Talk:Flood geology/Archive 1

message: This article goes against wikipedia policies stipulated in Neutral_point_of_view as such the article should be label as neutrality questionable. The writers to should make an attempt to added in the counter arguments made by conventional geologist. --BerserkerBen 02:44, 17 Jan 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: i'm not aware of any counterarguments. several mainstream geologists have come through and chosen not to add any counterarguments, despite requests on my part that they do so.  Ungtss 03:44, 17 Jan 2005 (UTC)

text: no sir.  i asked you to provide a good mainstream rebuttal at the end.  you said you didn't want to get involved.  you're still welcome to add the rebuttal.  but it has to come after the main text, and it has to say WHO says it.  Ungtss 04:09, 17 Jan 2005 (UTC)

text: berserkerben asked for counterarguments by a conventional geologist.  i noted that mainstream geologists had declined to provide any.  if you ever change your mind, you're welcome to add them to the page.  there is no "burden of proof" in wikipedia.  it is an encyclopedia, and this article describes a particular view of geology accurately, concisely, and in an encyclopedic manner.  encyclopedic counterarguments are welcome to improve the quality of the article.  Ungtss 04:36, 17 Jan 2005 (UTC)

text: The major problem with a rational list of counter-arguments is that Flood Geology is not very well-defined. There are the water canopy model (impossible among other things because of the athmospheric pressure required to keep the water up), the underground aquifier model(wells from the deep)  (Where did the water go? Why did it stay down so long?), and the apparently currently en-vogue runaway subduction model (where did the required energy go? Why has the crust not melted completely?). None of the recent flood models are compatible with radioactive dating methods, dendochronology, or even the written history of the Egyptian and Chinese civilizations. Nor can either explain how the Siberian and Deccan traps manage to overlay massive sediments and even massive coal seams (if they were laid-down post flood, they would have no time to erode to the current state, or even cool). --Stephan Schulz 10:01, 17 Jan 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: i believe mainstream scientists would call issues like that "opportunities for further research" rather than "fatal flaws."  how, after all, do mainstream geologists think we got fossil fuel deposits?  seems they don't really have any idea.  at least flood geology is a start.  radiometric dating is rejected out of hand, because they are meaningless.  specific examples of dendochronology (rather than conclusory statements) or written histories that are incompatible with the flood would be welcome.    Ungtss 14:01, 17 Jan 2005 (UTC)

text: I don't think an encyclopedic article is the right place for such a discussion. Look at the amount of discussion on talk.origins or the archives - this can go on for ever. As stated above, one of the problems is that there is no single flood geology model. All of the ones I know about are easily debunked by qualified (or even semi-qualified) scientists. The water canopy model certainly is no straw man - it may not be the strongest or latest flood geology model, but it is one that is still advanced by many people. Maybe someone (Ungtss? You seem competent on that topic) can write up one concrete (preferably the current best) model as a basis for dicussion.--Stephan Schulz 15:03, 18 Jan 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm sorry, Ungtss, but I really believe your knowledge of the state of the art in sciene is somewhat lacking. Mainstream geologists do of course have models about the creation of fossil fuels (see overlapping edit above). There is, as always, debate about details, but that does not mean that "they don't really have an idea". Your sentence about radiometric dating really makes no sense - it is not "rejected outright" (except maybe by you, as it does not seem to fit your world view), but rather forms a set of very useful tools for many disciplines. Maybe you do not understand how they work (and how and why they can fail to work under certain circumstances), but they are really based on very fundamental laws of physics. As for Dendochronology, both the Bristlecone Pine master series (goes back to 7000 B.C.) and the University of Sheffield British Isles master series (goes back to 5000 B.C.) show no sign of a flood at the traditional dates. I suggest you go to talkorigins.org and read and understand everything there that interests you. You don't need to believe it, but at least understand it. Most of the articles there have a bibliography to primary research papers (which, however, are very hard to read for non-experts) if you fear bias.  --Stephan Schulz 18:36, 17 Jan 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: it amazes me how you seem to think that personal insults are persuasive.  why don't you try some facts, instead?  radiometric dating of sediments is rejected outright by the flood model, because excess argon debunks K/Ar and mixing lines debunk isochron dating.  it's not my "worldview."  it's the "topic."  as to bristlecone pines, they definitely raise some interesting issues, and i'm certainly no expert on the topic.  i have heard, however, that there is some controversy regarding the bristlecone pines, including "samples with a high proportion of missing rings will exhibit complacent ring patterns. It is not surprising, then, to find that nearly 50 percent of the bristlecone pine samples used as components in the 7104-year master chronology have mean sensitivities of less than 0.30 (5). Such low sensitivities are suggestive of complacent samples that would cross match about the same regardless of where they were placed in the chronology"  Ungtss 13:47, 18 Jan 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Hi Ungtss, sorry, I did not intend to insult you at all. It just seems that you do have a very one-sided view of the issue. There are many more radiometric dating methods then the one you mention, and they all agree within expected errors. You can e.g. use C14 dating on coal (it will not resolve to a concrete date, as natural coal seams are far older than the useful range of C14 dating, but it will give a minimum age much older than the alleged flood date). Your source for  the controversy is a letter to the editor in a Christian-oriented journal, not a scientific publication. --Stephan Schulz 15:03, 18 Jan 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: that's the kind of stuff i'd love to see on the page -- very specific, fact-intensive cases that falsify the flood model -- not "c14 proves the flood false" but "THIS PARTICULAR COAL READING revealed THESE PARTICULAR results."  i'd like that very much.  if i have a one-sided view, it's because i find the mainstream side just gives me a continual stream of conclusions, rather than facts to support them -- i'm just after the facts, and i'd love the opportunity to work with you in finding them:).  Ungtss 15:18, 18 Jan 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Lack of Neutrality 

