Talk:Flood geology/Archive 6

Archive 1

←

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Reply to PiCo

The Bible was not meant to be a scientific work anyway, and I stand by my moon theory. Having a water canopy between the lower and upper troposphere, would not result in the earth getting too hot for anything to survive for the following reasons;

1) The earth's tilt, which, as we know it today, gives the four seasons in the northern and southern hemispheres.

2) Genesis refers to God "separating the waters above, from the waters below" correct? What are the "waters above?" It may be, the water canopy, that lied between the upper and lower troposphere, and it was held up there by the moon. Again I need to point out that in Judaism, the Moon held quite a bit of significance in ancient times, in fact the Hebrew calendar is lunar.

3) The upper troposphere is MISERABLY cold; that side of the water canopy, would prevent the earth from overheating. That is you would have a "green house," that was very well regulated. The cold from the upper troposphere, would work to "balance out," any excess heat, from anything beneath the lower troposphere. You yourself pointed to Genesis; "the waters above, and the waters below."

In ante-deluvian times, the sky was held up by the moon, I need to know how close it would need to be. Again please do not deny, the moon's effect on water; its gravitational pull has a very powerful effect on it. If it were close enough to Earth, it could literally "hold up the sky." With a water canopy that lied, roughly, between the upper troposphere, and the lower troposphere, the water temperature up there would be well regulated, additionally, any wind current, owing to Earth's tilt, would keep the entire planet, at an even 80 degrees (roughly), all year, from pole to pole. Make it, between 75 to 80 degrees, that is quite a comfortable temperature for humans to walk around naked.

Thanks PiCo but I have to politely reject your points; the green house effect of this proposed "moon" hypothesis would NOT boild everything alive. Again the above three factors; the earths' tilt, the temperature of the upper troposphere, wind currents, and how these things would work together, to keep the temperature even. In fact, wind currents keep the temperature regulated on planet earth NOW; if it wasn't for the north atlantic drift, Britain would look like Alaska.

Thanks anyway though.

67.148.120.91 (talk) 04:04, 22 January 2010 (UTC)stardingo747

This isn't the place to discuss the topic in general. This page is only for discussing improvements to the article itself. Auntie E. (talk) 04:23, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

stardingo747, listen to Aunt Entropy. Although a great deal could be said about the physics problems with your ideas, this is not the place to do it. If you continue, don't be surprised if your comments, in accordance with Wikipedia policy, are simply deleted. --Art Carlson (talk) 09:17, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

Evidence For a Worldwide Flood

long rant in violation of WP:CHAT
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
It could not possibly exist, and here I will call wiki readers to use their common sense; has anyone here even witnessed a flood? I have; plants grow back, the river returns to normal, and pretty soon, nature herself erases all evidence, that it even happened. True enough frequent flooding creates deposits, layers, etc, problem is not all soils are created equal, in many frequently flooded places of the world, again nature makes it, so that they never even occured so I really see no point in arguing for it. Here is some advice for creationists; 1) Don't use the odds argument, because its a big universe, it is so big that no matter how huge the numbers you throw "it only needs to happen once, ANYWHERE." 2) Don't use flood geology, because you will inevitably lose; highly likely the more malicious geologists will exploit your ignorance, and not talk about how sometimes with floods, nature herself erases all evidence, what I am trying to say is that assuming that a global flood DID occur, all the evidence is now long destroyed. 3) For god's sake please stop using fossil remains evidence, or rather, lack of missing links; promoters of secularism have already dug in their heels, that the selfish life is the best life, that a life that exploits, hurts, and harms others, and that "the best deserve the best of life," is the best way to live, and to that end they have made up their mind to dedicate their entire mental powers, to the rationalization of such a life, even if means, abusing science. Nothing short of a mathematical equation, which undeniably proves that the universe had no natural origin, will shut them up. If such an equation is ever written, selfish secularists will have a lot of explaining to do, and much to answer for, on a moral level. The equation would prove, God exists, because that would be its inevitable conclusion, and if God exists, then morals exist and if morals exist, then questions would be raised about the poor treatment of others. I will play "the devil" (the accuser), and throw out the accusation, that, again, not compatible with the idea of treating others like human beings, most westerners, simply abandoned Christianity, because being nice, was just too much of an effort. It is a very dark society, and a very dark people, if I'm right, I hope, its just a groundless accusation, although the evidence in the western world's streets where nonwhites live, seems to point otherwise.... However not all westerners are bad, some believe in the brotherhood of the human race so ardently, they don't want to believe in the theory of evolution. In my experience, also, by far the most racist Christians, among other religions, are the ones who most follow evolution. I mean the idea of natural selection, puffs up the ego, of whoever is blessed with good fortune in this life, and said puffed up ego inevitably leads to cruel, malicious, and even criminal behavior. Just because something is not labeled a crime, that does not mean it isn't. Harm can sometimes be the long term suffering of another human being you cause someone harm, they will have to live with that for the rest of their life, and time, on this earth, is short, what gives anyone the right to cause someone harm, and said harm, causes them to lose precious time in this life? Because of the horrors inflicted on others by this culture, there are Africans who will never enjoy life, and yet, atheist secularists constantly talk about the enjoyment of life for life's sake, when who ever came through, for the impoverished in Africa? Atheists constantly say "that is why you work hard to help" but seriously here, can any human being, or group of human beings, ever have the power to change things? What about the people who could not be reached? Atheists say "this is all there is, so, be nice to others, and help where you can" guess what; there are thousands of african children who died, as I typed this. So, the rich white atheists gets to "enjoy life" and "the best way to live" but that african child doesn't? How fucking convenient; if you wish to call me "the devil," then I am "the devil," far as western culture is concerned. Ultimately that is self-puffery. Sorry for the ranting, and no doubt creationists, and good white people will read this; those people have already made up their mind to be evil, and, if you will please take the time to read the book of Psalms, really read it, all the way, all 150 chapters, it strongly hints that Atheists have always existed, even in ancient times. What made the sun rise and set? What made the grass grow? Ancient atheists, simply didn't care; they sought neither scientific explanations, nor divine ones, they simply, didn't care. By contrast, the pagan Greeks, sought to better themselves, inspired by the godess Athena, godess of wisdom while I am not advocating people change their religion, I am urging people to be open minded regarding the nature of what is considered "divine." It is because of the adoration of Athena, that we have science, and philosophy, and math, or at least, that we had men, ancient Greek men, who contributed to it. The Brahman of India, contributed to the science of Calculus, and higher mathematics, believing themselves to be inspired by Vishnu. Seeing Vishnu's more benevolent side, they said to themselves "Vishnu wants me to help others; how can I do it?" Driven by this belief, they worked, worked, and worked, and advanced mathematics. Nikola Tesla, was somewhat of a religious fanatic, obsessed with being a "useful servant of God," he invented alternating current without which atheists would not be posting their garbage, by the way, just throwing it out there. Without Nikola Tesla, who sincerely believed in being a good man, in using what he believed was his God given genius, we would all still be using outdoor toilets, indoor plumbing just doesn't work without electricity. Creationists, people genuinely concerned for the well being of others, give it up. Besides you claim to have faith in God; sooner or later, someone will be sent to use the "weapons of the enemy" against them. Those who live by the sword, die by the sword, with the same stick ye measure others, ye too shall be measured, after all; the very same weapon used by atheist secularists, will one day inevitably be turned against them, to prove God exists, it is only a matter of time. 67.148.120.91 (talk) 03:36, 22 January 2010 (UTC)stardingo747

