common ground in hard facts of physics like radiometric dating and the Big Bang. --Art Carlson 20:45, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
 * I love Creationists. They invent these arbitrary distinctions to support themselves.  Science is science, and frankly, I've been in the "hard science" area for about a billion years (I'm old), and I've never heard the term. Never heard the term historical science either.  In fact, paleontology is a branch of biology.  Anthropology is a branch of biology.  Geology stands alone, but really is physics and chemistry.  This is nonsense.   Orange Marlin  Talk• Contributions 21:45, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Never heard "hard science"? Hm. The dividing line is typically between those sciences that yield quantifiable results vs. those that don't. I'd say the antonym is "social sciences", but that's not as true as it used to be. TCC (talk) (contribs) 03:02, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

To SA: Pseudoscience is the setting up of scientific hypotheses that cannot be falsified. The flood cataclysm is accepted by creationists as a historical fact, just as the assassination of Abraham Lincoln is a historical fact. It is not a scientific hypotheses that can be falsified. Flood models can be falsified. But that falsification does not make the flood any less of a historical fact in the eyes of creationists.

As for my used of paradigm: Read [|paradigm]  I was not using it in the ambiguous sense that Kuhn was using it.

The phrase 'creationary geologist' simply means a geologist who accepts creationism, just as it says. The adjective 'creationary' is used in the same way as the adjective 'evolutionary'. You can have 'evolutionary geologist' or a 'creationary geologist'. The meaning is clear to anyone who can read. Just because you have not read it before does not mean that it is new. It just means that you are not well read in creationary literature.

Th third paragraph is a common understanding in creatonary literature. I did not go looking for any sources because the original paragraphs did not give any sources for the claims made in them.

I agree that the promotion of a falsified hypothesis is also pseudoscience. However, the idea of a global cataclysm is not an hypothesis derived from scientific data, but a historical event to those who believe that Genesis is a historical account. Of course, to those who do not believe Genesis is historical, then the flood is not considered a fact. This is where the real controversy is. Is Genesis historical or myth? This is a philosophical question not a scientific question. The creationist accepts Genesis and the Flood as historical and so see the scientific data within that world view. The anti-creationists considers Genesis and the Flood to be myth and so see all the scientific data within that viewpoint. Which view you start with determines how you look at the scientific data. --Christian Skeptic 18:07, 4 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Here is a point-by-point response to Christian Skeptic's statement to me:


 * To SA: Pseudoscience is the setting up of scientific hypotheses that cannot be falsified.... I agree that the promotion of a falsified hypothesis is also pseudoscience.


 * This is an apparent contradiction.


 * The flood cataclysm is accepted by creationists as a historical fact, just as the assassination of Abraham Lincoln is a historical fact. It is not a scientific hypotheses that can be falsified.


 * Historical facts are not facts if they are contradicted by historical evidence. This is simply moving terms around rather than addressing the basic point that Genesis describes an event that most rational and thinking people accept couldn't be literally true.


 * Flood models can be falsified. But that falsification does not make the flood any less of a historical fact in the eyes of creationists.


 * Just like showing that prayer doesn't heal people doesn't make religious people believe that prayer is ineffective. That's hardly the issue here, though. We're not supposed to be accommodating the idiosyncratic beliefs of various people: we're supposed to be writing a verifiable and reliable encyclopedia.


 * As for my used of paradigm: Read [|paradigm]  I was not using it in the ambiguous sense that Kuhn was using it.


 * That's fine. You can use it any way you wish. However, since the word is ambiguous, there is no way for the reader to know what way you intended the word to be used.


 * The phrase 'creationary geologist' simply means a geologist who accepts creationism, just as it says.


 * Do you have any citation for that? It still looks like a neologism.


 * The adjective 'creationary' is used in the same way as the adjective 'evolutionary'.


 * By whom?


 * You can have 'evolutionary geologist' or a 'creationary geologist'.


 * Do you have any citations for someone who refers to "evolutionary geologist"? I certainly haven't heard of that term.


 * The meaning is clear to anyone who can read.


 * I can read and it wasn't clear to me.


 * Just because you have not read it before does not mean that it is new.


