Talk:Flood geology/Archive 4

Organization of the article

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

I can't see anything wrong with the current sequence. Perhaps you could find a small topic to rewrite so we can see it here? ^rossnixon 01:20, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

Take the vapor canopy. It is mentioned in Section 3 under "Frozen mammoths", where the mammoth business doesn't seem to have independent relevance, except as an argument for one particular version of the vapor canopy. It is mentioned again in Section 4, where you might expect to find it, but only very briefly. Finally, it is discussed in Section 5 under "Physics", but not in a very systematic way. I would move all of this to Section 4. The parts of the physics section that don't have to do with the vapor canopy don't have to do with physics, so this whole subsection could be eliminated, with perhaps some content moved to other sections. --Art Carlson (talk) 10:56, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

It sounds like you know what you are doing. The only concern I have is that putting it all together may result in "debate style" paragraphs. Creationist claim followed by naturalist debunking, followed by creationist counter-debunking. Who would have the last word? ^rossnixon 00:49, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

rossnixon: please read WP:UNDUE, which clearly indicates that science gets the last word (metaphorically, if not literally). Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 03:53, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure I really know what I'm doing. I have good editing and science skills, but I don't know a whole lot about the subject. I'll go slow to give everyone a chance to pull the brakes. --Art Carlson (talk) 08:37, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

As a Biblical Flood catastrophist, I'd like to point out that the canopy theory as the major source for the flood water has been abandoned long ago by creationary Flood geologists. It has been criticized in creationary literature and has few proponents among degreed creationary geologists. However, because old creationary flood books are still in publication or in libraries, the idea is still popular among the general population of Christians. The mention of canopy theory in this article as the major creationary position displays the vastly out of date and uninformed knowledge of the editors. Christian Skeptic (talk) 17:28, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Great. As I said, my knowledge is limited. I hope you can help keep this article on the right track, accurately describing the history and beliefs of flood geologists, based as closely as possible on reliable sources. Of course, the idea of a vapor canopy will have its place in the article, for historical reasons and because it "is still popular among the general population of Christians". But maybe we need to de-emphasize it. What would you say is the current thinking of flood geology on the source of the water? --Art Carlson (talk) 21:46, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

I know of about 4 different flood models in creationary circles; Brown's Hydroplate model, Baumgardner's CPT model (each of which have been published), and two others that involve a storm of asteroids impacting the earth initiating the flood with impact tsunami, associated torrential rains and earthquake tsunami. One calls for vertical tectonics caused by the impacts, the other calls for the initiating of CPT. The first has been briefly outlined in a couple publications, the latter has not yet reached publication. The latter two are largely talked about on email nets and over coffee tables.

In Brown's model, the source of water is a global layer of water beneath the crust. In the other three models, the source of water is the oceans.

Among CRS geologists, Brown's model is in disfavor, despite being popular among the general public. Many are on the Baumgardner bandwagon, but a significant number reject CPT in favor of vertical tectonics. I favor the asteroid storm/CPT combined model. Nearly all creationary geologist consider multiple models a good thing. Each has its strong points and weak points. All creationary geologist feel that flood models may come and go, but the Flood itself is a fact not an hypothesis that can be falsified.

Unfortunatly, this is just what I know personally and so is useless on Wikipedia. It really doesn't matter what creationary geologist are actually doing and thinking, but only what evolutionists can selectively quote to give a twisted view of it. Christian Skeptic (talk) 16:44, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

I don't think your information is useless. The article currently doesn't mention the possibility at all that the water came from the oceans. I find your statement plausible that most creationary geologists go this route. (It is not as simple to debunk as the vapor canopy.) I am willing to rewrite the article to this effect, but we need to try to find reliable sources to support such a version. Shouldn't be too hard, should it? --Art Carlson (talk) 21:12, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

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

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

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

I have no trouble with science and the scientific method. The problem lies in people thinking evolution is science.

Hard copies of Brown’s “In the Beginning:” can be ordered on-line, or printed off the web site or simple read on-line:

http://www.creationscience.com/onlinebook/IntheBeginningTOC.html

This page links to all of Baumgardner’s CPT papers. Hard copies can be ordered from your local library.

http://www.globalflood.org/papers/papers.html

Asteroid impacts during Flood model. First papers.

Spencer, Wayne

“Catastrophic impact bombardment surrounding the Genesis Flood” 1998, Proceedings of the International Creation Conference.

“Geophysical Effects of Impacts during the Genesis Flood” 1998, Proceedings of the International Creation Conference.

I’ll try to find sources for vertical tectonics model. Christian Skeptic (talk) 05:59, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

Reed, J K, 2000, Plate Tectonics: A different view, CRS books. 190 pgs. Presents arguments from conventional literature against PT and CPT.

McIntosh, A C, 2000 "Flood models: the need for an integrated approach" http://www.answersingenesis.org/tj/v14/i1/flood_models.asp Discusses some flood models and problems.

Oard, M., 1990, An Ice Age caused by the Genesis Flood, ICR pub. 240 pgs. Argues that the flood made conditions ripe for an ice age that lasted several centuries after the flood. Mammoths were not quick-froze to death. Christian Skeptic (talk) 14:21, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

First Conference on Creation Geology

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

Here's a novel idea. How about actually quoting from creationary sources who were actually there and actually took part rather than from some uninformed, biased 3rd party? Christian Skeptic (talk) 16:53, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

Why do you consider this reporter to be uninformed? Why do you think she is biased? As a rule, I would expect "3rd parties" to be less biased than direct participants. Can you give us an alternative source that you think is more reliable? --Art Carlson (talk) 21:00, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

But accurate.

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

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

All Geology is evolutionary

I'm currently back working on my BS in Earth Sciences with emphasis in Paleontology. I can testify at all geology, especially such common things as the geologic column is 100% evolutionary. In every earth science class I have ever taken, evolution is the dogma preached. Christian Skeptic (talk) 17:12, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

Excellent. Then you will no doubt agree that under Wikipedia's weighting rules the article should reflect that. Jefffire (talk) 17:18, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

I would point out that your definition of "evolutionary" (apparently taking it to mean "not accepting of a Young Earth") is both grossly non-standard & WP:OR. Evolution is not dogma -- "dogma", such as Biblical literalism, is not subject to change. The Theory of Evolution has changed considerably since Darwin's day. Therefore the Theory of Evolution is not dogma. Q.E.D. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 17:24, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

This is an article about Flood geology which is accepted by young earth Creationists, therefore it should accuratly reflect what creationary geologist actually think and not just what evolutionists think they think. I have no trouble with evolutionists making counter claims or explanations to the creationary view. But don't create a strawman. If evolutionism is true, it should be an easy thing to debunk what creationists actually think. Debunking a false strawman is a waste of time. Christian Skeptic (talk) 17:35, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

No, it should describe what 'Flood Geologists' think, but in the terms of accepted science and academia (except to the extent that it is explaining creationist terms or what creationists think terms mean). This is clearly covered under WP:NPOV, WP:UNDUE & WP:NPOVFAQ#Pseudoscience. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 17:49, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

Christian Skeptic: you are contradicting yourself. The people who reject "Flood geology" are called "geologists", ''regardless of whether or not they happen to accept biological evolution. You've more or less admitted that already (despite your ongoing misuse of the term "evolutionist"), when you admitted that this is "the dogma preached" in geology classes. If you reject what is taught in geology classes, then you are rejecting geology, not "evolutionism" (and this does raise the question of why you are attending such classes in the first place). --Robert Stevens (talk) 17:53, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

According to WP:undue

Views that are held by a tiny minority should not be represented except in articles devoted to those views.

This article is about a minority viewpoint, so it is not undue weight to present precisely what that viewpoint is as understood by those who hold it.

According to WP:NPOV

The policy requires that where multiple or conflicting perspectives exist within a topic each should be presented fairly. None of the views should be given undue weight or asserted as being judged as "the truth", in order that the various significant published viewpoints are made accessible to the reader, not just the most popular one. It should also not be asserted that the most popular view, or some sort of intermediate view among the different views, is the correct one to the extent that other views are mentioned only pejoratively. Readers should be allowed to form their own opinions. As the name suggests, the neutral point of view is a point of view, not the absence or elimination of viewpoints. ... The acronym NPOV does not mean "no points of view". The elimination of article content cannot be justified under this policy by simply labeling it "POV". The neutral point of view is a point of view that is neutral, that is neither sympathetic nor in opposition to its subject. Debates within topics are described, represented and characterized, but not engaged in. Background is provided on who believes what and why, and which view is more popular. Detailed articles might also contain the mutual evaluations of each viewpoint, but studiously refrain from asserting which is better. One can think of unbiased writing as the fair, analytical description of all relevant sides of a debate, including the mutual perspectives and the published evidence. When editorial bias toward one particular point of view can be detected, the article needs to be fixed.

This article is not neutral but highly biased in opposition to it's subject by describing Flood geology "in the terms of accepted science and academia." (as you put it). AND, the evolutionary geology viewpoint is judged as "the truth"--the correct one--and the creationary view is mentioned only pejoratively, i.e. pseudoscience. Therefor the editors of this article have NOT been keeping a NPOV. As you can see, in Wikipedia truth does not matter. All that matters is that viewpoints are presented in a NPOV.

From WP:NPOVFAQ#Pseudoscience

Pseudoscience is a social phenomenon and therefore significant, but it should not obfuscate the description of the main views, and any mention should be proportionate and represent the majority (scientific) view as the majority view and the minority (sometimes pseudoscientific) view as the minority view; and, moreover, to explain how scientists have received pseudoscientific theories. This is all in the purview of the task of describing a dispute fairly.

This article is about a minor view which is labeled pseudoscience (falsely so I believe, but that is besides the point) and is noted as such. To talk about this viewpoint in this article does not "obfuscate" the main views. This article exists to give the minor viewpoint and compare it with the majority view.

As can be seen from above your statement that

it should describe what 'Flood Geologists' think, but in the terms of accepted science and academia (except to the extent that it is explaining creationist terms or what creationists think terms mean)

is completely false. It should give what creationist think and what evolutionists think in a NPOV.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Christian Skeptic (talk • contribs) 19:06, 29 November 2007

You missed a bit CS:

Minority views can receive attention on pages specifically devoted to them—Wikipedia is not a paper encyclopedia. But on such pages, though a view may be spelled out in great detail, it must make appropriate reference to the majority viewpoint, and must not reflect an attempt to rewrite majority-view content strictly from the perspective of the minority view.