message: Actually, Creationists do often respond that mainstream scientists will not accept anything based in the Bible, but that doesn't necessarily belong in the article.
Rlquall 12:22, 8 Oct 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, they sometimes do that. But not specifically in response to claims that flood geology is junk science. That's why I took it out. --Stephan Schulz 12:41, 8 Oct 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Creationists Response 

message: In my opinion, the mainstream scientific consensus on flood geology is an important and relevant part of the article. What is the general opinion? My suggestion is to add something like the old pararaph back in. --Stephan Schulz 22:44, 15 Nov 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: I think that there must be a non-POV way to put into the article that the claims of "flood geology" are almost completely different from, and in opposition to, those of mainstream science, and are largely ignored by mainstream science.  It is true that most mainstream scientists regard flood geology as "junk science", this should somehow be expressed in the article without making it a Wikipeida "endorsement" of this view,
Rlquall 15:26, 16 Nov 2004 (UTC)

text: As someone who both has a degree in geology and attends church, I don't think that you'll get it much better than that.  You can never please people who are 100% literalistic and thnk that the Earth celeberated its 6008th anniversary last year.  I'm sure that some of them will continue to mess up the page from time to time.  Certainly "flood geology" is a "theory", as is "Uniforimitarianism", it's just that one has the backing of the mainstream scientific community and that the other doesn't.  It may be "POV" to say that one is right and that the other is wrong, but it's not POV to say that flood geology is not the viewpoint of 21st century mainstream science.  There are people who don't believe that George W. Bush was elected President earlier this month, but these views are not mainstream and should not be given exactly the same weight as those who agree with that thesis, and this should be the same. 
Rlquall 16:55, 16 Nov 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Edits by [[User:67.65.165.249]] 

message: ...as stated above, I think most scientists and most geologists, at least outside the US, ignore flood geology not because of the evidence, but because the topic is so incredibly obscure and non-scientific that they never even heard about. Among the scientists I know (and I am one and actively working as one), I would not expect anyone but me to even know what flood geology is. Maybe we can find a better consensus as my last version, but I'm not very happy with the current one either. --Stephan Schulz 21:40, 21 Nov 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: ...you makde a very good point here, I only objected to the wording because it was such a weak compromise. I actually believe something along the lines of the old "junk science" concept to be much better, but although that is true (if geologists have heard of the idea at all they consider it junk, not real science), it would probably not be  politically correct enough for most Americans to accept. I'll try again, see what you think.
I like it! Maybe the language flow can be improved a bit (I'll meditate), but the sentiment is exactly right in my opinion. --Stephan Schulz 14:23, 22 Nov 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Scientists ignore flood geology 