 * True. So show me a citation to a non-creationist who uses it.


 * It just means that you are not well read in creationary literature.


 * We shouldn't be relying on "creationary literature" to present neutral facts because such literature is not reliable.


 * The third paragraph is a common understanding in creatonary literature.


 * Which means it is advancing the "creationary" POV and therefore is not allowed.


 * I did not go looking for any sources because the original paragraphs did not give any sources for the claims made in them.


 * There were no arguable claims in the original paragraphs as far as I can see. If you see any, let us know.


 * However, the idea of a global cataclysm is not an hypothesis derived from scientific data, but a historical event to those who believe that Genesis is a historical account.


 * It's a belief that the Genesis is a literal account of history. The current intro states that plainly.


 * Of course, to those who do not believe Genesis is historical, then the flood is not considered a fact. This is where the real controversy is.


 * In a way. But in another way the controversy is over how people talk about "fact" in the first place.


 * Is Genesis historical or myth?


 * That's a false dichotomy you just set up, I'd say.


 * This is a philosophical question not a scientific question.


 * Not really. The question "Did the events in Genesis happen as literally described?" presents statements which have been falsified. For example, it's well known that there was never a global flood.


 * The creationist accepts Genesis and the Flood as historical and so see the scientific data within that world view.


 * In other words, the creationist rejects scientific data that contradicts their worldview.


 * The anti-creationists considers Genesis and the Flood to be myth and so see all the scientific data within that viewpoint. Which view you start with determines how you look at the scientific data.


 * Actually, you have it backwards. The reason Genesis and the Flood are considered to be purely allegorical or mythological by non-YECists is because of the scientific data.


 * ScienceApologist 18:31, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
 * On "creationary": Sadly, it's given as an adjective form . It's a highly unaesthetic word though, and the phrase "creationary geologist" taken as a whole surely is a neologism. Google spits out all of 8 hits for it. TCC (talk) (contribs) 03:02, 5 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Christian Skeptic: As the saying goes, "you are entitled to your own opinions, but you are not entitled to your own facts". A recent global Flood is not a historical fact.  Period.  Also, much of creationism (including "Flood geology") does indeed contradict a great deal of scientific evidence: if creationists disagree, then they are mistaken.  We may state their opinions (with appropriate citations), but we cannot endorse them: indeed, as an encyclopaedia, we would be remiss if we did not make it clear that scientific investigation has determined such beliefs to be false.  NPOV does not supersede this, hence the policy regarding "undue weight" for pseudoscientific beliefs. --Robert Stevens 19:27, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

Your statement well illustrates the typical lack of understanding about the assumptions required to do science and the source for those assumptions. It is impossible to do the scientific method without making certain assumptions. All scientists make these assumptions whether they are consciously aware of them or not. You do science? You make these assumptions.

What are these assumptions? They are so basic that we do not often think of them. 1: We are alive, awake, real, the universe is real and will exist after we do not. 2: There is uniformity of natural law across time and space. 3: There is uniformity of natural process across time and space.

Where do these assumptons come from? They cannot come from science because they must be assumed before science can be done. In "Time's Arrow, Time's Cycle" Gould tells us that they are philosophical assumptions. And he points out that both evolutionists and creationists share these same assumptions.

What philosophies provide these assumptions? Sagan has aptly described the most common philosophy: "The Cosmos is all there is, has ever been or ever will be." This is known as Naturalism. Sagan's bold assertion requires that the student of nature know everything about the cosmos, else he cannot know if the cosmos is all there is, has ever been or ever will be. But no scientist will agree to that else the pursuit of science becomes moot. It comes down to Naturalism must be true simply because it must be true.

Creationary catastrophists also have a philosophical starting point. They believe in a God who has said: "Surely the Sovereign LORD does nothing without revealing his plan to his servants the prophets." Amos 3:7

The "scientific data" you claim proves Genesis mythology or whatever, is actually interpretation of data based from within the philosophy of Naturalism which declares, as Sagan implies, "There is no God, because the cosmos is all there is." ---Christian Skeptic 20:27, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
 * If you know anything about the history of science, you know this last bit is entirely untrue. Geologists clung to the global flood hypothesis very tenaciously in the face of mounting evidence against it. It was only abandoned reluctantly, and when it could no longer possibly be supported.


