Talk:Flood geology/Archive 3

message: I just moved "Theological basis" to the top of the article, as the logical place to find it, but it still has problems - it still seems as if each section considers itself to be the introductory section. I think the entire organisation of the sections needs to be considered very closely, with a view to reorganisation and possibly heavy amalgamation. PiCo 23:51, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I moved it down so it prefaces "Interpretation of evidence". IMO History should probably be the first section after the lead, but in anycase, theology needs to precede "theories" to provide context. ornis (t) 13:20, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Organisation of sections 

message: The footnote belongs where it has been, and not where Aplomado wants it, becuase the phrase "are not taken seriously by scientists." is part of what the citation supports. You put the footnote after material you are referencing from it, not at some random point in the middle.
Just explaining at more length than ConfuciusOrnis's edit summary, because it seems we need to be very explicit here. Aplomado's confusion is inexplicable. TCC (talk) (contribs) 04:33, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thank you, yes I should have been more explicit, but I was two dumbfounded to do so. Clearly you're more patient than I. ornis (t) 06:16, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Not really; I just haven't gotten wound up yet. I seem to remember reverting the same edit a couple of weeks ago. TCC (talk) (contribs) 06:36, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Nah I think that was me, I got snarky note left on my talk page to prove it and all [1]  your last revert was the "Creationary" one ;) ornis (t) 06:51, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Oh well. I thought I reverted it. Maybe you beat me to it by a few seconds. I've had that happen before. It doesn't say there was an edit conflict, it just silently ignores the attempt to save a version identical to the current one. TCC (talk) (contribs) 06:55, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Probably, happens to me all the time. ornis (t) 06:57, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Footnote 

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

message: thumb|200px|right|A quartzite block in Cambrian sedimentary strata, identical to quartzite found in the Precambrian layer, which creationists believe came to rest there due to large-scale liquefaction.
This image is claimed to be creationist evidence of liquefaction, but it needs to be sourced by a reliable source before we can reinclude it.
ScienceApologist 17:54, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Seems to come directly from a creationist website, direct link is: . In turn, this picture or the facts it is related to seem to come from "Arthur V. Chadwick, “Megabreccias: Evidence for Catastrophism,” Origins, Vol. 5, No. 1, 1978, pp. 39–46.". Homestarmy 18:08, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: So Art Chadwick in 1978 believed that erratics were evidence for liquefaction? I think to be honest about this claim we need to evaluate both the reliability and the relevance of this source to general claims of flood geology. ScienceApologist 18:24, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Is that really necessary just to state that Creationists claim the picture represents evidence for large-scale liquefaction? Homestarmy 18:51, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think so. We have a picture that is 30-years-old standing in for claimed evidence of a global flood. That's a pretty tall order even for a creationist claim. We should have more than a single book if we are using it to declare what "creationists claim". ScienceApologist 18:59, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Chadwick has never proposed large scale liquefaction. See: http://www.grisda.org/origins/05039.pdf  So far as I know, Brown is the only one who has proposed liquefaction.  Which other creationists are disproving with experiments.   http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1-8C4KFdx_4  [last couple minutes] --Christian Skeptic 19:46, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Then this definitely doesn't belong here. ScienceApologist 21:29, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Removed image

message: I made this edit with the summary "out-of-hand" suggests that they don't have any arguments against it, which was reverted by Orangemarlin with the summary Reverting POV. The change was from this sentence
However, creationist presentations of what they believe is evidence are routinely dismissed out-of-hand by the scientific community and as such flood geology is considered pseudoscience. Flood geology directly contradicts the current consensus in scientific disciplines such as geology, evolutionary biology and paleontology.
to this one
The scientific community, however, sees the observations cited as easily interpreted within the consensus framework, and the interpretations of the creationists as being in severe conflict other well-established observations in geology, evolutionary biology and paleontology. As such flood geology is considered pseudoscience.
There are several editorial changes that might be weighed against each other. The substantive change is that I removed the statement that flood geology is "rejected out of hand" and added the statement that all the observations fit within the standard paradigm. When I read "rejected out of hand", I get a picture of establishment types, who refuse to even look at a hypothesis, solely because it comes from a religious person. That does the scientific community injustice. Although they surely get tired of refuting the same nonsense over and over again, I contend that the scientific community has dismissed nothing out of hand, but has weighed it and found it wanting. I would like the formulation to reflect that. Can't wait to hear how Orangemarlin sees it. --Art Carlson 13:42, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That works for me. "unequivocal" is probably what Orangemarlin meant with "out of hand", and if you think that "severe conflict" equivocates, well, OK. I still kind of like my version, but I admit that yours reads better. --Art Carlson 14:45, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Just so you don't have to read my mind, I watch probably 1500 articles, almost all of them controversial (though a bunch like hockey articles aren't...usually).  If I don't see one of the "regulars", and I see what appears to be a POV change, I'll revert using Twinkle.  I've never liked the words "scientific consensus" because it sounds like a bunch of old guys sitting around a table, looking at something like Flood geology, and making a grand pronouncement.  I probably did not write the original verbiage, and I probably wouldn't have used "out of hand" because I think science is a bit equivocal.  Anyways, I don't mind Hrafn's language. OrangeMarlin Talk• Contributions 14:52, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Just read the revision.  Strong, but appropriate.  OrangeMarlin Talk• Contributions 16:54, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