Why is the end of the ice age not included in evidence for the great flood? Doesn't a lot of flooding occur as the ice is converted into water, among volcanic eruptions, hurricanes, and earthquakes? I mean some of the fear of global warming, the east and west coasts of America being flooded and what not sort of leads credence to an end of the ice age argument, right, and that's no where near the same amount of water.(71.201.113.143 (talk) 06:44, 1 February 2010 (UTC))

Perhaps because no reliable sourc has published such an idea? For it to appear here, we need to be able to show attribution. . . dave souza, talk 07:23, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

Flagging

so... whos going to take the responsibility as flagging this article as CLEARLY NOT FROM A NEUTRAL POINT OF VIEW. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.42.165.81 (talk) 11:21, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

Most of the article seems pretty neutral except for the "Scientific evidence against a global flood" section and I suppose that section isn't meant to be neutral. 64.56.87.4 (talk) 16:31, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

It is meant to be neutral. The whole article is. However, on matters of science (which flood geology purports to be), neutrality does not mean equal weight for all ideas. Neutrality in such cases should accurately reflect the balance of evidence drawn from the scientific community (see WP:PSCI, WP:UNDUE and WP:FRINGE). Unfortunately for flood geology, the balance is tilted overwhelmingly against it. As a result, the article must report this in a balanced way with the use of reliable sources. All that said, I suspect a better title for the section you identify could be found — it does seem a tad negative. --PLUMBAGO 17:00, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

Different erosion rates

Differing erosion rates neither prove nor disprove a universal flood, at least not as stated in this article. The cited author (Isaak) makes a single-sentence conclusion without supporting research and without any supporting premises that can be proved or disproved. Many who believe in a universal flood don't think the whole earth was literally covered in water, i.e. some mountain peaks were probably still exposed. Isaak doesn't take elevation into account. Countless other geological factors such as precipitation, wind, and tectonic activity should also have been considered in reaching this conclusion but weren't. Thomasjones44 (talk) 23:37, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

I agree that we should be able to find a better source than Isaak, but this is too far from area of expertise that I would know where to look. What interests me more is your statement that "Many who believe in a universal flood don't think the whole earth was literally covered in water, i.e. some mountain peaks were probably still exposed." This in light of Genesis 7:19-20, "And the waters prevailed so mightily upon the earth that all the high mountains under the whole heaven were covered; the waters prevailed above the mountains, covering them fifteen cubits deep." If these people believe what they believe on the basis of Biblical authority, why would they accept some things about the flood, like its universal extent, but reject others, like its "universal depth" (so to speak)? Can you tell us who these people are and exactly what they believe and don't believe? If they are a significant faction, then we should mention them in the article. --Art Carlson (talk) 07:52, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

Isaak is an expert on creationist claims, and his article refers to several examples of erosion which contradict flood geology. I've added a couple, and changed the pics to show the example of unconformities which were of more significance in the development of geology. "No vestige of a beginning, no prospect of an end" ;-) . .dave souza, talk 09:18, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, that's an improvement. (In this section of the article I would rather cite an expert on erosion than an expert on creationist claims.) --Art Carlson (talk) 09:33, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

Both are needed, and Isaak cites expert opinons. More refs would of course be good. . dave souza, talk 10:44, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

Historical records

Goodone121 recently removed the section Flood Geology#Historical records ("Subsection removed-the only sentence was fact-tagged."), and Mann jess put it back ("Also, don't remove items recently fact-tagged. Give it time first."). I hope some historian will take up the challenge to provide well-documented information on the earliest certain date of historical civilizations. My hopes are not too high, though, considering that the cn tag has been there for 4 months already, and I brought up this issue already almost 3 years ago. --Art Carlson (talk) 08:51, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

I've moved the section here for discussion:

Historical records

The dates of a number of ancient cultures (such as those of Egypt and Mesopotamia) have been established by the analysis of historical documents supported by carbon dating to be older than the alleged date of the Flood.

Finding a citation for it shouldn't be that difficult, in the meantime the paragraph can stay here. Unattributed or poorly cited statements have no place in potentially controversial articles like this one. Gabbe (talk) 15:53, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

Dating of ancient cultures is fraught with difficulties. The dating of Egyptian dynasties is very difficult to determine. I don't know if carbon dating of 'documents'(tablets?) helps or not - I haven't checked. ^rossnixon 02:41, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

I don't think the removed section says that the historical documents themselves were carbon dated, but that they were supported by carbon dating of separate objects. Trying to carbon date things such as a tablet would be silly, being inorganic and all.Farsight001 (talk) 05:08, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

Just FYI: Goodone removed that section in a string of bad edits leading to a block. I wasn't aware it was brought up 3 years ago. That being the case, the date on the fact tag should have been adjusted. It's not uncommon for slow moving articles such as this one to need quite a bit of time for editors to contribute sources. I have no opinion on the actual content, and have no problem with it being removed generally. Jess ^talk _cs 06:02, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

I'm obviously not too concerned about this or I would have followed up long ago. My personal prejudice is that the historical records go back far enough that it is implausible that a global flood would not have had a recognizable impact on the written chronologies. I could imagine that flood geologists see it the other way, that the fact that the record of continuous civilization seems to start about the time of Noah's flood is no coincidence. Both sides agree that there were people living in cities before that, but the records of their development is spotty. In short, of all the really good arguments against a global flood, the historical record doesn't seem to be one of the better ones. If we can find a reliable source using this argument, we can put it back. If we can find a reliable source saying the continuous historical record goes back reliably to dates before the earliest possible flood, then we can discuss whether the statement in question can be included or must be excluded as synthesis. Until we find such sources, the evidence suggests that this section is original research and should not be included in the article. --Art Carlson (talk) 08:37, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

I just noticed that this argument is brought up in Isaak, Sec. 10, "Historical Aspects":

Why is there no mention of the Flood in the records of Egyptian or Mesopotamian civilizations which existed at the time? Biblical dates (I Kings 6:1, Gal 3:17, various generation lengths given in Genesis) place the Flood 1300 years before Solomon began the first temple. We can construct reliable chronologies for near Eastern history, particularly for Egypt, from many kinds of records from the literate cultures in the near East. These records are independent of, but supported by, dating methods such as dendrochronology and carbon-14. The building of the first temple can be dated to 950 B.C. +/- some small delta, placing the Flood around 2250 B.C. Unfortunately, the Egyptians (among others) have written records dating well back before 2250 B.C. (the Great Pyramid, for example dates to the 26th century B.C., 300 years before the Biblical date for the Flood). No sign in Egyptian inscriptions of this global flood around 2250 B.C.