 * I love how this argument boils down: "Sagan was a Naturalist, therefore science is Naturalistic." Wow. Do they even teach logic anymore?


 * Science operates on the simple assumption that what we see is what there is. (Not necessarily the reverse: what there is, is what we see. That would be Naturalism, or something close to it.) If we can measure it, it's real. It doesn't exclude the unmeasured from reality; it simply doesn't take it into account. Why do we assume that the laws of nature are the same in every place at every time? Because when you assume that, you can make sense of your observations. You cannot do that if the laws of nature are fluctuating in unobserved, and therefore unpredictable ways. (And if they are fluctuating in a predictable way, they're not really fluctuating.) And it simply works. You can build a philosophy around that if you want, but you don't need it to do science.


 * To say that you disagree with geology but not the other sciences means that you simply don't understand science. There are no truly independent disciplines. To say geology is wrong is to say the same thing about chemistry and physics, and to say that either one of those is wrong flies in the face of about 90% of the modern world. Or what's that magic box that's presenting these words to you? If you were right, it couldn't exist. TCC (talk) (contribs) 02:52, 5 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Scientific data is independent of methodological naturalism inasmuch as the moment one observes a miracle it is not longer supernatural. One need only apply Occam's razor to eliminate such crazy postulates as the Omphalos hypothesis or grue grass. That scientific data flatly contradicts a literal interpretation of Genesis is not up for debate. ScienceApologist 20:36, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
 * I think you mean the consensus interpretation of the scientific data... rossnixon 01:41, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
 * No. The data. It's unambiguous. TCC (talk) (contribs) 02:52, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

I have no problem with geology. I am currently studying paleontology at a local university. I don't say geology is wrong per se. What I disagree with is Naturalistic interpretations of geology [even though I have to learn and know them]. Geology makes no sense unless it is understood within a worldview. The fact that you don't understand the difference between geology and chemistry shows that you don't know anything about science. Geology is a "historical science" [I didn't make that up]. If all that geologists did was observe, describe and experiment on rocks there would be no problems. The problem is that sedimentary rocks are also interpreted and classified according to depositional environments thought to have existed through out the history of the Earth. If the only depositional environments allowed are those that exist today and at todays rates, as uniformitarian geologists used to think, then the geologic history is one of long time periods. But if, as geologists do today, much depositional environment is interpreted within the actualistic paradigm, then deposition largely consists of quick violent deposition followed by long periods of near stasis. Earth history is interpreted according to a paradigm and paradigms change. Unlike chemistry where an experiment can be repeated daily, geology is interpretation of data acquired today and applied and extrapolated into the past according to the prevailing paradigm. The better the paradigm, the better the interpretation represents what really was.

Your synthesis of my argument as "Sagan was a Naturalist, therefore science is Naturalistic" shows that you haven't a clue what I was talking about. I mention Sagan simply because he stated naturalism in a concise and easy to understand way, not because He invented naturalism or science. Early naturalists were unaware of the paradigms within which they began to study nature. But the very fact that they did scientific study means that they had to be working within the assumptions I listed above, regardless of whether they knew it or not. Over time, philosophers of science began to become aware of the assumptions that they had to make. The philosophy of science was not made from science, but philosophy of science began to understand the assumptions needed for science to work.

There is a big difference between raw scientific data {with which creationists have no problem] and interpretation of that data within ontological or methodological naturalism. The problem is that most people, including many scientists, don't know the difference between raw data and interpretation of the data. Take for instance this quote from [National Geographic]. What is data? What is interpretation? An unusual new species of dinosaur discovered in a Montana fossil provides a long-sought link between a primitive group of dinos in Asia and those that roamed North America, experts say.

The newfound species is a very early form of ceratopsian, whose descendants are best known for their fearsome horns and flashy neck frills.

Raw data is in bold. Interpretation is in italic. An unusual new species of dinosaur discovered in a Montana fossil provides a long-sought link between a primitive group of dinos in Asia and those that roamed North America, experts say.