message: What is wrong with the category "historical geology" for this article?  Philip J. Rayment 15:41, 19 Dec 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Category 

message: welcome -- and i greatly appreciate your promise of many edits and corrections to come.  here are my thoughts on my recent changes to a few of your changes:  Ungtss 23:42, 6 Jan 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: this is a pov, and has to be qualified. Ungtss 23:42, 6 Jan 2005 (UTC)

text: this is also a pov -- with which flood geologists disagree.  the more general, npov statement, is that they precipitate from solution -- whether slowly on a riverbank (although it seems to me that erosion is the rule everywhere but the rivermouth) or quickly during a flood.  Ungtss 23:42, 6 Jan 2005 (UTC)

text: i would really appreciate a mainstream geologist's critique of flood geology, but it must be stated as a pov, and must follow the description of flood geology itself.  the article cannot state as fact that flood geology fails -- it must say WHO says flood geology fails, and why.  Ungtss 23:42, 6 Jan 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  new edits 

message: great to have them here!  it would be nice, tho, if there could be some cited facts or scholars to support these arguments?  i intend this for the sake of the quality and persuasiveness of the counterarguments -- as they are, they don't seem to really hit the points made in the front section -- they're primariliy personal research, and they attack the weak points of some proposed models ... but don't cut to the core -- how did the sedimentary rocks actually get there?  how are the frozen mammoths explained?  what about the submarine canyon extensions?  it's cool if y'all wanna leave them like that -- i'd just like to see some rebuttals that actually address the issues.  Ungtss 04:42, 23 Jan 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Cool.  Yeah, those counterpoints are personal research, but I already returned the books to the library.  Most of what is there, though, can be found at the talk.origins archive here.
I'll go ahead and add the counterpoints to specific Flood Geology points now.  Neocapitalist 22:11, 23 Jan 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I think "personal research" is when you come up with it yourself rather than get it from another source.  So finding it in library books doesn't count as personal research.  Philip J. Rayment 13:17, 24 Jan 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: i guess what i meant was, they're not attributed to any source -- who said these things?  when?  why?  most of the rest of the page is attributed to people ... it would be nice if the counterpoints were too.  Ungtss 13:31, 24 Jan 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Sorry about last night; I couldn't update: internet problems.  I'll work on that now.  Neocapitalist 19:16, 24 Jan 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: good job:).  Ungtss 20:54, 24 Jan 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  New counterpoints 

message: phillip -- it would seem we should add some of the proposed flood models to put the counterpoint criticisms in context -- any ideas on how to do that?  Ungtss 04:42, 23 Jan 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I'll give it some thought, but so far I've edited the mainstream stuff where it was responding to straw-man arguments and the like.  Philip J. Rayment 13:49, 24 Jan 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm interested in seeing some of the new ones. Neocapitalist 02:38, 25 Jan 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  models 

message: The major restructuring to cure the Creationist POV looks to be about done; there's probably a few controversial edits still to go, but I don't foresee anything major.
So, if anyone sees anything too POV, then go ahead and change it, and then point it out here.  
For starters, the opposition links header seemed to be unnecessarily POV: "Sites criticising Flood Geology".  I changed it.
Neocapitalist 02:43, 25 Jan 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  new minor edits 

message: "However, archaeologists state, once the flood had begun, if liquefaction actually took place, heavy, dense objects, such as human artifacts, would be expected to sink to the bottom;"
The problem with slotting all these 'if's, 'but's and 'mainstream scientists claim's into existing sentences is that the whole thing quickly descends into a morass of punctuation. I'll try and hammer this into a decent approximation of English when it isn't quarter to four in the morning. Potatojunkie 03:40, 25 Jan 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Aargh!  My secret identity has been discovered!  Sorry about the convoluted English; it seems I can't write a sentence without it becoming unnecessarily complicated.  If you want, point out more things which could be made clearer, and I'll see what I can do to help revise the sentences.  Neocapitalist 19:29, 25 Jan 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: The main problem was with big long strings of clauses seperated by commas. All they really needed was to be rephrased so as to avoid that - juggling the order of clauses, using parentheses, and so on. Shorter sentences are the trick - so long as they are still sentences. I forget what I was still unhappy with, as it seems okay now. I didn't want to rewrite too much - I'd rather leave that to people who are more familiar with the subject in hand.Potatojunkie 12:11, 26 Jan 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Who edited this, William Shatner? 