I don't know how reliable he is on the facts, but at least here is someone using the argument. --Art Carlson (talk) 20:42, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

The sentence seems to be pretty silly. I'll quote it again: "The dates of a number of ancient cultures (such as those of Egypt and Mesopotamia) have been established by the analysis of historical documents supported by carbon dating to be older than the alleged date of the Flood." The silly part is the reference to "historical documents." What documents? That's just too vague. "Carbon dating" is better, but again, what dating? And underlying it all, "the alleged date of the Flood." What alleged date? The biblical chronology counts forward from the year of Creation - you can date the Flood quite precisely as so many years after Creation, but there's no obvious way of dating Creation, anmd therefore no way of dating the Flood in modern chronological terms (i.e., with a date BCE). The basic idea is correct, ancient civilisations are indeed older than the Flood chronology allows, but it's so badly expressed that it's better to drop this sentence. PiCo (talk) 04:14, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

1st sentence

"Flood geology (also creation geology or diluvial geology) is the attempt to build a convincing scientific case that the global flood described in Genesis 6–9 literally occurred, and that the geological history of the Earth validates the historicity of a global flood. "

This is incorrect as FG has no intereste in building a "scientific" case for anything. As our resident flood geologist states above, FG is assumed to be true, as is everything else in the bible. Their task is to interpret the es\xisting evidence so that it fits the FG mold. This is not science at all. It is more as if the FG folks are trying to validate an already-assumed-to-be-true event as a demonstration to non-believers.Desoto10 (talk) 19:32, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

Agree. Do we have any sources to the contrary, which demonstrate that flood geology has any relation to science (as in hypothesis, test, peer review)? Jess_talk|_edits 02:34, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

My source, as per edit summary, was http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Creationism#Scientific_critique (4th sentence)). ^rossnixon 03:18, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

While that's appreciated, another wikipedia article isn't a valid source. Additionally, that sentence says nothing about this article. We need a reliable source which explicitly states that "flood geology" is a scientific discipline. As a final note, please wait for consensus to form here before re-reverting. Thanks. Jess_talk|_edits 03:23, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

What's worse is that I recently rewrote this section to try to clear up confusion. That worked out great! I certainly wasn't thinking about present day FG - more how early geologists interpreted Ice Age phenomena through the prism of FG. It didn't take long for scientists to realise their mistake, and we now have many strands of independent evidence that point to an ancient Earth that has never suffered any event like that described in Genesis. This information wasn't available to early geologists so their mistakes can be excused, but latter day FG fans have no such alibi. Anyway, maybe I need to tighten my wording ... Cheers, --PLUMBAGO 08:26, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

"Flood geology (also creation geology or diluvial geology) is the attempt to interpret the geological record in terms of the global flood described in Genesis 6–9."PiCo (talk) 07:25, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

This sounds much better than what's there now. Desoto10 is right - best avoid reference to science since that isn't what's going on here. FG is cherry-picking the evidence (collected by real scientists; the irony!) to give the literal interpretation of Genesis a veneer of plausibility. In this vein the second paragraph of the lead is probably misleading too. It suggests that latter day FG has been carefully considered and found wanting by the scientific community, which implies it was taken seriously. Something like this did happen in the past (cf. my remarks above), but evidence has been running in favour of an ancient Earth for at least two centuries (cf. James Hutton et al.). --PLUMBAGO 08:48, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

How's about this for the second paragraph ...

"Flood geology directly contradicts the scientific consensus in disciplines including geology, physics, chemistry, molecular genetics, evolutionary biology, archaeology, and paleontology. The scientific community considers the subject to be pseudoscience."

Just a simple trim and reordering, but it avoids the implications I alluded to above. --PLUMBAGO 11:32, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

Done. PiCo (talk) 11:55, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

Creation Geology

This may have been covered before, but I didn't see it in my quick perusal of the archives. I'm thinking this should be titled "Creation geology" instead of "Flood geology". "Flood geology" makes it sound like there is actual science behind this, or that this is a scientific aricle about geology, which it is not. I think "Creation geology" would be a better title, as it reflects this is an article about religion, which it is. It describes the topic best of the choices given.

It's frustrating to be looking at geology articles and end up on a page that looks scientific from the title, but then you realize it's about religion. --DanielCD (talk) 16:54, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

Also: why on earth is this in Wikipedia:WikiProject Geology and Portal:Earth sciences?? I'm removing that one. Please discuss if you disagree. --DanielCD (talk) 16:55, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

It is called 'Flood Geology', because this is the term of art (among both creationists, and those that study them) for this pseudoscience. As far as I know, 'Creation geology' has never been used in connection with it (though 'Deluge geology' was used in the mid 20th century). It is, primarily, the purported geology of 'The Flood' (i.e. the one mentioned in Genesis). Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 17:05, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

I certainly disagree. You should not remove an article from a project's scope if you aren't a member of it. Arlen22 (talk) 12:39, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

Furthermore, it is about geology and so is directly related. Removing it simply because it supposedly isn't science means that you apparently have a bias against flood geology as being possible. If it is in a project's scope, let it be that way. Arlen22 (talk) 13:44, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

According to ArbCom-Pseudoscience FF9, pseudo-science is "ideas which, while notable, have little or no following in the scientific community, often being so little regarded that there is no serious criticism of them by scientific critics." Arlen22 (talk) 15:32, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

I understand that sentence to be a description of one aspect of some articles on pseudoscientific ideas, not a defintion.Sjö (talk) 16:29, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

Here is my pennies worth. I agree with the usual impeccable logic coming from Hrafn. I also agree with DanielCD, the article should not have been in Wikipedia:WikiProject Geology and Portal:Earth sciences. I am a Christian and have studied geology, flood geology is clearly a pseudoscience. I draw comfort from figures such as J. Laurence Kulp who was a Christian and also geochemist. It is also heartening for me to know that John Lennox, the Christian who has debated publicly and very amicably with Richard Dawkins, also is an Old Earth Creationist. (Another berean (talk) 08:00, 17 November 2010 (UTC)).

Actually, thinking about it, the term 'Flood Geology' is more than a little of a give-away that the topic is pseudoscience. Any single flood is going to have a fairly minimal impact on geological formation under mainstream science (which would be 'sedimentary geology' or similar, and involve the accumulated detritus of centuries of floods/droughts and normal rainfalls). Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 09:20, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

What 'Flood Geology' contradicts

Resources: ArbCom-Pseudoscience

Arlen22 would have us believe that the "Article is about flood geology and can hardly be twisted to contradict evolutionary biology as they aren't even the same field." That must come as a surprise to prominent Flood Geology proponent Duane Gish, who wrote a whole book titled Evolution, the fossils say no! Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 16:47, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

My point was that the refs only reference geology (apparently) and say nothing about any of the other things that are mentioned. Furthermore, according to ArbCom it isn't pseudoscience because it has a following in the scientific community. Arlen22 (talk) 13:29, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

As I said above, one sentence from an ArbCom decision, taken out of context, does not show that ArbCom has defined what's considered pseudoscience. Even if they had, ArbCom hasn't (AFAIK) made a ruling on Flood Geology.Sjö (talk) 16:32, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

So who decided that flood geology is Pseudoscience? It wasn't ArbCom, I know that! They said that if it is an alternative theory it is not pseudoscience. That is what flood geology is, an alternative theory. Arlen22 (talk) 23:28, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

Okay, ArbCom did say: "18) Alternative theoretical formulations which have a following within the scientific community are not pseudoscience, but part of the scientific process." But before this gets taken further out of context, note that they also said "16) Theories which have a following, such as astrology, but which are generally considered pseudoscience by the scientific community may properly contain that information and may be categorized as pseudoscience." If you want to demonstrate that 18 applies here, not 16, they also specified what kind of evidence is required: "4a) [...] in the case of a scientific theory, there is a clear expectation that the sources for the theory itself are reputable textbooks or peer-reviewed journals. Scientific theories promulgated outside these media are not properly verifiable as scientific theories and should not be represented as such". --Avenue (talk) 00:41, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

"Literal"

The word "literal" should probably be removed nearly everywhere it appears in this article since proponents of a local, universal flood also interpret the text literally. In the Hebrew, "earth" means a lot of things, such as land, common, country, ground, wilderness, etc., and not necessarily the planet as we moderns tend to interpret it. Redhookesb (talk) 03:20, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

Flood Geologists = Young Earth Creationists?