-- WP:UNDUE (My emphasis) Attempting to refer to mainstream Geology as "evolutionary" Geology is clearly an attempt to rewrite mainstream science from a Creationist view. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 03:36, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

Quote mine anyone?--Filll (talk) 19:39, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

Look, a quick glance at WP:UNDUE and WP:FRINGE shows that what CS has posted above is, to be kind, just pure horse pucky. I strongly suggest that he cease and desist before he gets himself in administrative trouble for violating WP:DE and God knows what else.--Filll (talk) 19:42, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

It takes more than a "quick glance" to understand WP:UNDUE and WP:FRINGE as is evidenced by your statement. You need to go back and read the whole thing sometime. As for quote mine???? you haven't a clue what that means either. Nothing I quoted above was out of context. Nor did I leave pertinent information out. It just is contrary to your ignorant beliefs.

And a close look at WP:FRINGE shows the following:

NOTABILITY VERSUS CORRECTNESS

Notability does not imply correctness or acceptance by an academic community. Many ideas widely believed to be incorrect are nonetheless notable, and the claimed correctness of an idea does not confer notability. If it can be documented in reliable sources that scientists or historians consider a hypothesis correct, then notability is satisfied per the above. However, a single proponent claiming that a hypothesis is correct does not satisfy notability.

SUFFICIENTLY NOTABLE FOR DEVOTED ARTICLES

Creation science — The overwhelming majority of scientists consider this to be pseudoscience and say that it should not be taught in elementary public education. However the very existence of this strong opinion, and vigorous discussion regarding it amongst mainstream groups (including but not limited to scientists, scientific journals, educational institutions, political institutions, and even the United States Supreme Court) give the idea itself more than adequate notability to have articles about it on Wikipedia.

EVALUATING SCIENTIFIC AND NON-SCIENTIFIC CLAIMS

Notable topics which are primarily non-scientific in nature but which contain claims concerning scientific phenomena should not be treated exclusively as scientific theory and handled on that basis. ... On the other hand, subjects such as creationism or creation science, which involve a direct conflict between scientific discoveries and religious doctrine, should be evaluated on both a scientific and a theological basis.

Christian Skeptic (talk) 20:52, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

I am advising you to please drop the attitude before you exhaust the patience of the community.--Filll (talk) 22:00, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

Attitude???? I'm merely pointing out what WP regulations actually say. And acting on them. Christian Skeptic (talk) 05:06, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

No CS, you're selectively quoting irrelevant parts of the policies, while omitting the relevant part: that the article "must not reflect an attempt to rewrite majority-view content strictly from the perspective of the minority view" -- i.e. that "evolutionary Geology" is out! Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 05:24, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

This article is about a minority viewpoint. And it should reflect what that viewpoint really is, not what people who are ignorant of it think it is. As it is now, it is nearly entirely a strawman. In this case, the minority view, i.e. creationism, happens to be the topic of the article, so the majority view, i.e. evolutionism, is completely off topic.

I am not attempting to eliminate evolutionary geology, but simply explain what creationary flood geology really is. Christian Skeptic (talk) 07:09, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

You misunderstood me: I meant that calling geology "evolutionary geology", as you attempted to do, is impermissible. Likewise, your claim that "the majority view, i.e. evolutionism, is completely off topic" also demonstrates a misunderstanding of the section of policy I posted above:

Minority views can receive attention on pages specifically devoted to them—Wikipedia is not a paper encyclopedia. But on such pages, though a view may be spelled out in great detail, it must make appropriate reference to the majority viewpoint, and must not reflect an attempt to rewrite majority-view content strictly from the perspective of the minority view.

(again, my emphasis) Could you please desist from making spurious claims based upon a selective and tendentious reading of policy. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 07:26, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

Creationary

There is evolution, evolutionist, and evolutionary. There is creation, creationist, creationary.

Whether creationary is uncommon or not is completely irrelevant. It is a real, valid, word. Just as an "evolutionary scientist" is a scientist who is an evolutionist, just so a "creationary scientist" is a scientist who is a creationist. And despite your denial of reality, there really are creationary scientists. Christian Skeptic (talk) 06:36, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

1. Your entire treatment makes the false assumption that there is some for of equality or equivalence between evolution and creationism. The theory of evolution, and the facts underlying it, are well founded science, creationism is pseudoscience based upon the heretical doctrine of Biblical literalism, which is rejected by most mainstream Christian denominations.
2. "Evolutionary" is correctly applied to only such fields as evolutionary biology and evolutionary algorithms, which make explicit use of evolutionary mechanisms.
3. "Evolutionist" is a disputed term of ambiguous (and arguably pejorative) meaning.
4. "Creationary" does not have widespread support as a term. I have The Creationists, by Ronald Numbers, arguably the most authoritative history of the Creationist movement, in front of me. I have not seen the word "creationary" used in it once. You need to find an equally authoritative source to support your case for using "creationary", if you want any chance at all of getting your way. One obscure dictionary out of 900 is not even close. In any case, its definition of "creationary" does not support your use, in that it uses the term purely in connection with an act of creation, not with apologetic attempts to substantiate a prior "creationary" act.

Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 07:44, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

Somebody cue me in, I must have been dosing. Exactly what proposed edit is the last five pages of this discussion about? Is it only the words "creationary" and "evolutionary"? --Art Carlson (talk) 09:34, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

This and this. I'm sorry that whatever drug you were dosing yourself with made you miss your cue. ;) Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 10:00, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

OK. I'm back on my meds now. Let's start with this ("Flood geology ... is rejected by evolutionary[?] earth scientists.). Looking through the discussion (and edit summaries, which is not a good place to discuss edits), I can't find any arguments from CS except that he apparently thinks it is necessary to specify which earth scientists reject flood geology. (Did I miss something, CS?) I am bothered by this wording for several reasons.

• One is that it is at least an uncommon use of "evolutionary scientist" to mean "a scientist who is an evolutionist". We already use this adjective in the lead ("evolutionary biology"), and in the article linked to the term "evolutionary" means "a sub-field concerned with". An "evolutionary biologist" is also defined there as "one who studies evolutionary biology". Following that scheme, an "evolutionary geologist" would be a geologist who specializes in evolution, regardless of his convictions on the subject, or possibly a geologist who evolves
• The next problem is that "evolution" - usually, and very probably here - means biological evolution. There is a lot of geology, including most of the topics touched upon by flood geology, that has nothing at all to do with living things, so I don't know why we should say "evolutionary geologist" instead of, say, "Old Earth geologist".
• And then, as CS readily and emphatically admits, geology as a whole, as it is practiced in the professional world and taught in schools and universities, does not take flood geology seriously. I think our readers know that, so there is no need to say so. Doing so anyway leaves the impression that there are different directions in geology, some of which believe in a flood and others of which don't. Considering the relative numbers, it is more accurate to say there are geologists, and then there is a tiny minority of flood geologists, whose beliefs we will describe in more detail in this article. If any adjective at all is used, then it should be something like "mainstream" or "conventional" or "consensus".
• Finally, if the only thing we mean by "evolutionary geologist" is "a geologist who rejects the flood", then it is redundant to say that "flood geology is rejected by geologists who reject flood geology".

--Art Carlson 13:12, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

As far as I can see, this proposed idioyncratic usage of "creationary" can be traced to an individual creationist/linguist crank, one Hans-Friedrich Tamke who has been pushing this issue since the late 1990s[2] (at least). Both he (Talk:Henry M. Morris#Parallel adjectives: creationary/evolutionary) and others (Talk:Creation biology/Archive 1#Creationary vs. creation vs. creationist) have tried to push this on wikipedia, but without success. I see no reason for further debate of this dead issue. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 12:59, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

I second the motion. All in favor say aye! --Art Carlson 13:12, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

AYE! Teapotgeorge 13:19, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

Just to mess with peoples' minds a bit: given that the adjective of "recreation" is "recreational", if we wanted to creation a new adjective for "creation", shouldn't it be "creational"? This shows how silly it is to attempt to mindlessly apply rules to a language as heterogeneous as English. >:) Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 13:44, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

This is quite the interesting coda to an old debate. Christian Skeptic may be unaware that some editors have, in the past, debated about whether or not the term "creation scientist" should be used, since it perhaps implies a scientist who is also a creationist. The consensus, if I recall, was that readers should be expected to understand that a "creation scientist" is a believer in creation science rather than a scientist who studies creation|ism.

In the light of that conclusion, to change the phrase "creation scientist" to "creationary scientist" changes the meaning of the sentence significantly, and as such it needs a reliable source before we consider it. But let's not forget that the previous version ("creation scientists", and before that simply "creationists") was also unsourced, so a better solution would be either to be more specific about which people accept or reject flood geology (this time with references to sources), or refactor the sentence to give a different emphasis:...

“ Kent Hovind is a proponent of the vapor canopy, but other creationists now reject the idea, such as Walt Brown's Center for Scientific Creation and Answers in Genesis ”

It could still do with a source for CSC. Sheffield Steel^talk_stalk 14:17, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

From numerous WP policies, it is clear we are not supposed to boost obscure fringe theories and we are also supposed to write clearly and be accessible. Pushing words like "creationary" and using "evolutionary" in nonstandard ways violates both of these precepts. We should use words the way most people use them, or else we end up producing crappy articles. And why should we adopt the promotion of these nonstandard obscure words and usages? What value does it serve? It just obfuscates the entire issue. I could easily cook up dozens of other related words we could pepper these articles with, and it would make the articles hard to read, and irritate our readers, and just generally be unencyclopedic:

• floodist, as in "Henry Morris is a floodist"
• scientary, as in "The NCSE represents the scientary community".
• geologary, as in "Christian Scientist is not happy with the views presented in his geologary classes".
• evoluterootist, as in "Richard Dawkins in a well known evoluterootist".
• religiary, as in "The Catholic Church has some strong religiary positions on this"
• creationistary, as in "Most creationistary geologarists subscribe to floodistary interpretations of the datumsistary material."

and so on and so forth. If one starts travelling down this road, WP will rapidly cease to be anything worth reading. --Filll 15:52, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

Filll, Filll, Filll -- you are clearly not thinking creationistically enough. :P Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 16:25, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

This has been blown completely out of proportion. In once case I simply wished to differentiate between general population creationists and creationists who are geologists. In the other, I simply wished to make the distinction between evolutionary and creationary geologists. It is absolutely amazing the paranoia among evolutionists as displayed by the editors here. If evolution is so fool proof and secure, why all the panic over such a minor thing as some simple word that follows common, ordinary, 6th grade English grammar? This is childish, utterly silly and displays the mentality of the editors and evolutionists in general. Where is the WP administration when you need them? Christian Skeptic 20:03, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

You have presented no evidence that we should "differentiate between general population creationists and creationists who are geologists", given that we have ample WP:RSs (e.g. Statement of Beliefs of Creation Science organisations, Kurt Wise's statements) that "creationists who are geologists" are creationists first, and geologists a very poor second. At best we might see a slight differentiation with "creationists who are geologists" accepting a slightly less ludicrous form of hand-waving than those who aren't. They still have far more in common with each other than the geologists who have been kicked out of young-earth Creation Science organisations (e.g. the Creation Research Society and the Geoscience Research Institute‎) because they could no longer stomach the contortions of geology necessary to fit it into a Young Earth hypothesis. A less dubious differentiation might be between established Creation Science organisations (such as the ICR, CRS & GRI, who would practice at least some form of internal peer review) and lone-wolf creationists with pretensions to Creation Science (most notoriously Kent Horvind, but the description would also apply to Walt Brown, who can claim anything that comes into their head), and their followers.