message: It still needs work, but the counterpoints do read a little better now.Potatojunkie 04:24, 25 Jan 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Can't sleep - clown'll eat me 

message: As Ungtss now has it, he will not accept the current version of this page. So, it would be useful if he explicitly outlined what he requires in a compromise version so we can get to it. Joshuaschroeder 16:16, 10 Apr 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Schroeder.  you've demonstrated your unwillingness to compromise or discuss again and again.  i'm hesitant to waste my time with you further.  my requirements are simple: the placement of "history of flood geology" after the content of flood geology, and the restoration of the substance of flood geology which you deleted.  are you willing to discuss these goals, or will you simply filibuster?  Ungtss 12:43, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: The rules of Wikipedia are that you assume good faith. Joshuaschroeder 16:31, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: it's a rebuttable presumption, which your actions have thoroughly rebutted.  Ungtss 20:37, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: John 8:7 Joshuaschroeder 21:41, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Matthew 18:15-17.  Ungtss 22:18, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Luckily, we are not brothers in a church, Ungtss, we are members of Wikipedia. If you wish to treat others badly as you seem to think it justified to do by those verses, that is opposed to Wikipedia rules. Joshuaschroeder 23:30, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: let's review, shall we?  i noted that you had continually demonstrated your unwillingness to discuss or compromise with anyone having a different viewpoint than you, evidenced by the fact that four people signed your rfc, describing you as a pov warrior, as well as irrefutable evidence that you broke the 3RR and vandalized page titles.  you then made the absurd statement that i should assume good faith, which is totally inapplicable given your consistent and continuing demonstration of bad faith.  i noted as such.  you then quoted the bible, apparently claiming i had no right to judge.  but as i recall, nobody but you and your "advocate" signed your  rfc against me, while four people signed mine against you.  so i responded with another bible verse, in which i noted that when people consistently act in unjust and harmful ways, one should confront them, but if they persist, one should cease associating with them.  and naturally, you concluded with another absurd response about how i think the bible authorizes my bad behavior, when in fact the verse simply instructs me to blow you off becase of yours.  now let's get back to writing encyclopedias, shall we?  Ungtss 01:28, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: If you follow what you perceive to be the instructions of the bible to blow me off, that is against the rules of Wikipedia. You cannot just blow somebody off because you think you have the moral higher ground. You can try, but you will run into problems. Joshuaschroeder 03:46, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Perhaps you'd like to propose a new policy to the effect of Wikipedia:No blowing off.  In the meantime, i'm perfectly within my rights to do so.  Naturally I'd prefer not to.  Perhaps you'd like to take an interest in npov, to aid toward that end?  Ungtss 03:49, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)

text: I don't placing the history further down the article is sensible, for two reasons: it's inconsistent with similar articles and it obscures the fact that flood geology is a disproved hypothesis. If you look at Geology, for instance, you'll see that the history is the first section after the contents box. (Our esteemed rivals at Britannica do exactly the same thing in their printed article on earth sciences.) There's a good reason for this - a scientific theory isn't just something that someone has thought up overnight, and it doesn't stand in isolation. It has a history of years (maybe centuries) of development which have produced either its confirmation, as in the case of Einsteinian physics, for instance, or its disproof, as in the case of flood geology. What's more, the flood geology of modern creationists is significantly different to that of their 19th century predecessors, both in terms of what they argue and what they have to explain (and explain away). So I think putting the history at the start is vital , as it explains what flood geology is as opposed to what it says. -- ChrisO 21:28, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree with your analysis ChrisO. I too think we should start with history since much of flood geology's major conceit is based on historical argumentation. A brief description of flood geology may be included before the history, but the details should be after the history (see for example the Big Bang article). Joshuaschroeder 21:30, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: there is already a great deal of history in the intro, and it's no shorter than the history section on Geology.  nobody can read this article without knowing exactly what you and schroeder think.  however, there is also a great deal of exhaustive detail on the history that leaves us reading on and on for pages about how flood geology is wrong before we know what it is.  in fact, over 3 times as much as in Geology.  that's not appropriate.  how can you tell everybody how wrong something is before they know what it is?  Ungtss 21:39, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: 3 times as much? That's an exaggeration - the flood geology history has 835 words, as opposed to 632 for Geology and 576 for Big Bang. Evolution has an entire article devoted to its history (see History of evolutionary thought). You could probably trim the flood geology history a bit, but it's by no means disproportionately long. -- ChrisO 22:44, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: My apologies.  i was referring to the history in context with the other sections that came before the actual FG material -- you were good enough to only move the history itself before the actual FG material -- i think you're right -- this is the better version:).  Ungtss 23:12, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Twoversions conflict 