The lead states quite explicitly that flood geologists are "also called Young Earth Creationists". I changed this sentence to the (admittedly still clunky) "sometimes also Young Earth Creationists" instead, but this was reverted. The explanation in the revert was that the sources cover this, but from searching the articles, I cannot find anything sufficient. The three refs are quite clear that flood geologists and young earth creationists are often the same, and that certain groups of flood geologists were YECs, but not as far as I can tell that they are synonymous.

Clearly (and logically), one can believe in Noah's flood while still maintaining belief in an old Earth... and similarly, could easily maintain belief in a young earth without believing in a global flood. To say that one is also called the other is to imply the two are interchangeable, when in fact each is making claims about very different topics (that being the age of the earth vs a particular event in Earth's history, respectively). Even with a source which definitively states that all "flood geologists" are young earth creationists (which I do not see), this phrasing would be inappropriate for that reason.

I've re-added the text. Please discuss here if you see any problems with my train of thought. Thanks Jess ^talk _cs 21:29, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

I've modified it a bit to summarise the historical section and make it clear that there were historic attempts to reconcile the emerging science of geology with the flood, even though an ancient earth was increasingly accepted by these geologists. The cited sources refer to modern YEC views being interchangeable with flood geology, as reinvented in the mid 20th century. . . dave souza, talk 22:45, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

Hmm.... That is indeed an improvement, but I'm still not sold on the word "called". Again, "X is called Z" implies that X and Z are interchangeable, when in fact I see no reason to suspect these terms are. If I say I am a young earth creationist, that does not necessarily mean I believe in a global flood. It simply means I believe the Earth was created by a God and is younger than the scientific consensus. The most recent revert (by Farsight001) said that there were sources in the article covering this. Can you point me to those specific sources? Thanks Jess ^talk _cs 00:05, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

I think it's not so much that flood geologists are called YECs, as that they simply are YECs - all flood geologists are YECs. But whatever the semantics, I think what we need to reflect is the fact that flood geology is the attempt to explain geological phenomena through the paradigm of a biblical flood, interpreting the biblical story as history. (We have a section in the article giving the mainstream interpretation of the flood story as it's understood by biblical scholars). PiCo (talk) 10:08, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

Good point about called, have changed that to "are almost always". It leaves wiggle room, but if others think it's too weaselly do please delete the "almose always" and leave it as "who are YEC". . . dave souza, talk 11:08, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

I would point out that the claim "Almost all contemporary flood geologists are Young Earth creationists" is unsupported by the cited sources, who say that they are the one and same thing. A better formulation would be "In the contemporary literature, the term 'flood geology' is often taken to be synonymous with young Earth creationism or creation science." Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 07:37, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

Intro

I dont see the need to write every scientific field (geology, physics, chemistry, molecular genetics, evolutionary biology, archaeology, paleontology). This is not how other creation articles are written (Baraminology, Creation geophysics, Creationist cosmologies, Intelligent design), so why this one? The link to modern science clearly showcases the various fields of science. Portillo (talk) 09:24, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

ID does not contradict nearly as much of the spectrum of scientific fields as FG does (as it makes no claims as to the age of the Earth), and Baraminology, Creation geophysics & Creationist cosmologies address far narrower claims. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 09:40, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

Conversely, a lack is that hydrology is not mentioned, considering this is an article about flooding. The amount of sediment deposited at the deltas of rivers that were not covered in ice during the maximum glaciation period of ice ages is insufficient to account for the hundreds of thousands of years those rivers are thought to have been flowing. Both the persistent flooding problems in areas such as the Mississippi delta, and the "lack of flooding" forest health problems seen in Redwood forests on the West Coast of the United States, are examples of difficulties we wrestle with today partly due to engineers underestimating deposition rates. Muumbako (talk) 18:46, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

Just as well scientists, rather than engineers working under cost constraints, are those working out the implications of layered sediment deposits which have conclusively contradicted beliefs in a universal flood. Since 1830. . . dave souza, talk 18:52, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

My fellow contributors might not understand why I agree with them here, but since flood geology is closely related to the advocacy for Young-earth creationism (YEC) and so-called Creation Science, it will help the reader to know just how many scientific disciplines these advocates are taking on. It may also help contrast YEC with Old-earth creationism (OEC); I daresay the general trend is to say "creationist" or "creationism" for YEC even though polls show most creationists are OEC. --Uncle Ed (talk) 23:44, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

Flood geology, young-earth creationism, and creation science

Here's a quote I found after checking a few refs from the intro:

• A much smaller group of antievolutionists explained the fossil record by attributing it to the one year of Noah’s flood. They were first known as flood geologists. Then, in about 1970, they renamed themselves scientific creationists or young-earth creationists — they’re all the same people. [1]

I think it would improve the article to include this quote. I think it's fascinating to trace the history of how people try to reconcile their religious faith with the discoveries of science. --Uncle Ed (talk) 23:39, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

I agree that it's certainly fascinating, however it might be giving undue weight to include that quote as it represents what seems like one man/church's opinion on the matter as opposed to the more widespread beliefs. Reconciling religious beliefs with science can take many forms, and none of it is objective or logical, so we probably shouldn't include positions unless they are well established. Correct me if I'm reading the source wrong (I just skimmed it). N^oformation ^Talk 04:25, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

Ronald L. Numbers does tend to use the terms interchangeably, and as he's a very prominent figure in the history of creationism, I would not wish to go on record contradicting him. However, within the context of writing an encyclopaedia, we have to note that although they're the same general movement, that there are a number of people in the movement working in different areas. Yes, we have Scientific Creationists working on claims about the Geology of the Genesis Flood -- but we also have them working on Baraminology (and a creationist Biology text, before they decamped to ID), Creationist cosmologies, and numerous non-Flood-related geophysical claims. It is therefore helpful to use CS for the umbrella topic & FG for the topic of the claims directly about the Geology of the Genesis Flood. We also have the problem that although this is arguably the 'Creation Science movement' -- we also have Creation Science Movement, which is the current name of a very old British creationist group. As of 1970, it seems very likely that the only scientific creationists were flood geologists (who Numbers has documented in The Creationists had previously termed the field 'Deluge Geology'), but the field of scientific creationism has expanded considerably in the 4 decades since. So I don't see any point in confusing readers by belabouring this historical point. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 05:56, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

First paragraph still flawed

The first paragraph is still flawed:

"Flood geology (also creation geology or diluvial geology) is the attempt to demonstrate that the flood narrative in Genesis 6–9 is literally true. Its adherents, sometimes called young Earth creationists, believe there is evidence that the global flood and its aftermath are the origin of most of the Earth's geological features, ..."

Based on what creationists have published in the last 10 to 20 years (if not longer) it should read:

"Flood geology (also creation geology or diluvial geology) is the study of geological evidence as interpreted within Creationism's world view that assumes Genesis 6-9 is literally true. The global flood and it's aftermath are believed to be the origin of most of the Earth's geologic features."