I can assure you that all the geology professors, associate professors, post-docs, grad and under-grad students here at the university where I'm studying paleontology are evolutionists first and geologists second. I see it and hear it every day in class and the hallways. The philosophy of naturalism is their religious world view, and evolution comes from naturalism. It is irrelevant to science. I am certain that none of them are aware of their religious commitment and will deny it to their dying day. But, it is impossible to do science at all without a philosophy within which to do it. If you do not deliberately choose a philosophy to do science within, then you end up blindly accepting someone else's philosophy. Creationary geologists have chosen the philosophy of creationism within which to do science. Evolutionary geologists do science within Naturalism. It is impossible to logically do anything else. And it doesn't matter if you like it or not. It does not matter if you believe it or not. It is a fact of logic. In order to do science you must make certain assumptions. And those assumptions cannot come from science for they must be made before science can be done. All such assumptions are philosophical and are derived from a chosen philosophy. Gould has spoken of this in Time's Arrow, Time's Cycle. Christian Skeptic 04:23, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

<unindent>

1. Thank you CS, but your "assurance" is not a WP:RS.
2. You are conflating naturalism with "evolutionism". That they follow methodological naturalism simply means that they are scientists (as methodological naturalism is part of the bedrock of all modern science), not that they are "evolutionists".
3. Contrary to your unsubstantiated and fallacious assertions, methodological naturalism is not "their religious world view". Clear evidence of this can be found in both the origins of methodological naturalism (it was proposed by an explicit theist) and its current practice (by scientists with a large range of religious beliefs).
4. You have provided no evidence that there is a legitimate "philosophy of creationism" -- it appears to be a mere abdication of rationality to blind obedience to the heresy of Biblical literalism.
5. There is no such thing as "evolutionary geologists". All legitimate geologists, just like all legitimate scientists generally, do their science within methodological naturalism. Those who don't do so are termed "pseudoscientists".
6. What I "like" or "believe" is irrelevant. What is relevant is what you can back up with [[WP:RS]s. As things currently stands this is absolutely nothing, zero, nadda.
7. You are incorrect that "those assumptions cannot come from science", at least taking "science" as a field of endeavour instead of a set of rules. Assumptions, such as methodological naturalism, that bear fruitful research, are retained. Assumptions that don't, such as supernaturalism (of which Biblical literalism is a subset), eventually fall out of use (as supernaturalism gradually did over a number of centuries).
8. You are likewise over-simplifying when you state "all such assumptions are philosophical and are derived from a chosen philosophy" -- these philosophies did not spring fully fledged from their authors brain. The concept of methodological naturalism, and the Philosophy of Science more generally, sprang from observation and analysis of the assumptions, rules and methods that underlie fruitful scientific research.

I am getting tired of this. Anything further that you have to say on this subject that is not backed by pertinent reliable sources will be simply userfied or deleted.Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 05:31, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

I get it! I'm not allowed to make any statements from personal experience without a reliable source to back it up, yet you are allowed to make baseless assertion after baseless assertion with out any sources. I am automatically a liar because I'm a creationist and you always tell the truth because you are an evolutionist. Yeeaahhh! That's the ticket!! I see the light! Halleluah!!!

Come on Frivolous Filll. Where are those WP administrators? Christian Skeptic 05:50, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

"Creationary" does not have widespread support as a term. I have The Creationists, by Ronald Numbers, arguably the most authoritative history of the Creationist movement, in front of me. I have not seen the word "creationary" used in it once. You need to find an equally authoritative source to support your case for using "creationary", if you want any chance at all of getting your way. One obscure dictionary out of 900 is not even close. In any case, its definition of "creationary" does not support your use, in that it uses the term purely in connection with an act of creation, not with apologetic attempts to substantiate a prior "creationary" act.

What were you saying about "baseless assertion after baseless assertion with out any sources"? I have a very solid source at the core of this issue. I'm sure as hell not going to bother to go to the trouble of providing reliable sources to rebut every one of your Gish Gallop of unsubstantiated and frequently fallacious statements. Life is too short. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 06:40, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

• This has been blown completely out of proportion. You did it, by wanting to push this issue when you do not have a leg to stand on. This has been repeatedly addressed here and on other WP article talk pages, and dismissed, over and over and over and over and over. Get it through your head, if you are so smart. WE WILL NOT ...NOT....NOT write this article in the way you want and lard it up with ludicrous fake spurious made-up terms that you have personally decided as Emperor of the Universe should be in current usage. This is just nonsense. Peddle it on a blog someplace.

• In once case I simply wished to differentiate between general population creationists and creationists who are geologists. ONCE? hmmm...Well you clearly are a master of the English language and we should follow your pronouncements without question, right? And there are lots of methods for differentiating between general population creationists and creationists who are geologists that already exist and involve terms and phrases in common usage. No need to rummage around in the bottom of the barrel and make up terms or find obscure terms to promote. This is an encyclopedia, not your personal blog.

• In the other, I simply wished to make the distinction between evolutionary and creationary geologists. I guess you think if you use these fake terms often enough, we will just accept them? I think not.

• If evolution is so fool proof and secure, why all the panic over such a minor thing as some simple word that follows common, ordinary, 6th grade English grammar? Just because a word is found in one dictionary of over 900 that I checked, does not mean that it is in common usage; far from it. And just because you personally decide it follows the grammatical rules, I am not sure I would accept it as a term to introduce here. Also, this has nothing to do with the value of evolution as a viable and accepted scientific theory and observable process. You are confused, and badly.

• This is childish, utterly silly and displays the mentality of the editors and evolutionists in general. Stop throwing tantrums on these talk pages and go someplace else, thanks. You have not shown that you have much to contribute. If you must stay here, try to be constructive instead of tilting at windmills.

• Where is the WP administration when you need them? You want me to bring some here to examine your rants? You might not like the consequences.--Filll 20:32, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

I dare you! Christian Skeptic 03:56, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

Please, Mr. Skeptic, amidst all the rhetoric here, there have been several substantive reasons advanced for rejecting your proposal. You have not tried very hard to make your case. Are we supposed to accept a bad edit in order to prove that we're not paranoid? Present some solid arguments or let us go back to work improving the article. --Art Carlson 21:35, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

Being an administrator is no big deal, and appealing to admins in particular in a content dispute shows a rather severe lack of understanding of how Wikipedia works. (Free hint here) --Stephan Schulz 09:05, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

Cut the philosophical skirmishes!

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

Section "Evidence cited to support a global flood"

There are a number of problems with this section.

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

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

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

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

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

Agree. It might be worth while creating a "Creationist explanations of evidence against a global flood" or similar section for radiometric dating & fossils. Incidentally, did you see my suggestion on Talk:Creation geophysics that your new "Runaway subduction" section needs a more up-front & explicit definition of the term? Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 15:08, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

Roger, but I'm kind of strapped right now, so don't expect anything soon. (Or else feel free to do it yourself.) --Art Carlson 19:55, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

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

Some creationists have lately done some research on liquefaction in a liquefaction tank. The results can be seen at: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1-8C4KFdx_4 The results are in the process of publication. Basically, the results are completely opposite from what Dr. Brown claims. Liquefaction DESTROYS layers, not make them. Liquefaction is a real geologic event usually associated with earthquakes. The Grand Banks Turbidity current that cut several under Sea telegraph cables in 1929 started by an earthquake that liquefied hundreds of cubic kilometers of sediment on the Bank which then flowed downslope across the ocean floor. The turbidite covered thousands of square miles. However, it is a by-product of liquefaction. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Christian Skeptic (talk • contribs) 01:18, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

I watched the video but it seems a bit strange. Strata layers aren't sorted by density in the real world, whilst if they were formed in one go that is what you would expect. That's pretty much falsification of the flood. Jefffire 09:09, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

The particles in individual rock layers in the geologic record are sorted by density. The problem appears to be than many people, including some creationists, think that the flood that Creationists propose was like putting dirt and water into a tub, mixing it all up, and then letting everything settle and the water drain off. Most Flood catastropists have abandoned such a silly notion long ago. The flood is now perceived as a series of closely space catastrophic events each of which put down one or more layers. This is especially true with the asteroid impact model with hundreds of associated impact-tsunami and their depositions. Included would be other related events and depositions, some high energy some low energy, during the space of a ~12 months. Christian Skeptic 16:42, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

This is a delightful example of why creationist "science" simply isn't science. A prediction is made (density sorting) but falsified by the observations. But rather than throw out the hypothesis, it's retained and embellished (a succession of density sorting events). I'd love to know how asteroid impacts were able to selectively kill and bury plants and animals (and isotopes) in an order that looks suspiciously evolutionary. Perhaps when this work is published (whatever that means in this case) there'll be an explanation for this faux evolutionary sequence (might it involve "advanced" animals living further away from the coast?). Anyway, a YouTube video does not seem like a notable source for scientific material, and it's difficult to see how this discussion can possibly improve the article. Perhaps we need to move on. --Plumbago 17:16, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

It is impact-tsunami which is selective. The first things to be ripped up and buried would be in marine shallow water environemts along shore lines. Then as closely timed multiple impact-tsunamis moved further and further in land, more continental flora and fauna would be ripped up and buried. Thus the general move from marine to continental flora and fauna found in the geologic record could be formed. I hope to add a section about the asteroid impact-tsunami model.