The newfound species is a very early form of ceratopsian, whose descendants are best known for their fearsome horns and flashy neck frills.

As a creationary geologist I have no problem with the fact that a new form of ceratopsian was found. But it was just another type of ceratopsian that died and was buried in the flood, according to a flood cataclysm model. The difference in interpretation depends upon the chosen paradigm. Scientific data does not flatly contradict Genesis, it is interpretation of data within naturalism that conflicts with the Genesis account. ---Christian Skeptic 04:52, 5 October 2007 (UTC)


 * And as someone who received his degree a long time ago (in Computer Science with a focus on mathematics, but with enough credits in Chemistry and Physics to have minored in both by most university's standards -- but my school doesn't offer minors) and has been working in a scientific field for more than 20 years, I believe I'm in a better position than you are to have some perspective. I didn't say any of the sciences were identical, or that they had to be done using identical methods. I said they were interrelated, which is transparently true. I said it fairly clearly too, so I wonder where you're coming from here.


 * It's funny that you missed your own logical fallacy, and for that matter still don't see it. (I did misstate it. It was funnier that way. The actual problem is that the conclusion you drew from what Sagan said bespeaks a truly oddball epistemology which itself would require a lengthy defense.) You don't see your fresh one above either. It begs the question to state that anyone arriving at a result contradicting Genesis must be working within a "Naturalist" "paradigm" whether they know it or not. How about assuming neither: you make your observations and go where they lead you. Creationism requires a priori assumptions. Science does not. This "Naturalist" "paradigm" is distinctly a posteriori; the philosophy of science is indeed drawn from science.


 * What you need to accept is that the data came first. It cannot be crammed into the brief span of time allowed by Genesis. There is nothing in it that compels us to accept a young earth; quite the contrary. On the other hand, the only reason to assume a young earth is a literal reading of the Bible. That's not science in any sense of the word.


 * Earlier generations of geologists started out believing in Biblical catastrophism, but could not make sense of what they were seeing that way. They were forced to their conclusion that Genesis was not to be taken literally and developed the model now in use because with it their data made sense. If they look like "assumptions" and "paradigms" now, that's only because it's useless -- in fact, counterproductive -- for each generation to re-invent the wheel. We already know the square ones don't work. There's no need to go back and verify yet again that they do not in fact roll. TCC (talk) (contribs) 06:06, 5 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Christian Skeptic, I'm not sure I follow you. You wrote: But the very fact that they did scientific study means that they had to be working within the assumptions I listed above, regardless of whether they knew it or not. That sounds like you are saying that flood geology, because it starts from the assumption of the literal truth of the Bible, is not science. I agree with this, but I am not sure you really meant to say that. Please clarify. --Art Carlson 07:28, 5 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Chriatian Skeptic: you still don't seem to understand that it isn't just geology that contradicts the YEC model. Nor do you understand that Christians discovered the falsehood of Genesis.  This has been pointed out to you several times now, but you seem to be oblivious to these inconvenient facts.  Why is this?  You really need to spend some time engaging in a detailed discussion on an Internet messageboard, rather than here (I recommend the Evolution/Creation forum at Internet Infidels, www.iidb.org - there are numerous professional scientists in relevant fields who post there regularly). --Robert Stevens 09:38, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

In response to CS's "raw data vs interpretation" example, I would point out that whether fossils are a "new species" or not is likewise "interpretation" as is what its descendants are "best known" for. However, when these "interpretations" are performed according to widely-accepted scientific principles and have been scrutinised and published by peer-reviewed scientific journals, they achieve a degree of (tentative) stature. However the creationist interpretations are performed according to no fixed principles (except for the principle that the answer must match Genesis), and cannot pass even the most superficial scrutiny, and thus are not published in peer-reviewed journals. Thus they have no stature whatsoever. <font face="Antiqua, serif">HrafnTalkStalk 10:09, 5 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Art: I'm saying that all science is always done within the assumptions provided by a paradigm.  Science is science, but has a set of foundational assumptions that it needs in order to be done.  Currently there are two basic philosophical sources for those assumptions--Naturalism and Creationism.  The assumptions are very similar but for a couple points concerning depth of time and how the cosmos originated.  This is because the early naturalists were mostly deists who rejected the Bible because their 'god' could not communicate with man, and they unconsciously borrowed the assumptions of Creationism and adapted them to fit their beliefs.