This corrects the following flaws:

1. Flood geologists are trying to prove the Bible true.
2. The Flood is an hypothesis to be tested by science.

Just like all other scientists of their own time, creationists of the 17th, 18th, 19th, and early 20th centuries thought that science could prove hypotheises correct. Thus you will find creationists and evolutionists talking about how science could prove the hypotheses of evolution and creation true. However, since Popper in the early 20th Century has shown that the best that the scientific method can do is falsify a hypothesis, and Khun has shown that all science is "theory laden" or "paradigm laden" creationists have abandoned attempts to prove creation true. Rather, modern creationists and flood geologists hold that the Creation and Flood accounts are not hypotheses, but, rather, they form the world view that nature and the Cosmos is scientifically studied within. Evidence is interpreted within creationism, not interpreted to prove creationism. There is a big difference.

Most "reliable sources" used in this article essentially miss this vital distinction. Most of them give the impression they know creationism, but they are still arguing against antique concepts no longer held by creationists. Of all anti-creationists, Steven J. Gould came the closest to knowing, if not understanding, creationists. This is because he actually read what creationists wrote, and studied original materials written by creationist for over several centuries.

I understand why this article reads the way it does. Most editors don't want readers to know what creationists actually think, because, after all, creationists are pseudo-scientific, fundamentalist wack jobs out to destroy science and our advanced society and drag us back to the dark ages where they can tyrannize those who don't "believe."

Actually, I don't understand why this article reads the way it does. Since everyone knows that evolution is true and creation is false, why present a flawed report on flood geology? Actual words from flood geologists own lips will expose their beliefs better than all the science coming from their enemies. Trabucogold (talk) 05:54, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

Interesting. Do you have specific sources to support your argument? If so, would you like to name them here? Gabbe (talk) 08:38, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

I don't think you have added anything to the arguments presented in the previous 3 or 4 sections of this talk page, and you haven't addressed the objections to your view raised there. I just surfed a bit trying to find an authoritative definition of flood geology, but didn't have any luck. The CreationWiki article on Flood Geology starts this way:

Flood geology is the study of geologic evidence within the paradigm of creationism that assumes the literal reality of a global cataclysm as described in Genesis 7 and 8. Genesis is read as a historically accurate record from which a geologic history of the earth can be derived.

Unfortunately it is not clear who thinks this is a correct description of flood geology. While we should certainly report what flood geologists think about themselves, what we ideally need is a sociologist to tell us what they really are. It would help if we had reliable sources telling us whether some, many, or most flood geologists think the way Trabucogold does. I already offered the best arguments and evidence I could find above (here and here). --Art Carlson (talk) 09:28, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

I might add that the definition I cited above from the CreationWiki was written by one editor and changed without discussion. The previous version was this:

Flood geology is the study of geologic formations with respect to the Global flood recorded in ancient writings and traditions in every culture in the world. Flood geologists seek both to show that Earth's geologic features are best explained with reference to the Flood, and also to understand the specific events surrounding the flood.

The phrase "seek ... to show that Earth's geologic features are best explained with reference to the Flood" suggests to me that the author thought that the flood is not simply an alternative starting hypothesis but indeed a better match to the data. --Art Carlson (talk) 09:44, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

I feel this first sentence is still weak.

Flood geology (also creation geology or diluvial geology) is the attempt to demonstrate that the flood narrative in Genesis 6–9 is literally true.

Although it might not come from a reference, I think

Flood geology is the study of geologic evidence within the paradigm of creationism that assumes the literal reality of a global cataclysm as described in Genesis 7 and 8. Genesis is read as a historically accurate record from which a geologic history of the earth can be derived.

is a good definition of flood geology. Whether or not the flood narrative should be read as being global is another question. The use of "all" in the bible needs to be read contextually. Not every occurrence of "all" in the Bible can be read as meaning "all". Also the named pre flood rivers are still there, post flood. A global flood of such cataclysmic power would have resulted in a complete change in geomorphology. Noah would not have recognised anything, without the miraculous from occurring. Flood geologists, however, dont use the miraculous but attempt to justify flood geology using the scientific method. (Usually by stealing from science. e.g. modified versions of plate tectonic theory) --Another berean (talk) 12:33, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

Ive taken the liberty in changing the 1st sentence, but still really prefer a modification of

Flood geology is the study of geologic evidence within the paradigm of creationism that assumes the literal reality of a global cataclysm as described in Genesis 7 and 8. Genesis is read as a historically accurate record from which a geologic history of the earth can be derived. --Another berean (talk) 22:50, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

I do struggle with grammar at times. Bad grammar often means a loss in clarity. Are the changes to the 1st paragraph to everyones satisfaction? We need someone more articulate with a balanced viewpoint to have a go at editing. --Another berean (talk) 10:46, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

Can I suggest an edited version of your suggestion?

• Flood geology is the study of geologic evidence within the paradigm of creationism. It assumes the literal reality of a global cataclysm as described in Genesis 7 and 8 and is based on the reading of the book of Genesis as a historically accurate record.

This cuts your first sentence in half so that we get a nice short statement defining the subject, followed by a slightly longer expansion touching on biblical literalism and the question of the genre of Genesis. PiCo (talk) 23:49, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

The only reservation I have is that some people may also believe in the literal truth of the Bible but interpret Genesis 7 and 8 differently. I would be more comfortable with the phrase "as suggested in Genesis 7 and 8" rather than "as described in Genesis 7 and 8". On reflection I think I prefer the 1st paragraph, as it stands, but if the consensus of opinion is that your suggestion is better, I would have no objections to the change. --Another berean (talk) 11:29, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

Let me summarize (with some liberties) the proposals: Flood geology (also creation geology or diluvial geology) is

• the attempt to demonstrate that the flood narrative in Genesis 6–9 is literally true, and that the flood was global in its extent and destroyed all mankind and animals other than those that boarded Noah's ark. (current version)
• the study of geological evidence
  • as interpreted within Creationism's world view or within the paradigm of creationism
  • that assumes Genesis 6-9 is literally true. or that assumes the literal reality of a global cataclysm as described in Genesis 7 and 8.

The central question is whether flood geology is more accurately described as an "attempt to demonstrate" something or as some kind of "study of evidence". I still think that flood geologists, despite what some of them claim, are trying to demonstrate something, so that I am not entirely comfortable with calling it study. On the other hand, I don't see that the second version does great violence to the truth either, so I'll go back into hiding now. --Art Carlson (talk) 13:17, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

As a flood geologist, my interest is in interpreting the geologic evidence in the field within the paradigm of creation and Noah's flood. I am not trying to prove creation or the flood true because I already know that they are true because as a believer, having found salvation in Jesus, I accept the word of God as truth, plain and simple.

I use the tool of science to study nature. Science does not prove creation, just as it does not prove evolution. This is because, as Popper has pointed out, the best that scientific methods can do is falsify a hypothesis and creation and evolution are not hypotheses.

I (and other flood geologists) develop falsifiable Flood Model hypotheses within the paradigm of Creationism (not Naturalism) to attempt to describe what may have happened during the Flood (not to determine IF the flood happened). These Flood Models start with the basic outline given in Genesis and then build on that using geologic evidence. I know of at least 4 competing flood models.

If I happen to develop a viable, robust Flood Model would that prove the Bible True? No. Yet, A logical construct based on the Bible that satisfactorily explains what is seen in nature may build ones confidence in the Bible, but it does not prove the Bible.