In the creationary worldview, Noah's Flood is not a hypothesis, but a fact. There have been proposed an assortment of flood model hypotheses based on the fact of the flood that can be falsified, but falsification of any one or all of them will not falsify the flood. Evolutionism is exactly the same. Christian Skeptic 17:45, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

"Evolutionism is exactly the same"? OK. Anyway, it's clear we're going to have to agree to disagree. If you plan to add more evidence for the impact tsunami model, can you please ensure that it's fully sourced? While the YouTube movie's quite amusing, it's really not an ideal source. As I'm sure you're aware, there are a fair number of catastrophist hypotheses out there, some of which are only supported by their developers — adding these is akin to adding original research, so we need to ensure that only notable (and, obviously, verifiable) material is added. Cheers, --Plumbago 18:01, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

"None of these controversies disputes the FACT that evolution has occurred. They are only about whether Neo-Darwinism is the only mechanism by which it has occurred." Prothero, D, 2004 "Bringing Fossils to Life" pg. 72 {Textbook}

"To the paleontologist evolution appears not as a theory but as a fact of the record. ... Concerning the causes and methods of this evolutionary process he finds wide room for discussion; but the FACT, of the actuality of it he can have no doubt. Evolution is no more a theory to the man who has collected and studied fossils than the city of New York is a theory to the man who lives in it." Matthew, 1925, Natural History 25 (2): 166-168

Evolutionism is a corollary of Naturalism (any kind) and so is a philosophical assumption. It has never been a hypothesis or theory. The controversy between Creationism and Evolutionism/Naturalism has very little to do with science. Christian Skeptic (talk) 01:29, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

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

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

asteroid impact model

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

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

References: (selected)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Philosophical objections

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

Arguably it applies to all creation science, as it specifically references Occam's razor as it applies to science. And as Flood Geology is by far the largest and most prominent subset of creation science, it is not unreasonable to mention it here. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 15:18, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

DELETE I did a draft of the rewrite. Occam's Razor also would deny catastraphism that is discussed earlier in the article. I would just delete it, but people get mad. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.164.46.152 (talk) 01:11, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Your edit was grossly POV. Please read WP:NPOV (particularly the section on undue weight) and WP:NPOVFAQ (particularly the sections on Pseudoscience, and on Giving "equal validity") before attempting any further edits. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 10:04, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Occam's Razor would NOT "deny catastophism". There are specific situations (e.g. meteorite impacts) where the "catastrophic" explanation is the most parsimonious one that accounts for the evidence. This is not the case with "Flood geology", which is contradicted by the evidence. --Robert Stevens (talk) 10:23, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

In my opinion, Occam's Razor is inappropriate in this case, one might just as easily apply the quote: "For every complex problem, there is a solution that is simple, neat, and wrong. - H.L. Mencken". Which, in my experience, when applied to scientific problems is often the case. Occam's Razor could be just as easily used to deny the existence of God: the existence of God is more complex than the non existence of God and therefore he does not exist. This is perfectly reasonable until you consider a universe where God does in fact exist and you have now reached the wrong conclusion. Occam's Razor is a tool scientists use to judge possible conclusions but in and of itself it does not amount to evidence for these conclusions. So therefore it cannot be an objection, merely an observation (Flood geology is more complex). In my opinion this is not a very useful observation. —Preceding unsigned comment added by PCLogston (talk • contribs) 14:07, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

Except that evolution is neither simple nor neat -- it is rather incredibly complicated and messy, it also explains a sufficiently large amount of the facts of biology and palaeontology that the odds against it being proved "wrong" (as opposed to merely "slightly inaccurate") are astronomical. Your quotation is therefore completely inappropriate. When considering "a universe where God does in fact exist" you then have to add a mountain of special pleading to shoehorn what we know about the universe into the orthodox conception of God. To cut this out as absurd, you don't need "Occam's Razor", but merely "Occam's butter knife". Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 15:37, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

Asteroid impact energy partition quotes from reference

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

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

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

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

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

Yes, they don't add up to 100%because the percentages are talking about different scenarios. And we have no way of knowing which scenarios, with which percentages, match the "170+ known asteroid impact craters" under discussion. The whole piece appears to be illegitimate WP:SYNTH of disparate sources. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 05:43, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

No reliable source seems to support this idea. I removed it as original research that lacked notability. ScienceApologist (talk) 05:50, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

It is obvious, neither one of you have bothered to read the original papers. Which is typical of evolutionists. ignorance is bliss, blind and stupid. Hrafn... They don't add up perfectly because they are approximations drawn from several illustrations in the paper. If you would bother to read the paper you would find that ALL impacts of certain large sizes, whether on land or in the ocean of act the same. About 80% of the KE goes directly into the planet. About 15% goes into throwing things around on the surface and about 5% goes into the explosion and its shock wave. This is not creationary invention.

The paper by Spencer quotes from the impact paper. In the synopsis here, I merely added the actual percentages from the original impactor paper referred to in Spenser's paper. Again, if you had read the papers you would see this.

The Abstract from Spencer's paper: "There is clear evidence that impacts have occurred on Earth. to evaluate the possibility of a large number of impacts occurring During the Flood, it is important to consider their geophysical effects. The major effects include powerful shock waves that could trigger mineralogical crystal structure changes in the 400-600 Km depth region in the mantle. The could trigger subduction of the pre-flood ocean floor as suggested by Dr. John Baumgardner. A large number of impacts would also vaporize great quantities of water, some of which would condense as rain. Huge quantities of dust would be ejected by the impacts into the stratosphere. This would lead to low light levels for approximately 3 to 6 months and cold temperatures at the surface for a few months after this. Mano other local and regional catastrophic effects would be produced by the impacts, including large tsunami waves, unusual winds, and possibly acid rain. It is concluded that though impacts would make the Flood more violent and more uncomfortable for Noah and his family, it would be a survivable event and is not in conflict with chronology of the Flood as given in Genesis."

This is a real creationary flood model that has been discussed in creationary literature for aboutr 10 years now, like it or not. Only someone really dumb would expect it to be discussed in anti-creationary literature. Sheshh... It should be included in the list of creationary flood models. Christian Skeptic (talk) 14:05, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

If you want it included, you will have to provide some reliable source that it is actually used as a prop for creationists. Spencer, I'm afraid, just isn't notable enough for inclusion at Wikipedia. He has an extremely low-profile even for a creationist. If we really want to discuss this idea, we need to source it to something more famous. For example, do any major creationist organizations promote this idea? Are there apostles of the Lord going around and preaching this idea from the pulpits? Are there any cases of notable debunking of this fantasy? You need to come up with something to establish the notability of the idea for us to think about inclusion. CSRQ is just plain not a notable source because they publish just about any speculative nonsense that can come down the pipe as long as the author is a creationist. So we need some other way of sourcing the idea and showing its prominence. ScienceApologist (talk) 15:10, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

There are 4 major YEC Creationary groups--Answers in Genesis (AiG), Creation Research Society (CRS), Institute for Creation Research (ICR), and Geoscience Research Institute (GRI). Both AiG and GRI have given at least passing reference to the theory (http://www.answersingenesis.org/tj/v15/i1/permian.asp) (http://www.grisda.org/jgibson/faq2002.htm). CRSQ does not promote any particular theory, It's primary purpose is to publish CRSQ. As noted in the above section, the theory has been discussed in both CRSQ and Journal of Creation. You need to support your allegation that CRSQ publishes nearly anything so long as the author is a creationist, otherwise it is just malicious gossip (AKA a lie). CRSQ, Origins (GRI) and Journal of Creation {formerly Technical Journal, and Creation Ex Nihlo Technical Journal} are the major publications of creationism. If you want to learn what creationists are actually saying you need to go to the horse's mouth, not secondary misinterpretations.

The "passing references" are simply not good enough, in my book. These sources have too little on the subject to allow us to properly source the idea. I understand that the major creationist journals publish a lot of ideas. That doesn't mean that they deserve inclusion at Wikipedia. You will need to do better than that. ScienceApologist (talk) 18:37, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

John Baumgardner is one of the best known Flood theorists among Creationists. I don't know who your are comparing him with. If it is K. Hovind, you need to realize that most Creationists consider Hovind to be just a creationary evangelist and many are embarrassed to be associated with him.

Unfortunately, the fame of Hovind guarantees a spot for his ideas at Wikipedia. John Baumgardner is harder to justify. You'll have to check WP:BIO and WP:PROF to see if he qualifies as a notable enough person for his own article. It would certainly help to have an article on the creationist arguing for the idea to help establish notability. ScienceApologist (talk) 18:37, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

Update -- I have placed the article on John Baumgardner up for deletion. ScienceApologist (talk) 18:54, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

Spencer only mentions Baumgardner in relation to CPT not as a supporter of the Asteroid Impact theory. Spencer is recognized as the major theorist of the Asteroid Impact Theory. The references in the above section show that the theory is being discussed among the creationary group. I can testify from personal experience and that I am acquainted with most creationary scientists, that the Asteroid Impact theory is quickly eclipsing the Hydroplate and Canopy theories (and slowly displacing CPT), but I don't have a reference to that effect. It doesn't matter if you have never heard of Spencer until now, he IS the primary promoter of the Asteroid Impact Theory and as such he is notable in creationary circles. Whether evolutionists know of him or not is irrelevant. Christian Skeptic (talk) 18:22, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

CPT is notable enough for mention in our article, I wager. However, Spencer seems to me to be so obscure that his ideas are probably best left out of here. Your personal experience, unfortunately, is not verifiable. Also, realize that Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. If the Asteroid Impact theory really does eclipse these other two ideas, then there will certainly be some secondary sources that will aid us in being able to source it. Right now it is probably a bit too early to have mention of it here. We just cannot be that cutting edge with the fringe due to the problems associated with sourcing. ScienceApologist (talk) 18:37, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

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

As a paleontology student I read, understand, and am quizzed on technical evolutionary geology and paleontology papers on a regular basis. I am not ignorant of evolutionary interpretation of geology. I must know it to pass my classes. Just because I know it, does not mean I accept it as valid.

Are you a geologist? How often do you read technical geology papers? What do you know personally of the creationary view through reading and understanding creationary papers? If you don't read them yourself, you know nothing. If you rely on others, especially Talk.Origins, you have much, much greater faith in others than I. Christian Skeptic (talk) 18:22, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

If you want this to get personal, believe me, you will end up on the short end of the stick. My credentials, which should not really be relevant in this discussion, dwarf your insignificant embarassingly paltry efforts. So give it a rest and stop trying to insult others here. Thanks.--Filll (talk) 18:50, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

If you are a qualified geologist---great. But the point is not about credentials but about reading and knowing what creationists are actually saying, not what evolutionists think creationists are saying. I haven't seen that here yet. Christian Skeptic (talk) 04:47, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

This isn't about any person, it's about sourcing. We need to find good sources that are beyond primary sources. Good summaries, review articles, and even debunking can be used to help us figure out whether this idea is worthy of inclusion. ScienceApologist (talk) 18:37, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

I don't get it, CS. Why do call this a "flood model"? According to the abstract you cite, impacts are "not in conflict with chronology of the Flood as given in Genesis". If they are irrelevant, then they don't explain anything either. The only thing mentioned that might make it a model is the bit about catastophic plate tectonics, but we already have that covered in the article. Am I missing something? --Art Carlson (talk) 17:31, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

What Spencer means by not in conflict with chronology of the Bible is once the timing of the asteroid impacts is placed within the 1 year time period of the Flood, the impacts do not conflict with the chronology of the Bible. Placing the asteroid impact within the time period of the Flood is the theory. Christian Skeptic (talk) 18:22, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

Again @CS: Your accusations of ignorance, blindness, and stupidity are not only uncivil, they are unfounded. It is reasonable to expect the numbers in any article, whether a scientific publication or Wikipedia, to add up. If they are very uncertain, then they should be listed as ranges. The other argument had to do with the notability of the idea, not its content. The notability can be discussed without reading original sources. --Art Carlson (talk) 17:31, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

I said ~85%, which means ABOUT 85% (as it is used in the article). <15$ means LESS THAN 15%. The actually amount less is variable. And I noted that the numbers added up to ~100$ which means ABOUT 100%. There are other partitions of the energy which I did not discuss, but are explained in the original article. Read the article.