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

message: A few minutes ago I reverted a  tag about the independence of radioisotope dating and historical records. After strolling through Wikipedia looking at the topic, I admit it is not cut and dried. I could not find a clear reference to the latest consistent dating of the earliest event, and there seems to be considerable differences of opinion on the date of the Great Flood itself. Bishop Ussher arrived at 2349 BC for the flood, but dates as early as 3402 BC are proposed. Writing began around 3400 BC, and the Egyptian chronology begins around 3200 BC, but it is not clear how much guesswork is involved or how much radioisotope dating is called in to help establish these dates. Hammurabi definitely began his reign before 1696 BC, but that doesn't help enough. In short, it would be good if a historian could have a look at this, formulate an NPOV statement, and provide an RS.
—Preceding unsigned comment added by  Art Carlson  (talk • contribs)   11:04, 6 October 2007
:I think the person just wanted a reference for this. Surely we can find a reference? The creationists have a variety of chronologies. Creationists in general reject radioactive dating because they think it is based on flawed assumptions; for one thing, it finds many objects that are older than entire universe is supposed to be.--Filll 13:58, 6 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Historical chronologies 

message: How do we determine which ideas that call themselves "flood geology" are notable, and which have such a small following (at least at present) that they can be ignored (and should be ignored, in order not to give flood geologists a worse name than they already deserve)? The article makes it sound like the one and only organization with a mission in flood geology is the Creation Research Society. Who else could have the authority to define what flood geology is and isn't? Answers in Genesis? --Art Carlson 18:43, 6 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: This is something that I think warrants extremely careful consideration. In my mind, Price is the father of the movement with the vapor canopies, cometary floods, and catastrophic plate tectonics being the notable offshoots. Also receiving some note is the Grand Canyon creationist book. In my mind this is what the article should focus on primarily: the rest should be excised per Wikipedia:Undue weight. ScienceApologist 21:22, 6 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It often seems that there's very little that YECs say about the detail of their claims that another bunch of YECs elsewhere hasn't disavowed. HrafnTalkStalk 14:51, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

text: I would put as even more notable an organization with even more substance than those listed above, the Geoscience Research Institute. The exact ordering of some of the organizations in the middle is a bit difficult. I do admit that Dr. Dino has to be close to the bottom. Historical figures might be even lower than Dr. Dino, however. I think of the Flat Earth Society, for example, or Harry Rimmer.--Filll 15:43, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Walt Brown's center for scientific creationism needs to be in there too. ScienceApologist 15:58, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'd place Walt Brown above Hovind, but below the CRS. I'm not sure where the GRI would go, as I've never seen them mentioned (outside the wikipedia article on them). Do they have any notable creationists (or creationists with notable scientific credentials) working for them? Have they developed any hypotheses that have been accepted by other Creation Science organisations? HrafnTalkStalk 16:06, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

text: Given that the GRI is closely associated with the Seventh-day Adventist Church, which has only 840,000 members in the US, and as it doesn't have a particularly high profile (and thus little influence outside its own denomination), I'm assuming that it'd be less notable than the other Creationist organisations. I'm not going to even attempt to find an ordering for historic creationists -- too difficult & messy, too many to try to fit in & not really necessary -- if their views aren't still being promoted by notable modern organisations or individuals, then their ideas have died out & are no longer notable (except in a 'History of Creationism' article). HrafnTalkStalk 13:04, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Notable positions 

message: A section on mammoths has always seemed a little out of place in an article with geology in the title. I might be willing to go with it anyway, but it starts with an unsourced claim from "some proponents of Flood Geology" and ends with a disavowal from Answers in Genesis. The argument itself is so far-fetched that it hardly seems worth debunking. Unless someone can find an RS that indicates that this idea is widespread enough to be notable, I would propose eliminating this section completely. --Art Carlson 11:25, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Well there's this as a starter , I'll see if I can find something else. I tend to think that even if AiG has wised up, there are always people like Hovind and his homskuled supporters that will continue to cite nonsense like this. If we remove it, I am almost prepared to guarantee, that someone in the future will turn up with a link to their angelfire website, demanding that we include this important PROOF!!! of the global flood.  – ornis⚙ 11:50, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Mammoths 

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