Would it prove Creationism true and Naturalism false? No. We are talking two different and mutually exclusive paradigms, here. However, one might compare geologic hypotheses from each paradigm and see which one provides that most satisfactory explanations of nature and then choose to accept on or the other. However, my experience indicates that people reject Creationism because they don't like the idea of an authoritarian god who claims to be love yet sadistically tortures babies in Hell for millions of years after just a few moments of life (and other unjust scenarios). Naturalism has the appeal of no such tyrannical god. (Happily, I've discovered that this notion of a hellish god is imaginary and not Biblical. Sure, some select texts, taken out of context, and superficially interpreted within an imposed viewpoint seem to imply such a god. [Just as you can take "And he (Judas)... departed, and went and hanged himself."(Mat 27:5) "Then said Jesus unto him, Go, and do thou likewise."(Luke 10:37) out of context] But when you dig deeper and let the Bible interpret itself, the real God of the Bible emerges. Which turns out to be everything you could want in a God.) Trabucogold (talk) 16:52, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

Those dominating control over this topic are not those who beleive Flood geology who then explain it to you, but rather written by those with hate who despise Flood geology and present it as they see it with holes. This is typical of Wikipedia allowing the rebel or malice nature or dominating haters to keep the control of what others believe. Why dont we just let the KKK explain how all American blacks appear as christian on the outside while in secret they worship their spear-chucking sexual tribal dances, (such absurdity is a fantastic example of who is allowed to write this stuff... the ones who are prejudice with hate against the flood geology.) Go ahead an delete this, it proves what you are. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.144.120.119 (talk • contribs) 10:19, 19 August 2010

Please keep talk pages civil and work to improve the article. Even anti-creationists understand and allow for non-fringe views to be included. ^rossnixon 03:08, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

I changed the first paragraph from the ridiculousness that was there. It is essentially a copy paste with editing to reflect the inconclusive nature of the field. I believe this is a much more suitable format for the article rather than the complete bias that was in the original. I realize that some of you really hate anything that doesn't support your worldview, but let us be mature here. Feel free to edit the paragraph in keeping with an objective presentation... hopefully. --Tembew (talk) 21:14, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

Most Christians?

This phrase was inserted without comment a few days ago:

"Most Christians interpret the Genesis Flood stories to indicate a local flood, without any world wide geological implicatons. However, Flood Geology adherents hold the Genesis flood passages to be geologically recent and world wide."

I could not find in the body of the article where the first sentence is sourced.Desoto10 (talk) 05:33, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

I don't know what most Christians believe in, but I doubt it is a local flood. In any case, I think a source is necessary for such a statement. Art Carlson (talk) 08:26, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

I agree, it should be put back the way it was. Mthoodhood (talk) 19:05, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

contradict--pseudosci

As I said before, the references had not been removed from the article, but moved to the previous phrase which says, as all the references say, that F.G. contradicts scientific consensus. While contradicting scientific consensus is considered pseudoscience, none of the references call F.G. pseudoscience. Drawing a conclusion from a reference which it does not actually make is original research. So what is needed here are references that specifically say and demonstrate that F. G. is pseudoscience. Mthoodhood (talk) 19:12, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

I don't know why you're claiming you didn't remove sources from an article when the edit history quite clearly shows that they were no longer there after you edited, not moved to another place.

In addition, no one is drawing a conclusion from a reference. We can change one word or phrase to another if they have the same meaning. It is not in any way drawing a conclusion, for example, if I change a source's use of the word "chair" to "seat" in the article.Farsight001 (talk) 19:55, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

Obviously you didn't look back far enough in the history before Pico made his change. The references where changed to sfns and the cites moved to the references section and then the sfns were moved to the previous phrase. They are still in the article. Apparently Pico didn't check out the history either and made a knee jerk reaction.

I see a distinct difference between the phrase contradict scientific consensus and the charge of pseudoscience. They are not synonymous. For instance, there was a time when Continental Drift contradicted scientific consensus, however, Continental Drift (given the new name Plate Tectonics) is now the scientific consensus. Yet, when Continental Drift contradicted scientific consensus is was never labeled pseudoscience. It was just an unaccepted hypothesis.

I'm not trying to equate F.G. with Plate Tectonics; rather I'm just pointing out that contradicting scientific consensus does not automatically mean pseudoscience. There is an unstated factor involved here, i.e., that F.G. is part of Creationism, which brings about the charge of pseudoscience. So, I maintain that there need to be references which specifically demonstrate F.G. to be pseudoscience in addition to contradicting scientific consensus. Mthoodhood (talk) 06:44, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

The trouble with the Schadewald and Scott references is that they do not support the statement that "the scientific community considers the subject to be pseudoscience", only that the authors personally have that opinion. It is not even clear that the authors themselves are scientists, much less that they are speaking for scientists as a whole. Art Carlson (talk) 10:57, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

Opisthotonic Death Pose Strengthens Global Flood Theory

The following text was recently inserted and then quickly reverted by Theroadislong:

Strengthening the idea that a cataclysmic flood explains the fossil record is a study that suggests that the Opisthotonic Death Pose commonly seen with complete dinosaur skeletons is due to the animal drowning or being emerged in water soon after death.

This is not original research and I'm honestly surprised that it was reverted with the comment "this absolutley does NOT Strengthen the idea of a cataclysmic flood". In a global flood, you would expect to see evidence that the animals drownied. The Opisthotonic Death Pose is typical of drowning and is common to full-skeleton fossils. The article, presumably by non-Christian scientists (as the New Scientist is not a "Christian rag"), states their theory that this common pose is due to the animals dying while submerged (i.e. drowning) or soon after. Q.E.D.

I'm not on some mission or with an axe to grind. I (apparently simplistically) thought the article was quite straight-forward and clearly showed that a watery connection to fossilized remains could only strengthen the flood theory. I'm happy to be wrong or mistaken, but I'm not sure what I'm missing... Ckruschke (talk) 16:38, 29 February 2012 (UTC)Ckruschke

Why would you be surprised to see that statement as a revert comment? It's completely true. You are working this backwards. You cannot say that a flood would indicate drowned animals, we see drowned animals, thus a flood likely happened. That is backwards. You start from the drowned animal and postulate explanations. A cataclysmic flood is a possibility, as is drowning in a lake and sinking to the bottom, dying a week before a heavy rain, getting washed away by a localized flash flood, and any number of other things. You need further evidence to narrow down the cause. You can't assume the cause and find evidence to support it. That's not how logic works, frankly.Farsight001 (talk) 16:44, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

The article does not mention flooding so Ckruschke is adding his own interpretation of an event to support his hypothesis.Theroadislong (talk) 16:49, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

And given all the scientific and mathematical impossibilities associated with a global flood, forget it. Ckruschke is looking at the evidence with a invalid point of view. Just because there is evidence of rapid burial in the fossil record doesn't mean you can postulate an impossible global cataclysm to explain it. Any of a number of other possibilities could have occurred. Cadiomals (talk) 16:52, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

Wow - Stong arguments - thanks for being hospitable at least!

1st - Cadiomals - I said nothing about rapid burial and neither does the article. I placed the new sentence right after the "rapid burial" arguments simply because I thought it fit there.

2nd - Theroadislong - you are correct. I inadvertently (hopefully?) inserted the statement about flooding which the article obviously doesn't support. That was my error.