Notability among who???? Evolutionists? This article is about creationary ideas so the ideas reported should be notable among creationists. Would you really expect evolutionists to know much at all about actual creationists and creationary theories? I have yet to meet any evolutionists who know much more that superficial concepts; and then, usually wrongly, as evidence here. Christian Skeptic (talk) 18:22, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

Notability among creationists needs to be higher than normal for the idea to be included in a mainstream encyclopedia. Check WP:FRINGE for more on inclusion guidelines. One good way to establish notability is to find instances of the idea being discussed by third parties. This aids in sourcing as well (see WP:PSTS). The problem is that when an idea is so obscure that it has received no attention, we only have primary sources to go on in order to describe it. In such a case, the idea is normally considered too fringe/obscure to warrant inclusion in the encyclopedia since there is no way to verifiably source the idea. ScienceApologist (talk) 18:28, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

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

Anyone, scientists or non-scientist, Christian or non-Christian, who accepts evolution as a fact or valid theory is an evolutionist. If that is derogatory, so be it. Christian Skeptic (talk) 04:27, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

Do you mind people calling you a pseudoscientist then? ScienceApologist (talk) 04:41, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

So are you saying that citing someone as an evolutionist is as derogatory as calling someone a pseudoscentists? Christian Skeptic (talk) 15:09, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

As they no more self-identify as "evolutionists" than the other side do as "pseudoscientists", yes. Also most would question why such a widely established scientific theory requires any special label for those who accept it. Should we also call those who accept germ theory "germists"? Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 15:21, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

Find another example. AFAIK there is not a substantial portion of the population that disputes germ theory. ^rossnixon 01:08, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

Argumentum ad populum. Similarly "substantial" portions of the population think the sun rotates around the Earth and can't find Florida on a map. I think we can ignore such lowest common denominator arguments as "a substantial portion of scientists" (i.e. those people who actually know what they're talking about on the subject) do not dispute it. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 02:57, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

Not a big deal either way. Anyone like to discuss the article? --Art Carlson (talk) 08:18, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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)

1. Flood geologists are not members of the scientific community, they are members of the Christian apologetics community. Their organisations require acceptance of Statements of Faith. They provide no useful scientific research, merely apologetic arguments for a rigid sectarian religious doctrine.
2. Flood geology is false. That there was no global Genesis Flood, and that the Earth is billions of years old is well-established science. Per WP:UNDUE, wikipedia should not give undue weight to unsubstantiated and unscientific opinions to the contrary.
3. None of the words you are complaining about are "peacock terms" in the context of WP:PEACOCK. They are however an accurate characterisation of the shear mind-numbing repetitiveness with which creationist arguments are reused, the complete lack of legitimate evidentiary basis for them, and the thoroughness with which their refutation has been documented (in books, articles, webpages & lectures).

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 weight”. 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 themselves”.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]

• I disagree -- "routinely been evaluated, refuted and dismissed unequivocally" has very specific meaning. They specifically mean (as I mentioned above) "the shear mind-numbing repetitiveness with which creationist arguments are reused, the complete lack of legitimate evidentiary basis for them, and the thoroughness with which their refutation has been documented (in books, articles, webpages & lectures)."
• You want specifics? Well how about the ENTIRE literature on Geochronology, the ENTIRE literature on plate tectonics, the ENTIRE literature on physical cosmology, and probably dozens of other fields that directly contradict the Flood Geology position. I won't be putting them into the article because to even reference a tiny fraction of them would be longer than the existing article. Please read WP:NPOVFAQ#Making necessary assumptions.
• We should most certainly present Flood Geologists as "unscientific" -- they are advocating claims that are widely regarded as unscientific, and have been explicitly rejected both by the scientific community (including a long list of Nobel Prize winners) and the United States Supreme Court.
• The "scientific community" typically defers to the opinions of those that are expert in the field in question. Your argument is therefore wholly specious.
• I suggest that you read WP:UNDUE, WP:NPOVFAQ#Pseudoscience & WP:FRINGE. Flood Geology has been debunked by the scientific community, and any meaningful article must make prominent mention of the fact.

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:

Flood Geology is one of a number of controversial topics which are regularly debated between evolutionary scientists and creationists. Leading publications espousing Flood Geology include "Answers in Genesis" and "Creation ex Nihili Magazine" whereas the claims of Flood Geology are regularly refuted by leading journals in evolutionary biology, geology and paleontology including "Nature Magazine" and "Science Magazine" . Further complicating the debate is the fact that this controversy is not necessarily divided along religious and scientific lines with a number of churches accepting that a world-wide flood may not have occurred and the scientific community being likewise divided. As observed by the American Science Affiliation "Today's spirited discussion often pits Christian vs. Christian and scientist vs. scientist" .

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[4] 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 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.' [5] 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. 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.

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

I would also direct you to Clergy Letter Project.

References

• Matsumura, Molleen (1998), "What Do Christians Really Believe About Evolution?" (PDF), Reports of the National Center About Evolution, 18 (2), National Center for Science Education Inc.: 8–9 Retrieved on 2007-02-07
• NCSE, National Center for Science Education Inc. (2002-12-19), "Statements from Religious Organizations", NCSE Resource, National Center for Science Education Inc. {{citation}}: Check date values in: |date= (help)CS1 maint: date and year (link) Retrieved on 2007-02-08--Filll (talk) 16:02, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

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%)." Dan Watts (talk) 21:34, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

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:

• None of the criteria in WP:EL#What should be linked appear to apply to Creationwiki, nor can it make a strong case on any of the criteria in WP:EL#Links to be considered.
• Arguably WP:EL#Links normally to be avoided #12 may apply.
• Therefore WP:EL#Important points to remember #4 would appear to apply: "Links in the "External links" section should be kept to a minimum. A lack of external links, or a small number of external links is not a reason to add external links."

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

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)

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)

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)

1. I'm fairly sure that your proposal would run afoul of WP:UNDUE.
2. 'Scientists' is not a "loaded term", but is an accurate term for somebody who has a higher qualification (particularly a PhD) in science, particularly those active in research and, more particularly, working in a relevant field. They are the individuals that an article, on a topic purporting to be 'scientific', must give WP:DUE weight to. Through peer-reviewed scientific journals, they reach a scientific consensus.
3. The 'opposing' list is likely to be long, as (for example), many on the List of scientific societies rejecting intelligent design or Statements from Scientific and Scholarly Organizations will include some sort of statement opposing YEC as well. Also this amicus brief expresses opposition to young Earth Creation Science from a large number of organisation and prominent individual scientists.
4. There weren't any "arguments originally made in the 1600s" -- as there was no geology to argue against. YEC & Flood Geology dates back to George McCready Price in the early 20th century. The bulk of the 'history' section, which describes the social forces giving rise to Flood Geology would thus be lost.
5. The changes would seem to impose a great deal of disruption, for no perceivable benefit.

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)

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)

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)

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: [6]. 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. siℓℓy 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. siℓℓy 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. siℓℓy 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)

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)

• No question. Flood geology contradicts ridiculous amounts of evidence. Of course you can always assume the philosophical position of "God faked the evidence" (see Omphalos (theology)), but to any reasonable standard of proof, as the ones used in science and law, flood geology is incompatible with the evidence. On the simplest level, moving so much stuff (water and landscape) around so fast as necessary would have cooked the planet. Structures like the Siberian or Deccan traps would not have time to cool down if they were formed on the time scales assumed by flood geology. All standard dating methods rule out flood geology. Population genetics rules out a recent bottleneck. The distribution of plants and animals on the planet is incompatible with a recent global flood. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 06:48, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

• Absolutely. Flood geology contradicts the evidence so comprehensively that it's difficult to know where to start, or even which contradictory evidence to present against it. My favourite of all of its failures is its complete inability to account for the basic ordering of organisms within the fossil record. Somehow, flood waters were able to carefully sort and lay down all of the world's drowned organisms in a manner that was both evolutionarily plausible (i.e. simpler organisms precede more complex ones) and which managed to avoid depositing any modern organisms in the deepest sediments. And that's before we consider that the same process also worked for radioactive isotopes, such that older sediments are selectively depleted in parent elements. Amazing. Even homeopathy doesn't make such great claims for the power of simple, old dihydrogen monoxide. Anyway, returning to the second part of this RfC concerning references, it's difficult to know how best to address this. Every single day, dozens (this is a guess) of scientific papers are published in biology and geology that explicitly contradict the claims of flood geology, and there are probably hundreds (this is also a guess) more that implicitly do the same. How best to communicate this here is not obvious to me, however. I don't believe that any amount of evidence will ever convince the "flood geologists". --PLUMBAGO 08:36, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

• I think the wording is a little bit awkward, but it's factually true that flood geology is inconsistent with both the preponderance of scientific evidence and the overwhelming consensus of opinion of scientists. I think the Isaak references are so-so; a book by Robert Pennock might be better used there: it describes catastrophism (including the deluvian hypothesis) as holding sway in the sciences until Lyell, describing the sea change in consensus to uniformitarianism due to the overwhelming geological evidence that came to light during that period, and how the catastrophist Sedgwick, who headed the geological society, could no longer deny the evidence just did not fit the catastrophism/diluvian thesis at all. Pennock describes that the body of geological evidence against the diluvial thesis has only mounted in the years since, bolstered now with absolute dating and other evidence unavailable in Lyell's day. Pennock describes how Christian scientists generally took it in stride that modern geology diverged from Genesis, flood geology. It was anachronistically revived by Price, who derived many of his ideas from the divine revelations of Ellen Gould White - prophecy, rather than geology. "Creationists today who understand the stratigraphic and fossil data agree that the data is not consistent with the hypothesis of a global cataclysmic flood," Pennock says, acknowledging later that within a subset of creationists, ie the ICR and other creation science agencies, they work backwards from the conclusion (YEC, Noachian flood) and try to retro-fit geologicial evidence to that conclusion.Professor marginalia (talk) 23:43, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