 * Science can be done, and is done, equally well within either Naturalism or Creationism. The differences is going to be in the interpretation of the data.  What you are missing Hrafn is that the "widely-accepted scientific principles" are from within the paradigm of naturalism.  Creationary interpretation of the fossil will obviously be from within the assumption that the flood is a fact.  It is no wonder that such an interpretation will not pass "superficial scrutiny" within naturalism which automatically excludes earth history as portrayed in the Bible.  We are talking apples and oranges here.  Any interpretation within one paradigm will never be accepted within the other paradigm.  Peer review within one paradigm will be completely different that peer review within the other paradigm.


 * Robert: Geology that is done within the paradigm of Natualism will automatically conflict with the philosophy creationary catsclysmism because one is an apple and the other is an orange.  And geology interpreted within creationism will automatically conflict with interpretations of geology in Naturalism.  The one you or I accept as valid depends not upon science, for science is just a methodology used to study the cosmos, but upon which philosophy you accept as true.  And the choice of philosophy we adopt comes either knowingly or unknowingly.    For most people, Naturalism is force upon them unknowingly because the educational system in the USA was hijacked by atheist, humanist, and naturalist John Dewey and friends.  That's why science done wthin the paradigm of Naturalism is widely-accepted.  PS:  I've been involved on  many internet evolution/creation discussion places like Talk.Origins since the mid 1980s.  I'm 56. I've been around the block a few times.  I'm back getting a degree in geology.  By the way, Chris Stassen, of T.O archive web site, whose article on geology is referenced in this article does not have a degree in geology and is not a geologist.  And yet T.O crows about creationary scientists who write outside their field.


 * Csernica: What you miss is that it is impossible to "make your observations and go where they lead you."  Both K. Popper and T. Kuhn have shown this is a completely false concept in science.  Your paradigm guides how you make your observations and it determines you conclusions.  The idea of pure Baconian emprical data is myth, a figment of the imagination.  --Christian Skeptic 13:31, 5 October 2007 (UTC)


 * A good example of brainwashing. Wow. I could nit pick this to death, but I won't even bother. But just because you are 56 and getting an undergraduate degree in geology from god knows where really does not mean very much around here. Sorry. In fact, it makes me just about die laughing.--Filll (talk) 21:57, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

Further on "raw data vs interpretation", the "raw data" on these fossils is a collection of measurements of them. The "interpretation" is multivariate statistical analysis on these measurements used to categorise these fossils into groupings (i.e. species) on the basis of these measurements. Is CS claiming that there is two forms of interpretation: scientific statistics and creationist statistics? <font face="Antiqua, serif">HrafnTalkStalk 13:33, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

No CS, science cannot be "done, and is done, equally well within either Naturalism or Creationism." Creationism does science appalling badly! It cherry-picks the "raw data" and does not come to any useful conclusion, other than its core starting premise: that (a narrow sectarian reading of) Genesis is true, and God did it all -- "if you assume that God did it, then you can conclude that God did it." That reasoning is "trivial" in the strictest sense of the word. Creation Science explains nothing that Naturalistic Science cannot, and cannot explain (except through further appeals to undocumented miracles) much that Naturalistic Science can. <font face="Antiqua, serif">HrafnTalkStalk 13:47, 5 October 2007 (UTC)


 * CS: No, you are mistaken. Creationism failed, and was abandoned, because it could not account for the observed data: and it still cannot.  Falsification is an inherent part of the scientific method, and creationism has been falsified.  "Paradigm shifts" happen because of the accumulation of evidence that contradicts the current paradigm: that's what happened to creationism.  However, you really need to discuss all this elsewhere. --Robert Stevens 13:57, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