3rd - Farsight - I would agree with your point if it weren't for the common fossil evidence of dinosaurs showing the Opisthotonic death pose (which is also supported by the article). Onesey, Twosey, or a small percentage, I would be in 100% agreement.

4th - yes, my personal bias is that their is a POSSIBILITY of a global flood, but I am trying to maintain a NPOV and write only what is supported by the article. Hopefully, a personal bias that a global flood is "complete crap" would not affect the NPOV of the discussion. That's all I'm asking for. So, what if it was rewritten to state the following:

A recent study has detailed that the immersion of chickens in fresh water resulted in the Opisthotonic Death Pose of the birds. As this death pose is commonly seen with complete dinosaur skeletons, no matter the species, this could suggest that the animals were emerged in water during or soon after death & fossilization and could thus point to the possibility of a global flood.

Or is this still too much of stretch for you all? Are there suggestions on how the sentence could be adjusted to fit within the bounds of the source. Thanks in advance for your comments. Yours - Ckruschke (talk) 19:29, 29 February 2012 (UTC)Ckruschke

NO this is NOT supported by the reference at all, our opinions/beliefs are not relevant, ONLY what the reliable sources say, otherwise it is original research.Theroadislong (talk) 19:36, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

What part is not supported? You are being very general which is not particularly helpful. Most of the suggested text is directly out of the article. Is it 'and could thus point to the possibility of a global flood? I'm trying to do this right - I KNOW that my opinion/beliefs are not relevant. Ckruschke (talk) 19:46, 29 February 2012 (UTC)Ckruschke

First of all, fossils found in that position are extremely rare. They appear common because they are the neatest looking and most clear examples of fossils, so they are, basically, the "poster" for that particular species. They're not common. In addition, there still lies the issue of these fossils being found in all sorts of different geologic strata, almost none of which show evidence of a flood of their own. Being in different strata, in case you didn't know, means, pretty definitively, that they came from a different period in time, (and no, a flood cannot deposit all these different kinds of layers at once) so if these creatures were wiped out in a flood, they were wiped out in their own separate floods, not a single cataclysmic one. I would also suggest, IMO, that the study is flawed in it's use of fresh water, as salt water can have a different effect.

On top of that, it is not within wikipedia's realm to speculate what could have happened. That is called synthesis or original research, depending on what, if any, sources are used, and how they are presented. We report only what the source says. If the source does not call it evidence for a global flood, then neither can we, plain and simple.Farsight001 (talk) 19:52, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

I agree with everything Farsight said. Fossils are pretty rare in the first place, and to find fossils in that position is even rarer. And to draw our own conclusions is original research. Wikipedia is supposed to be objective, using only reliable, peer-reviewed scientific sources, and no reliable peer reviewed scientific sources indicate that the source of the fossil record is a global flood and that such beliefs are pseudoscientific and contrary to the actual evidence.

"this could suggest that the animals were emerged in water during or soon after death & fossilization and could thus point to the possibility of a global flood." You would first have to prove that a global flood is even physically possible before making that assumption, and scientific and mathematical evidence has proven it is not. It also cannot account for the precise, neat ordering of geologic strata and the fossils contained within them. So you are basically building a house in mid-air. Cadiomals (talk) 20:45, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

The two stances that these types of fossils are extremely rare is directly contradicted by the article and is also directly contradicted by evidence that I've seen - this death pose IS relatively common - too common to chalk up as simple drowning in lakes or streams. However, I agree with Farsight's point and I'll drop the insertion.Ckruschke (talk) 22:17, 29 February 2012 (UTC)Ckruschke

It's common when finding a complete skeleton, but doing that is very rare, hence finding one in the death pose is very rare by extension. Also, I don't know what evidence you've personally seen, but in case you didn't know, when a great preserved full-body is found like this, it is often professionally recreated hundreds of times over and spread all over the place. My university's geology museum has multiple excellent recreations, including the famous Archeopteryx, but none of them are the original skeleton. They're just copies, and they're passed around and sold to all sorts of school and children's museums all over the world. I can understand how this would make it seem more common than it really is.Farsight001 (talk) 22:30, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the further reply! I agree that it's common in complete skeletons - which is why I stated as such in the text I tried to insert. Not being a scientist in this field, I don't know how widespread complete skeletons are - you obviously know more than. I was simply basing my info on the article lead - "When palaeontologists are lucky enough to find a complete dinosaur skeleton – whether it be a tiny Sinosauropteryx or an enormous Apatosaurus – there's a good chance it will be found with ... the opisthotonic death pose." Which I thought clearly stated that it was common among all species. However, thanks for the thoughtful and helpful comments! I look forward to continued interaction on this page. Ckruschke (talk) 12:56, 1 March 2012 (UTC)Ckruschke

Putting in Creationist Input

Hello, recently I was trying to put in some creationist input. All of the creationist articles on Wikipedia are extremely bias in trying to put down or disprove anything related to creationist theories. It only seems fitting that their views be expressed and defended on their own particular pages; of course well referenced sources should and will be used. I also would appreciate it if others would help out by finding positive creationist input that would aid in better expressing their views. Thanks. Sprecher (talk) 06:05, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

@ Sprecher, please appreciate that flood geology is a "fringe view" in Wikipedia terms, and as such has to be shown in the context of due weight to majority expert views. With verification from reliable third party sources we can show how these views are received, but can't use the primary sources of creationist publications to present issues from that minority perspective. If an argument's not been given that third party coverage, it's unlikely to be significant enough to feature in an article, and we have to avoid "original research in presenting our own evaluation of a topic. So, creationist arguments have to be shown in the context of well sourced mainstream views. . dave souza, talk 06:52, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

Also note: one paragraph was sourced entirely to a couple of creationist sources: I've summarised their argument and shown a mainstream response. Don't think we need go into the details of the sources and the apparent argument between different creationists, well expressed in
"Their admission that the biblical exegesis is not the key reason for espousing their Flood model, shows the weakness of their thinking. Their science is driving their interpretation of Scripture, and not the other way round. From this unproven (and in our opinion false) premise, they construct a model that owes more to a desired allegiance to the geological column than to Scripture. In fact their model runs into conflict with post-Flood Scriptural chronology and timescales.
We admit that it is not always easy to interpret science from a ‘Bible-first’ mentality. There are puzzles to solve, but these are far less perplexing than the massive post-Flood inundations required by their model. Such a model raises great questions about whether God meant what He said when He stated ‘neither shall there any more be a flood to destroy the earth’ (Genesis 9:11). We have dealt with the importance of the Rainbow promise in our article." . . dave souza, talk 07:54, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

Ok so first off, the page should reflect what flood geology supposes; so far it has not. Jess stated that "AiG is not typically a reliable source, except to express the opinions of its authors". Well, that's your opinion. I see talkorgins has been used, and I could see how that could directly fall under "Self-published sources". Anyhow, the answersingenesis articles that I was pointing to had heaps of references. Here they are again: http://www.answersingenesis.org/get-answers/k/author-guy-berthault/v/recent Sprecher (talk) 07:46, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

That search shows three articles: what exactly is it that you want added to this article, how precisely do these articles support or describe the proposed addition, and is there any mainstream commentary on this YEC argument?

Note that ToA has a reputation for fact checking and accuracy, and is accepted as a mainstream publisher of analysis of creationist claims. AiG is one among many proponents of these claims, and as a self-published fringe source has to be treated with caution as a primary source for such claims.