• NO. There seems to be either a general inability to understand the difference between data (the evidence) and application (the methods, assumptions, and conclusions). The only data mentioned in the comments is the distribution of organisms and the the ordering of fossils. I have never come across a mainstream attempt to account for the global distribution of organisms but FG - rather than contradicted the current distribution - actually offer a plausible mechanism. Despite the claim above, FG does recognise the ordering of fossils (again no contradiction). They have proposed sorting mechanisms, they have scaled tested them and the mechanisms have thus far weathered the tests (pun intended). This whole thing is being presented as religions assumptions versus scientific evidence, when it is in fact one presuppositional framework versus ANOTHER presuppositional framework. "Absolute dating" requires historical records which state their dates and run in a contiguous span. All dating methods require data and assumptions. References to "modern" organisms being missing from "early" layers is either circular reasoning (if "modern" refers to some fossils) or just plain false (if "modern" refers to currently extant organisms, e.g. gingko, wollemi pine, coelocanth). The choice of this wording in the lead is also at issue, even it it was factually accurate. It is such a serious case of overkill (FG is dismissed 3 times in 2 consecutive runon sentences) that it turns the article into little more than attack piece coatrack. ChristianSkeptic, I share your frustrations (having been told that my opinions are not worth a foetid pair of dingoes kidneys, purely on the basis of supporting YEC). We can't say we weren't warned (Romans 1:20-22 and 2 Corinthians 4:4)LowKey (talk) 00:15, 18 September 2008 (UTC)
  • If there's a weakness in the article, it's that it doesn't yet describe well why flood geology contradicts the evidence and consensus, not that it's wrong to say it contradicts them. The references couldn't be more plain on that point, not only that it conflicts with the evidence but that the reason the "suppositional framework" in geology abandoned flood geology was because the evidence against it forced them to change that framework, not that the suppositional framework changed and imposed new interpretations on the evidence. I do agree there is far too much "trash talking" from some quarters. It's unprofessional, it's unhelpful, a cheap dodge for those too lazy to bother with reasoned arguments. Professor marginalia (talk) 00:58, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

• NO. You can say that Flood Geology contradicts the scientific consensus. You can say that Flood Geology is pseudoscience. But you can't say that it contradicts the evidence, that would be nonsense phraseology - it just interprets the evidence contrarilly(sp?) to the vast majority. ^rossnixon 02:22, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Nice try ^ross. But if a model (flood geology) requires that a process (e.g. sedimentation) behaves in a manner that is completely inconsistent with everything we know about it (and does so at the global scale), we're on solid ground to say that we're dealing with something other than a competing "interpretation" here. Ask yourself what sort of evidence would it take to convince you that flood geology was falsified? There are a number of ways in which the view of the scientific consensus could be falsified (e.g. "fossil rabbits in the Precambrian"), but as yet this hasn't happened. Cheers, --PLUMBAGO 08:03, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

• Without a doubt. The bones of indians of Northwestern US dated over 6,000 years old hold DNA that's closely related to tribes from the same area today. Flood is figured to be around 3500 BC. There is no way these people's ancestors were destroyed by a flood without issue. Modern geology was founded by men who were for the most part if not all faithful Christians. They would have not had a problem with discovering a young Earth and evidence of a world wide flood. However, they did not. They followed the evidence. Aunt Entropy (talk) 03:21, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

• Yes – attempts to relate geology to a worldwide flood were made in the early to mid 1820s, but as shown by Herbert pp. 171–173, in the 1830s these geologists, who we would regard as solidly creationist, accepted that the evidence showed conclusively that at most there had been a succession of local flood episodes. Price's presentation of amateur geology distorted to try to support Ellen White's dream has never had any scientific credence, but is clearly religious faith claimed by its believers to be scientific. . . dave souza, talk 08:27, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Oops, apologies for failing to read the intructions and putting this in the wrong place. Must remembe that! . . dave souza, talk 10:39, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

MEANWHILE

The whole paragraph under discussion/comment here has recently been completely excised twice, from 2 different IP addresses. Is there some tag to direct editors to the discussion? The only inline one that I know of that incorportates a discussion notice is the "Dubious" tag, but if I use that it will be instantly reverted. I think protecting the article is overkill, but editors should be aware that the statement is under active discussion.LowKey (talk) 00:33, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

You can leave an invisible comment by putting the text between <!-- Insert non-formatted text here -->. Random IPs will not necessarily care, but it might be nice to bring this discussion to the notice of any good faith editors who wander through from elsewhere than the RfC board. - Eldereft (cont.) 14:29, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

RfC: please leave this section for outside input ONLY, per RfC instructions

See top note in the previous section. Outside editors are kindly invited to post their comments on Flood geology in this section.

Does flood geology contradict much of the evidence underlying the current scientific consensus on geology, evolutionary biology, and paleontology? Are the references as presented in the article currently adequate to substantiate this claim? siℓℓy rabbit (talk) 01:44, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Silly rabbit, flood "geology" does conflict with scientific consensus on biology, geology, and paleontology. I'd say the article could certainly use several more references from reliable sources from published peer-reviewed papers, though I do not believe all of the dubious/who?-type tags are necessary here. Firsfron of Ronchester 05:08, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Umm you are agreeing with Silly rabbit here. I'm the one who added tags, and Silly rabbit has been removing them, and I think would not appreciate being tarred with the same brush as me. The issue (& Rfc) is not about FG conflicting with the scientific consensus (which it unarguably does) but about it contradicting much of the underlying evidence. See the extended talk above.LowKey (talk) 05:23, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

I've seen the extended talk above, and I'm also aware of who added the tags, LowKey. Firsfron of Ronchester 05:46, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

• Unequivocally yes on all counts. Arguing that this is about interpretation of evidence rather than evidence itself is about as disingenuous as arguing that thermodynamics is wrong because you cannot see the black body radiation after turning off a lightbulb. There are plenty of open questions in each of these disciplines, but none of them are even remotely open to re-interpretation so broad as to admit a single Noachian catastrophe as a defining feature. Scientists tend to be an unruly bunch, and conferences where theories outnumber attendees are probably the norm. The strength of consensus on this particular point arises because acceptance of Flood Geology would require rejection of a vast interlocking body of evidence. The National Academy of Sciences is not in the habit of taking sides on mere interpretations of evidence, and yet: "The belief that Earth's sediments, with their fossils, were deposited in an orderly sequence in a year's time defies all geological observations and physical principles concerning sedimentation rates and possible quantities of suspended solid matter."

Further references addressing specifically the point that accepting "flood geology" requires rejection of vast swaths of science and scientific evidence.

• • An article from NCSE treats the issue that the idea directly contravenes the evidence in a number of disciplines and sub-fields.
  • The arguments of the religious fundamentalists are not only anti-biology but also anti-physics, anti-astronomy, and anti-geology. In short, they reject all scientific knowledge that does not fit their view of the world.
  • This explanation, also known as "flood geology," fails the test of scientific analysis so completely it is almost comic.

I think the biggest problem in duly and NPOVly informing the reader of what geologists &c. think is to pare the deluge of quality sources to only those most accessible and informative.- Eldereft (cont.) 15:51, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

From what I can see, not one of the contributors so far on this thread are geologists, so they have NO credibility, no matter who they quote. I am a geologist and a flood geologist, so I do know what I'm talking about. The problem is no one cares, simply because I'm a creationist. Talk of prejudice!!! Christian Skeptic (talk) 22:40, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

If "no one cares" at wikipedia it's because wp requires editors who defer to published references, not editors who rely on their own opinions Professor marginalia (talk) 23:02, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Christian Skeptic, dismissing other people's arguments based on your perception of whether or not they have the "proper" credentials isn't the right way to have this discussion. If you're going to insist that only your opinion qualifies in your own eyes, I wonder why we are having this discussion. With this kind of attitude, you're right on onen thing: no one will care indeed.--Ramdrake (talk) 23:07, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

• Yes. When geologists can watch a flood, look at it's effect on the top rock layer, and see that effect in older rock layers, but can't detect anything indicating a worldwide flood, then we have evidence that directly contradicts flood geology. Period. Farsight001 (talk) 06:04, 18 September 2008 (UTC)
• Clearly there is no accepted scientific validity of Biblical flood geology claims. All of the hallmarks of psuedoscience are present. I haven't cross-checked these with the current article's content, but these may be useful sources:

  "Creationists and the Grand Canyon". Retrieved 2008-09-22. {{cite web}}: Text "The Humanist (March, 2004)" ignored (help)
  New York Times : "Rock of Ages, Ages of Rock". Retrieved 2008-09-22.

  — Scientizzle 18:46, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

• Absolutely. As an outsider who happened to stumble on this, I can't even believe this is up for RfC. Of course flood "geology" contradicts the evidence itself. --GoodDamon 18:29, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

• Yes. Not much else to say, the evidence is clear.Martin Hogbin (talk) 12:22, 27 September 2008 (UTC)
• Yes but I would word it differently. flood geology" is contradicted by the data of physical and biological sciences" Wording it as flood geology contradicts the science means that the data for the sciences is disproven by FG, when it is clearly the other way round. The current approaches to reconcile the two are divided into: a/peculiar interpretations of the science involved, b/insistence that there must be unknown errors in the science involved, and c/ignoring the science as not possibly true, and therefore not needing explanation or discussion. DGG (talk) 09:12, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

• Weird subject. As I see it, it is basically a flat earth hypothesis that was promulgated at a time when about the only book that was available was the Bible, and it was an attempt to explain geology as best they could. I would suggest including the evolution of thought, for example include the discovery of ice ages, a principle discovery that lead to the refutation of flood geology. In other words, I agree with DGG above. Unfortunately, in many homes the only book available today is still the Bible, leading to some pretty strange beliefs. Apteva (talk) 23:44, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

Prehistory

At present the history section seems to jump from the 18th century to Lyell in the 1830s before referring back to Hutton in the 1780s. There was an interesting series of developments, as Cuvier apparently explained his findings as a number of local floods, but his ideas as translated by the Neptunist Robert Jameson and adopted by Buckland were changed into support for a universal Biblical flood, albeit as a final epoch before the modern world. Herbert pp. 171–173 discusses this view as held by Adam Sedgwick and Buckland, our article only shows Buckland later recanting the idea. Gotta do other things first, but this section needs improvement. . . dave souza, talk 10:49, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

Claims of non-bias

As far as i am aware almost no YECs claim not to be biased, they openly embrace that they start from the presupposition that the Bible is 100% correct, just as evolutionists and the like start from the point that the Bible is wrong. Saying that they claim to be unbiased when they are makes them wrongly appear to be self-contradictory —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.162.91.230 (talk) 11:13, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, but few if any "evolutionists and the like" start from the point that the Bible is wrong. Some, though by no means all, arrive there after looking at the evidence. Many others have no problems accepting both the validity of the Bible and modern scientific theories, although those, of course, reject overly literal and naive interpretations of the bible. But maybe you can reiterate your other point. Our article does not contain the string "bias" at the moment. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 12:01, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

No, evolutionists do not start from the presupposition that the Bible is wrong. In fact, many still believe it to be 100% correct. Check out Ken Miller for one such example. We may interpret the creation story in a non-literal way, but that does not mean that we reject any part of the bible - only YOUR interpretation of it. In your attept to reveal your own perceived bias in "evolutionists", you have revealed your bias instead. Farsight001 (talk) 01:12, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