message: <<where mainstream proponents point out that a large number of sedimentary formations are inconsistent with a short-timescale creation. >>
:this appears in the beginning of the "processes" section.  who says this?  which formations are they speaking of?  why are the formations inconsistent with short-timescale creation?  Ungtss 23:24, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: "Varves within the geologic column show seasonal layers over many, many years. In many cases, such as the Green River formation, these layers are too fine to have settled out in less than several weeks per layer. Varves in New England show evidence of climate change 17,500 to 13,500 years ago, which matches climate patterns in other parts of the world (Rittenour et al. 2000). These layers prove that the geological record was not produced in just one event."  Joshuaschroeder 23:30, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: then fix the sentence.  say "varves are inconsistent."  that's not what it says now -- it makes a generalized, unreferenced claim to "many formations."  encyclopedias don't do what you want this one to do, schroeder.  these generalized personal research claims go nowhere.  Ungtss 23:37, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, there is more as well: ,  here are more sites that mentions a number of sedimentary features other than varves including sedimentary layering, segregation of fossils, extinction events, river channels in sediment, sedimentary remnants of wind-blown dunes, glacial deposits, soil, desiccation cracks in sedimentary rock, footprints (dinosaur footprints in one layer with water ripples in layers above and below it), cave systems, angular unconformities, granite batholiths, limestone formation, chalk deposits, and salt deposits. Would it be better if we listed them all? Joshuaschroeder 23:58, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, it would be better.  we're writing an encyclopedia here.  be precise, be factual, and attribute.  Ungtss 00:05, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: personal research

message: The reference to Appalachian and Rocky mountains perhaps could mention the enormous (measured) differences in current rates in uplift in mountains (13-42ft/1000yr California mountains - S. A. Schumm, 1963 "The Disparity between Present Rates of Denudation and Orogeny" U.S. Geol. Sur. Prof. Paper 454-H, 13pp, or measurements of mountains in Japan with a range of 3-250ft/1000yr -  Harvey Blatt, Gerard Middleton, Raymond Murray, 1972 "Origin of Sedimentary Rocks" page 28).  Although this COULD have an effect on the appearance of erosion on the mountains in question, and may weaken the (intended) argument.  I won't hold my breath while waiting for such information to be included. Dan Watts 18:19, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Geological Evidence 

message: "The evolutionary record is preserved largely in sedimentary rocks.  If a flood had taken place, evolutionary biologists state, and all the creatures had lived together at one time, there would be no reason at all for the fossil record to be preserved thusly."
There is no fossil record, pal.  Think about it - they find creatures alive today that they claim were supposed to have been dead a gazillion years ago.  Ancient human tools and skeletons have been found in coal before, and there is geological evidence all over the Earth of a massive worldwide flood.  Take your opinionated, unsupported, analyses such as the former to an article that supports evolutionism, please.  Regards,  Salva 02:39, 30 Apr 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Give it a rest

message: I am going to remove some of the references to Walt Brown's work because it is not only not published, it has no independent verification, and it is not covered in NPOV fashion in the article -- nor do I think it possible to do so in the context of the article as it stands. He might be included as a supporter of flood geology, but presentation of his findings as appears in this article lend them a scientific legitimacy inappropriate for the article. We should not have an article that debates the merits (or lack thereof) of Brown's science. Joshuaschroeder 22:23, 12 May 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Walt Brown