CS, just because you have spent time reading and debating creationism and evolution at talk.origins does not mean you can engage in these sorts of pointless debates here. It is evident to all and sundry here that you have nothing of any value to offer except pointless argumentation from the point of view of someone who does not understand science, does not understand evolution, does not understand geology, or physics, or chemistry, etc. And if science is defined to exclude the supernatural, and is therefore "naturalistic", so what? It is defined as it is for good reason. If you want a nonnaturalistic philosophy, I would suggest you go to the Muslim world where this is a dominant view in many quarters. Try applying it to law enforcement, and you would end up emptying the jails, because no evidence would be able to convinct anyone. Why not try a lawsuit to get the US legal system to drop naturalism, if you are so full of yourself, instead of pompously filling these pages with meaningless blather?--Filll 14:18, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

Expanding on what others have said here, in order for CS's views to get accepted here, Creationists would first: Only after this process is successfully completed would CS's views be accepted for inclusion here. As I have said before on Talk:Creation science, "the battle is not fought here". <font face="Antiqua, serif">HrafnTalkStalk 15:03, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
 * 1) have to propose a comprehensive and coherent Creationist Philosophy of Science (the one proposal I have seen, Theistic realism, is neither comprehensive nor coherent);
 * 2) get the majority of the scientific community to accept that this viewpoint is advantageous over existing views of science, as a basis for fertile scientific research.


 * It is obvious that there are no geologist here and that this article has never been seen by real geologists. It is also obvious that no one here, because of faulty education, understands the actual relationship between philosophy and science.  Stop mindlessly and blindly repeating the nonsense from the T.O. archive.  Engaging in real thought.  This entire article is meaningless blather composed by people who don't know geology from astrology.  Not to exclude having no clue about creationism and especially flood geology.


 * Filll: You need to come down from lala land.  You have no knowledge and no logic.  And an apparent lack of comprehension reading skill.  You are embarrassing yourself.  --Christian Skeptic 17:22, 5 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Hilarious.-Filll (talk) 21:57, 27 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Oh so you claim that all "real geologists" subscribe to creation science? Please provide peer-reviewed references in a major geology publication. Please show me one geologist in the National Academy of Sciences who believes that humans lived simulataneously with dinosaurs, or that the earth is 6000 years old, or that there was no plate tectonics and was a global flood that covered the entire earth, or any of the dozens of other crazy "creation science" theories, and has published these ideas in peer-reviewed publications. Because you are partway through an undergraduate paleontology degree at a crappy state college someplace, does not mean you are an expert. Do you have any idea who you are arguing against? Clearly not. If I were your professor, you would not get much of a grade from me, son. And before you criticize my reading abilities and my logic, you might want to look in a mirror first. Nevertheless, I stand by what I said; you have no business with this nonsense here. Go away and make a blog of your silliness.--Filll 18:48, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

Christian Skeptic: you are no geologist! You have not made a single claim here that any credible geologist would not laugh at. You are simply mistaking your religiously-induced fantasies for serious science. You have not cited a single source, let alone a reliable one for these fantasies. As such, nothing you have said is in any way, shape or form suitable for inclusion in wikipedia. So kindly take your soapbox somewhere else. It has no place here. <font face="Antiqua, serif">HrafnTalkStalk 17:38, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

Christian Skeptic: I welcome your familiarity with flood geology and your ability to indicate certain things which may or may not be au courant amongst those who espouse such belief. But you will get nowhere by insulting your fellow editors. Like it or not, Wikipedia has a bias towards reporting about the mainstream. The mainstream is firmly entrenched against your particular set of beliefs. You will either have to come to terms with it and learn to compromise or you will find yourself totally sidelined here. ScienceApologist 17:41, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

Next, please. This thread has gone on long enough. The proposal of Christian Skeptic has found no support among the other editors. Try another version, if you will, but drop this one, and either way quit the bickering about philosophy. All we want to do is write a NPOV encyclopedia based on reliable sources. --Art Carlson 19:51, 5 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Agreeing with Art. NEXT!!!! Orange Marlin  Talk• Contributions 21:20, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