From your last statement you seem to have completely missed the point made above. Regardless, the interpretation that you reject is the correct interpretation of the text according to the consensus of bible scholars, particular Jewish scholars of the Old Testament. To say that that interpretation is rejected due to "evidence" or "observation" is to say that the Bible is rejected on this same basis, because it has been widely acknowledged that that interpretation reflects the intended meaning of the text. Likewise, Stephan Schulz calling such an interpretation "overly literal and naive" highlights that user's own naivete with regards to scholarly interpretation of the text. Scholarly consensus is that the Bible states that "the heavens and the earth" were created over a period of 6 days approximately 6,000 years ago. Evolutionists do not believe that statement, and therefore do not believe the Bible to be 100% correct. The above RfC comments indicate the that user's opening 2 sentences are also incorrect. "Evolutionists" in general accept that others have conclusively disproven the first chapters of the Bible. This by no means indicates that they themselves have examined the evidence, and if the above is any indication many can no longer even recognise evidence, as their axioms are so basic that they seem unable to recognise or even see them. Ironically there is a biblical explanation to this blindness.LowKey (talk) 02:32, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

What the heck kind of scholars are you going for for your consensus? Because interpreting the creation story as happening over a literal six days is relatively fringe according to scholars. Do not confuse the word scholar with the words pastor or preacher. They are two very different things. Rather, the scholarly consesus is far closer to the idea that the creation account is an allegory. i.e. - not literal. Many actually go so far as to argue that it was even an ancient lullaby. So the question remains - what scholars are you getting this from? We need reliable sources. And frankly, you're not going to find many, if any, that say the creation account is literal or that "evolutionists" believe that they have entirely disproven ANY part of the bible. Again - YOUR literal interpretation is NOT the popular interpretation. Do not present it as such - here or in the article. At the very least, I certainly take personal offense at your insinuation that I reject any part of the bible. Farsight001 (talk) 06:19, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

Indeed. The literal 6 days/6000 years interpretation is at best fringe in the scholarly community. It is popular in the US, and in the more active and conservative congregations, but even that is mostly a recent (~100 years) phenomenon. You might take a look here. The Catholic Church, the Anglican Church, and even many protestant US churches all accept evolution and hence reject a literal reading of the bible. Or see the Clergy Letter Project. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 07:16, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

Quote from Dr James Barr (Regius Professor of Hebrew at Oxford University, who does not accept the Genesis account) - "So far as i know there is no professor of Hebrew or Old Testament at any world class university who does not believe that the writers of Gen 1-11 intended to convey that; a) creation took place in six days which are the same as the 24-hour days we experience now, b) the figures in the Genesis genealogies provided by simple addition a chronology from the beginning of the world to the later stages of the Bible and c) Noah's Flood was understood to be worldwide and extinguish all human and animal life except those on the ark." Yes that definitely sounds like it's an opinion held only by a fringe group of pastors. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.162.91.230 (talk) 09:25, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

While your source may be an expert in Hebrew, you are essentially trying to cite him as an expert on who believes what. In other words, your source is the personal speculation of a man who has no known expertise in the true subject you cited him for, which would be more along the lines of polls or statistics. I also frankly doubt the contextual authenticity of this statement. Do I need to point out that pretty much every Catholic biblical scholar that has ever existed believes that Genesis is non-literal as well as just shy of every secular biblical scholar as well? One man does not equal the majority. On top of that, even if it was the majority, it is still not the absolute truth as you very clearly wish it to be presented. If you wish this or any other article to state that those who reject a literal 6-day creation reject part of the bible entirely instead of just one interpretation of it, you need a reputable source stating it. Farsight001 (talk) 10:25, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

The original post seems to be based on a mis-reading (or perhaps a non-reading) of the article, which currently states

Flood geology starts from the viewpoint that the Biblical Book of Genesis is an accurate and impartial description of actual historical events.

which seems to be what the poster was concerned about. The ensuing discussion has touched on a number of other issues, but seems to have circled in on the question of whether the Bible can be true without being literally true. The current version uses language like "Genesis states" and "The account describes", so I don't think there is any disagreement or ambiguity about what the Bible says literally. The article also states

The idea that Genesis is literally accurate is not universally held within Christianity.

which is also indisputable. So please, we do not need a discussion here of the sense in which the Bible is or is not true. Further discussion here should be limited to the question of how the article can be improved, ideally with concrete objections, concrete suggestions of alternatives, and reliable sources to base them on. --Art Carlson (talk) 09:53, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

I must say to the contrary. Yes, discussion is for how the article can be improved, which is what we are, in a roundabout way, discussing. One side believes that one thing is truth and should be represented in the article while another side believes another. Getting truth into the article is an improvement, so this discussion is ultimately regarding the improvement of the article. Farsight001 (talk) 10:25, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

Aside from the apparent confusion of the original poster about what the current version actually says, who thinks the article should be changed, and in what way? (All I see going on is a cat fight.) --Art Carlson (talk) 14:18, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

Apparently the criticism that opened this section is no longer being pursued, while the discussion has doubled back to a previous criticism. On this basis I am putting in a new section header at this point. --Art Carlson (talk) 10:07, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

Continuation of "Dubious Assertion re contradicting evidence"

As far as I can tell, only LowKey and the anon, who I think is LowKey forgetting to sign in(correct me if I'm wrong!), think the article should be changed to say that science does not contradict flood geology. It was explained quite well that this is simply not true. (s)he wasn't listening, and so a Rfc was made, which also appears to be getting ignored. There is a consensus on the subject already, so why LowKey feels the need to keep it up, I'm not sure. Farsight001 (talk) 22:22, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

You're wrong! It wasn't me. Consider yourself corrected.  :) As to the other, you are completely misunderstanding what I called for, and disagreeing is different to not listening. I asked for sources to support a very specific parenthetical statement,or alternatively the excising of that statement, and refused to accept cites that simply did not address the statement. I explained my objections to the citations, and these were dismissed by Silly Rabbit rather than addressed. I tagged the statement while discussion was active (as per policy), but Silly Revert kept undo-ing the tags WITHOUT discussion and even threatened me with blocking for 3RR (false) against a mythical consensus. There was no consensus either way amongst active editors of the article. I am pretty sure that that is why Silly Rabbit put out the RfC. The comments seem to have the same problem I have been trying to draw attention to all along, but as policy is that majority POV equals NPOV (against all reason) I have been keeping well clear of the article lead, lest I get any more knee jerk revertions and blocking threats. And watch your double standards - you poisoned the well over a scholar of Hebrew positing on the scholarly consensus of a Hebrew text, and then went on to make claims about what "pretty much every Catholic biblical scholar that has ever existed believes" and "just shy of every secular biblical scholar". Why can one party not represent the consensus view in this case anyway, when that seems to be the standard citation practice across most articles that touch on YEC? LowKey (talk) 23:24, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

That's the problem - you don't need sources to excise a statement. You need sources to keep the statement there in the first place - which from what I can tell, have not been adequately provided. I have read the entire discussion and frankly, you just don't want to listen to anyone. Silly Rabbit did explain things to you and there was a consensus (remember that consensus does NOT mean that every single editor must agree - only a majority). So while disagreeing is different to not listening, you're still not listening. Farsight001 (talk) 23:54, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

You just supported removing the statement (based on accepted practice), and you just said that sources have not been adequately provided. You might want to check that, because that was my position all along. Silly Rabbit did NOT explain why conclusions and methods should be considered the equivalent of evidence, but insisted that they ARE evidence. I repeatedly highlighted the difference and this was NOT disagreed with in any contructive way, but merely ridiculed and dismissed. Consensus is more than a simple majority (without needing to be an absolute majority) but around about 5 of 9 is not consensus. The article is a constant source of POV concern (and not just by me, despite protestation otherwise), and none of the seem to get addressed. LowKey (talk) 02:09, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

LowKey, did you make a concrete proposal for a change? The discussion here is unfortunately not very focused. Did you simply want to drop the parenthetical phrase "(and much of the evidence underlying it)" from the lead? I don't have any problem with this phrase, but I also think the paragraph is plenty unambiguous without it. My proposal would be to switch the two sentences, i.e. to talk first about (general) consensus and then about (specific) evidence, like this:

Flood geology directly contradicts the current consensus in a number of scientific disciplines including geology, evolutionary biology and paleontology. The arguments creationists have presented in support of flood geology have been evaluated, refuted and unequivocally dismissed by the scientific community, which considers such flood geology to be pseudoscience.

Note that I have also replaced the word "evidence" with "arguments". Does this version have any better chance of gaining consensus, or have I missed the point somewhere? --Art Carlson (talk) 10:33, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

Art Carlson, dropping that parenthetical phrase was exactly what I called for. I think you and Professor Marginalis are about the only ones who have been able to agree with the those couple of sentences but still understand that the parenthetical statement is unnecessary. As I see it, the inclusion of that phrase puts a borderline POV lead way over the border into an attack-piece lead. It ruins the credibility of the rest of the article.

I also consider the statement false, and it was without citation. As per policy, I initiated discussion of the statement. I then tagged it as dubious (as per policy). Other editors, primarily Silly Rabbit, rather than justify keeping the statement (as per policy) insist on keeping it in, and dismissing discussion. Such editors will be glad to know that I have given up on making this article credible.LowKey (talk) 03:34, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

While deleting the bracketed phrase may bring peace and harmony to this article, it would do so at the expense of the article being accurate. The phrase should really be sans brackets since it's demonstrably true and eminently source-able, and it is not just supported by the scientific literature and consensus (the important stuff) but was also supported in the RfC above too (by non-involved editors; of which I am not one). There is too much evidence (by several orders of magnitude) running against flood geology for it to be presented as simply a non-mainstream interpretation of the Earth's history. For us to accurately represent the state of knowledge (isn't that why we're here?), it's important that this article makes it abundantly clear that flood geology flatly contradicts the evidence. --PLUMBAGO 09:20, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

Assumptions made by scientists (or not)

Now that I'm here, I can't pass up the opportunity to ask this: Would a theoretical individual who has never heard of the Bible, never seen it, never read any of its contents, etc... Would such an individual also be starting "from the point that the Bible is wrong" if he or she looked at the evidence and came to the conclusion that the Earth was around 4.5 billion years old? --GoodDamon 22:41, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

Obviously, any assumption about the Bible would never occur to such a person, in the same way that assumptions about the Invisible Pink Unicorn or the Flying Spaghetti Monster wouldn't consciously occur to a Christian. That, I think, is your point: that the correctness or even existence of the Bible is irrelevant to what the evidence suggests. ~Amatulić (talk) 22:56, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

Would they also be starting off WITHOUT assumptions of an old earth? Sedimentation rates, uplift rates etc are assumed over the "geological timescale". Successive strata are assumed to be laid over previous strata after the previous strata have consolidated (even though this has been observed to be a false assumption). If no assumptions at all are made then the evidence suggests nothing, as respected scientists have been saying for some time now.LowKey (talk) 23:36, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

Again, you express lack of knowledge on the subject. There is no assumption regarding the general age of the earth. We know that the earth is old and there's even more evidence to support it than there is to support evolution - probably the only aspect of science with more evidence than evolution too. The "assumption" is no more of an assumption than assuming that a guy standing over a dead body in an open field holding the gun that killed him is the one who pulled the trigger. Farsight001 (talk) 23:54, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

Instead of insulting me, read what scientists themselves say. "No assumption"? Uniformitarianism is an assumption. I already listed 2 others. These 3 alone are ESSENTIAL to concluding an old earth. And they ARE assumptions. One (about consolidation) has been observably falsified in nature. Are you aware that to get a rock "dated" by radiometric means, one must first specify an expected result (i.e. make an assumption), or do you lack that knowledge? The assumption in your example is still an assumption. It may well be considered a safe assumption, but it is still an assumption. What if the guy got there just before you and has (stupidly) picked up the gun? If the gun's clip is full do you ASSUME that the guy reloaded, or that he never fired? Please tell me what evidence there is for an old earth that involves ZERO assumptions. But don't get upset if I take the opportunity to point the assumptions that you miss.LowKey (talk) 00:50, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

I didn't insult you for one thing. Second, no, they are not assumptions. I don't "lack that knowledge". I know that "knowledge" is false creationist propoganda. At the very least, check out the wiki article on radiometric dating The fact that you didn't even read half of my example correctly (the middle of an open field means that no one else could have been there to pull the trigger and the fact that the gun was used to kill the man means the clip would not be full.) allows me to confirm what I already knew - you don't care about truth, just about your perspective. The evidence for an old earth involves ZERO assumptions. The earth is old. Your interpretation of the bible is wrong. Deal with it and stop trying to get your POV inserted in this article - especially when we are required by the rules of wikipedia to present the scientific consensus, not religious beliefs. Farsight001 (talk) 01:13, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

I did read your example, but even given ALL the specifications of your example, my hypotheticals would ALL have been possible. I was highlighting that some assumptions are so basic that you don't even notice them. We ASSUME that the body is too freshly dead for anyone else to have left it. We ASSUME that the gun was FIRED to kill the body, rather than used as a club. We ASSUME that this is not a suicide. The truth is these may all be safe, justified, and true assumptions but they are assumptions nonetheless. Radiometric dating IS based on assumptions, the uniformitarian assumption for one, starting conditions for another, absence of data corrupting events for another. For C14 dating of biologicals, an old earth must be assumed in order to get any kind of useful result at all. It may be argued that these are justified, safe, and even true assumptions but assumptions they are. Whenever radiometric dating gives a date "known" to be incorrect, data polluting events are ASSUMED. And I was not attempting to INSERT anything into the article. I was attempting to have the over-the-top POV attack in the lead toned down a little (and I mean by a very little). I in fact REVERTED the deletion of the statement in question, and asked for help in keeping as is (i.e. as per Silly Rabbit's last version) pending appropriate discussion, and I have not edited those sentences since, so please agf and hold off on the accusations. By "your interpretation" you would be referring to the authoritatively confirmed interpretation, so you call it wrong against the consensus. Genesis says what it says, with all the linguistic markers that it means plainly what it states plainly. If you do not believe that that is how it happened, that is your prerogative, but that does not allow you to correctly claim that it doesn't say what it plainly says. You mis-state wikipedia "rules" also, but that could be because you are making assumptions about the validity and weight of scientific consensus and religious beliefs.LowKey (talk) 02:09, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

If you're going to be so nitpicky, it's almost not worth it, but let me specify. The age of the earth is an assumption in the same way that hearing a 9mm go off behind you, and immediately turning around, seeing a man standing 20 feet from a collapsing body holding a smoking 9mm with no one else in sight and determining that the man with the gun shot the collapsing man is an assumption. Does it hold up in the court of law? Heck yes. But you say that it should not. I fear such a country who lets so many criminals go free.

As for incorrect dates - have an example? Mind you - dating methods only work on objects of certain ages. Dating bowl I made in potterly class a year ago might give you a result of a few thousand years, but that's because dating methods give invalid results for objects that are too young. So none of this "carbon dating results determined that an object known to be 300 years old was several thousand!"

And no - C14 dating must not assume an old earth. I suggested you read up on dating methods. clearly you have not done so. Do you comprehend how frustrating it is to receive criticism from people who don't even care to understand what they're criticizing? Because that's exactly what you're doing. If you actually do ever decide to read up on it, then I suggest you check wiki guidlines too, because I applied them just fine. Farsight001 (talk) 03:01, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

[Decrease indent] It's a trivial, nitpicking point, but carbon-14 can only be used to date objects of age less than 100,000 years because the half-life of ¹⁴C is only around 6,000 years. Age of the Earth stuff is done via a suite of much longer lived isotopes. As for requiring the assumption of an old Earth, well that doesn't stand up to scrutiny. Among many other things, it's the isotopic evidence that tells us that the Earth is old. Coupled to what we know from directly observing the behaviour of the isotopes in a laboratory, the parent-daughter isotope ratios indicate that a lot of time has passed. The most obvious alternative hypothesis (and I use that latter word with caution) can be viewed as theologically unsatisfactory. Cheers, --PLUMBAGO 08:41, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

The supporters of Flood Geology seem to ignore the fact that many of the 18th and 19th Century Geologists were Christians eager to discover evidence of a worldwide flood. They came back from the field disappointed but most were honest enough to recognise that the earth is much older than the Bible suggests and that no major single event, such as Noah's flood, has been responsible for the formation and presence of most of today's geological features. Unfortunately the heresy of Flood Geology is today still clouding the minds of many Christians. Surely the progress of scientific knowledge ought to enable a better interpretation of the creation narrative. As well as radiometric dating, other dating methods such as dendrochronology, ice cores, clay varves etc. have been developed making Flood Geology even less credible. Supporters of Flood Geology seem to believe there is a conspiracy of science against Christianity and the Bible. The motive of science is to discover scientific truth in order to better understand and utilize the natural environment. --Another berean (talk) 10:36, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

Actually, I think the history section does a fine job of explaining that the scientific community started with an open mind, although with a leaning to the Biblical account as a working hypothesis. Only in the course of discovering and pondering the consequences of masses of new evidence were they forced to conclude that the geological and paleontological evidence pointed to an old Earth without a catastrophic flood. The fact that this topic keeps coming up may be an indication that the article is not as clear as it could be. I would like to hear from LowKey (and the anonymous poster, if he is still around), whether he thinks that the article makes it adequately clear that the position "evolutionists and the like start from the point that the Bible is wrong" is inaccurate. I'm inclined to think that the anonymous poster just did a knee jerk without reading the article, and ended up pulling everybody's chain. If that's the case, can't we bury it now? --Art Carlson (talk) 19:59, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

Biblical basis/theological basis

I changed the header for this section from "theological basis" to "biblical basis" and drastically shortened it.

The majority of the section was about interpretations of the flood narrative from a scholarly perspective. No doubt there's a place for this, but not here - this section should simply set out the reason why literalists believe that flood geology is a valid field of study: becuase they believe the flood narrative is history, not theology. PiCo (talk) 05:54, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

No objection to the title change, but deleting the majority theological view to show a minority view in isolation is unacceptable. I've restored the deleted information. The article has to plainly show that the belief that the flood narrative is scientifically vald history is only one theological view, and separating that away in a "criticism" section gives undue weight to the fringe view. . dave souza, talk 08:02, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

I think I can see what PiCo was getting at though. This is an article about the ostensibly scientific aspects of a particular interpretation of a well-known theological text. So focus should fall on presenting it from this (scientific) perspective. That said, it is only one interpretation of said well-known text (and possibly a minority one at that), so I think that dave is correct to restore (the modest amount of) material that represents the separate theological criticism of this article's subject. Cheers, --PLUMBAGO 09:06, 23 October 2008 (UTC)"

The lead says: "Flood geology ... assumes the literal truth of a global flood as described in the Genesis account of Noah's Ark." It srrms logical that the first thing in the body of the article should be a brief summary of that account, but it isn't there - instead we've got theology. So have the summary at that point (without any views on whether it's true or untrue), and have a subsection down in the Arguments Against sectiopn about theology. The theological arguments are overwhelmingly against a literalist interpretation, by the way - it's quite an interesting story, with literalism being abandoned in the 19th century and then resurrected in early 20th century America. Today 60% of ordinary Americans believe in a literal flodd (Gallup poll figures), and 12% be;ieve that Noah's wife was Joan of Ark, but figures from the UK are completely different. Actual biblical scholars overwhelmingly reject literalism. PiCo (talk) 12:40, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

Ah but the 60% constitute a "fringe" so we mustn't give their viewpoint undue weight. The "interesting story" is also just that; a story. Literalism (of Genesis) was certainly abandoned; by some. Not by conservative evangelicals, as pointed out, but also not by Hebrew scholarship. Hebrew scholarship does not hold the account historically true but holds that the text is to be read plainly. The majority view is that the global flood is not historical, but the article is about the view that it is historical, and this section is about the biblical/theological basis for that view. It should thus lay out that basis without the constant contra-qualifiers. This article is about a scientific viewpoint which accepts the Great Flood as historical. It only makes sense to lay out the details of the flood as accepted by that viewpoint. The article is supposed explain Flood Geology after all, and all the "not accepted" qualifiers don't advance that explanation. An article that says "This is what it is; this is why it exists; it is accepted/rejected and this is why" summarily in the lead and then in detailed sections is much better than "this is what it is but it's rejected; this is why it exists but that’s rejected too; it is rejected and rightly so; here is why it is rejected”. The first is encyclopaedic, the second is apologetic.LowKey (talk) 00:24, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

Biblical basis section

I divided the section in two, one section being a straight-forward description of the Genesis flood story, the second for an overview of modern scholarly understanding of the story. I also added a para about flood and biblical chronology within the first subsection. I believe this is a useful edit, as it quarantines the non-contentious part - what Genesis actually says about a flood - from the analytical section. I also think we need something abt the chronology - it's quite important to flood geology that all their events happen quickly, as they have to fit within the very tight schedule provided by a Creation about 4000 BC (sometimes 10,000) and a flood about 2,300 BC.

The second subsection, on modern scholarly analysis of the flood narrative, needs to be re-worked. It takes the documentary hypothesis as the generally accepted model for the composition of the flood story, but it that hasn't been the case since about 1975; it ignores the existence of the primeval narrative; it ignores the internal theology of the flood narrative (it's not just an adventure story, it had a meaning when it written); it ignores the meaning of the biblical chronology; and it ignores the relationship between the Noah story and Babylonian flood myths.PiCo (talk) 06:52, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

Nicely done.LowKey (talk) 23:10, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

I've now re-written the "modern interpretations" section and retitled it as "Theological basis". My aim was two-fold - the section now explains the origins and meaning of the story for the Hebrew authors, and the reasons why modern literalists take it to be true (without understanding the original meanings or context). At the moment totally lacking references, but these can be added - I have them all. PiCo (talk) 10:50, 31 October 2008 (UTC)