CS, thank you for your excellent and intelligent description of the way that data is interpreted by one's worldview. The reaction that you got is indicative of a common kneejerk reaction and lack of critical thinking skills among some people. rossnixon 10:18, 7 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Okay, rossnixon, if you insist on having this in here, then here's my response. Far from being "excellent and intelligent" CS's description was fallacious and unsubstantiated. He provided no evidence to support his skewed interpretation, probably because the "data" quite frequently contradicts it. I therefore conclude that it is your support for him that is a "kneejerk reaction" (reflexive support for whatever a fellow Creationist says, no matter how ludicrous or unsubstantiated), and based upon a "lack of critical thinking skills". To CS, yourself, and any other pusher of Creationist pseudoscience that may wander in here, my response is the same: Cite WP:RS or stop wasting our time! (I have also taken the liberty of placing this entire pointless digression in a template, so that it doesn't waste casual observers' time. <font face="Antiqua, serif">HrafnTalkStalk

}}

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


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

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


 * This is something that I think warrants extremely careful consideration. In my mind, Price is the father of the movement with the vapor canopies, cometary floods, and catastrophic plate tectonics being the notable offshoots. Also receiving some note is the Grand Canyon creationist book. In my mind this is what the article should focus on primarily: the rest should be excised per Undue weight. ScienceApologist 21:22, 6 October 2007 (UTC)


 * It often seems that there's very little that YECs say about the detail of their claims that another bunch of YECs elsewhere hasn't disavowed. <font face="Antiqua, serif">HrafnTalkStalk 14:51, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

As far as who is/isn't notable, I'd suggest the following as a (current, not historical) rough hierarchy of notability: <font face="Antiqua, serif">HrafnTalkStalk 14:58, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
 * 1) Institute for Creation Research (less well known than AiG, but has more gravitas)
 * 2) Answers in Genesis
 * 3) Creation Research Society
 * 4) Kent Hovind (although if there's anybody I've forgotten, they'd probably go above him -- he's more notorious than notable)


 * I would put as even more notable an organization with even more substance than those listed above, the Geoscience Research Institute. The exact ordering of some of the organizations in the middle is a bit difficult. I do admit that Dr. Dino has to be close to the bottom. Historical figures might be even lower than Dr. Dino, however. I think of the Flat Earth Society, for example, or Harry Rimmer.--Filll 15:43, 8 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Walt Brown's center for scientific creationism needs to be in there too. ScienceApologist 15:58, 8 October 2007 (UTC)


 * I'd place Walt Brown above Hovind, but below the CRS. I'm not sure where the GRI would go, as I've never seen them mentioned (outside the wikipedia article on them). Do they have any notable creationists (or creationists with notable scientific credentials) working for them? Have they developed any hypotheses that have been accepted by other Creation Science organisations? <font face="Antiqua, serif">HrafnTalkStalk 16:06, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Given that the GRI is closely associated with the Seventh-day Adventist Church, which has only 840,000 members in the US, and as it doesn't have a particularly high profile (and thus little influence outside its own denomination), I'm assuming that it'd be less notable than the other Creationist organisations. I'm not going to even attempt to find an ordering for historic creationists -- too difficult & messy, too many to try to fit in & not really necessary -- if their views aren't still being promoted by notable modern organisations or individuals, then their ideas have died out & are no longer notable (except in a 'History of Creationism' article). <font face="Antiqua, serif">HrafnTalkStalk 13:04, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

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


 * Well there's this as a starter, I'll see if I can find something else. I tend to think that even if AiG has wised up, there are always people like Hovind and his homskuled supporters that will continue to cite nonsense like this. If we remove it, I am almost prepared to guarantee, that someone in the future will turn up with a link to their angelfire website, demanding that we include this important PROOF!!! of the global flood. <font face="arial black" color="#737CA1"> – ornis <font color="#C11B17" size="2pt">⚙ 11:50, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

Contradiction in paleontology
In the current version, the section on paleontology states If fossilization took place extremely quickly during the Flood, then — paleontologists assert — fossilized remains should be far more numerous and widespread than is actually seen. and then Additionally, paleontologists note that if all the fossilized animals were killed in the flood, and the flood is responsible for fossilization, then the average density of vertebrates was an abnormally high number, close to 2100 creatures per acre, judging from fossil sites found worldwide. It seems to me that these statements contradict each other. --Art Carlson 20:13, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

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