So, propose some wording here on the talk page with related sources, and we can discuss it. . dave souza, talk 09:07, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

Yeah, unfortunately I'd personally be unable to make any giant proposals right now. I'd need to look at a ton of articles first before making a decision on which ones I'd consider. Right now I'm just trying to find some that could possibly be used. One of the things I was trying to get rid of though was on how the Karoo formation would not be able to be formed during the conditions POSTULATED for the flood; because conditions postulated for the flood are that of a much much larger land to sea ratio. Anyhow, here are some articles that I'll have to eventually take a look at: http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/tj/v14/n1/flood-models

http://www.icr.org/index.php?f_search_type=homepage&f_keyword_all=flood&x=0&y=0&module=home&action=submitsearch&search=AdvancedSearch&section=0&f_constraint=both&f_context_all=any&f_context_exact=any&f_context_any=any&f_context_without=any&f_context_any=any Sprecher (talk) 21:17, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

http://static.icr.org/i/pdf/technical/Can-Flood-Geology-Explain-Thick-Chalk-Layers.pdf — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sprecher (talk • contribs) 23:43, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

Here's an article debunking the supposed problem with the Karoo Fossil Formation: http://creation.com/images/pdfs/tj/j14_2/j14_2_47-49.pdf — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sprecher (talk • contribs) 06:24, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

Another source: http://christianobserver.org/dangerous-pseudoscience/ Sprecher (talk) 03:06, 14 April 2012 (UTC)

Nothing from creation.com will ever be reliable. Talk.origins is considered reliable in accordance with our policy on WP:PARITY. If you want to make scientific claims you need scientific, peer reviewed sources. SÆdon^talk 06:27, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

Well, all I have to say is.... WOW! "Talk.origins is considered reliable in accordance with our policy on WP:PARITY". Hmmmm.... I wonder why you consider it "reliable". Of course talk.origins does use sources and all; but the fact is that many of the Creation articles that I have presented also use heaps upon heaps of sources. That Karoo article, for example, has 12 sources used in order to support its claims. It just seems that there is a particular bias among the members editing Creation related articles. And as to the reason why they don't have many "scientific, peer reviewed sources" is due to the fact that everything they publish is contrary to Evolution..... so no duh, of course it won't be featured on National Geographic or Scientific American. And I don't know, perhaps there is some Creation material out there that is in "scientific, peer reviewed sources", I have not looked yet.Sprecher (talk) 02:53, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

If you read parity then it's pretty clear why talk.origins is a reliable source (the policy literally exists to deal specifically with articles like creationism). The fact that a source cites other sources doesn't really matter if the sources being cited aren't interpreted correctly or are of poor quality. Creationism is not science, that is why it is not published in scientific journals. Any random scientist's dream would be to turn evolution (or any theory for that matter) on its face because that instantly propels you to scientific stardom. What most people outside the sciences don't understand is that science is incredibly competitive, and the hardest but most rewarding way to get ahead is to successfully challenge prevailing theory. However, to challenge prevailing theory you actually have to have evidence and not just an assertion of unfalsifiable fairy tales.

Yes, there is a bias against things pretending to be science when they are not - both in academia and on Wikipedia, and indeed, in reality. SÆdon^talk 03:01, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

And as to the reason why they don't have many "scientific, peer reviewed sources" is due to the fact that everything they publish is contrary to Evolution

Alternatively, it could be that they're a fringe pseudo-scientific position and their work can never get past peer review based on its merits. The issue of flood geology was fully settled by the mid 19th century (before evolution mind you). See: History of Geology, And remember: every fringe belief has a convenient explanation for why their views aren't accepted by reliable sources. We shouldn't treat Flood Geology as special simply because you say it should be.

There might be some merit in your criticism of talk.origins. It is created by scientists who debate creationist claims, but it is not a formal scientific body. Relying on them too much could bring about claims of hypocrisy. We can perhaps try to find alternative citations. Couldn't we just rely upon the sources that talk.origins uses?

Now, Flood Geology is a fringe theory, and as such you should read the following Wikipedia guidelines:

• WP:UNDUE - Undue weight
• WP:FRINGE - Fringe theories

--Harizotoh9 (talk) 03:14, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

Using a better source than T.O would be perfectly congruent with WP:PARITY which applies when higher quality sources that criticize fringe quality sources don't exist. IIRC the arguments at WP:RSN regarding T.O found that using the T.O sources directly would be a WP:PRIMARY violation, but it would depend on each individual source obviously. That's just a memory off the top of my head so take it with a grain of salt. SÆdon^talk 03:20, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

Like I said before I don't really have a ton of time right now to find sources and stuff. I'm not too sure what "a better source" than T.O would be? It seems like it is pretty much impossible to get anything from a Creationist perspective into this article due to how you consider all the stuff they publish as "unreliable". I mean that is just your opinion. while on the other hand it is my opinion that their articles are reliable due to the heaps of sources that they use to support their claims. I'm just trying to get a few of the lies off of this article, such as the one about the Karoo formation. Sprecher (talk) 03:06, 14 April 2012 (UTC)

The number of sources referenced is a very poor indicator of reliability. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 03:10, 14 April 2012 (UTC)

Then in your opinion, what is a good indicator of reliability?Sprecher (talk) 04:26, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

For matters of science: preferably peer review, though there are exceptions for established and previously published experts. Creationist sources can not be used to contradict actual scientific sources. TO is a perfectly acceptable and reliable WP:PARITY source and although peer reviewed sources would be ideal, on such fringe subjects it is hard to locate sourcing because most scientists don't spend their time debunking the obviously farcical. SÆdon^talk 04:40, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

Widespread flood stories

The article claims that the similarities between ancient flood myths is evidence for a real flood. I don't see that conclusion in the ref provided. What I do see in that ref is this conclusion: "The overwhelming consistency among flood legends found in distant parts of the globe indicates they were derived from the same origin (the Bible's record), but oral transcription has changed the details through time. In other words, consistency in all of the flood myths indicate that they were derived from the Bible, not that the Bible's version of a physical event is correct.Desoto10 (talk) 20:57, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

Eh, no it doesn't, as far as I can see. The relevant section says "Proponents of Flood Geology also point out that flood stories can be found in many cultures, places, and religions; this, they suggest, is evidence of an actual event in the historic past because local floods would not explain the similarities in the flood stories.
Anthropologists generally reject this view....."
Unfortunately we're basing that on a primary source, the Northwest Creation Network: Their quote that you cite (which ends at "time") is undermined when they go on to Gilgamesh, though of course they don't acknowledge that it predates the Biblical account as noted in the previous section. So yes, we don't give their full argument, but they're only one example.
A better source is TOA CG201, and it can be supplemented by Flood Stories from Around the World. . . dave souza, talk 22:40, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

Linkfarm at External links

I deleted all the external links because it had become a magnet for low-quality activist websites. Any useful website should already have been used as a reference in the article itself. Binksternet (talk) 16:43, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

Bad references

I have deleted all the references based at www.answersingenesis.com. I understand the website to host copyright violations and otherwise unreliable essays. Binksternet (talk) 16:43, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

Answers in Genesis is one of the major creationist organizations and their opinions absolutely has a place in an article about creationism. Their articles are IMO a reliable source for what a large part of the creationist movement believe, even if they are (as I believe) unreliable from a scientific viewpoint. If there are copyright violations, they can be dealt with on a case by case basis. A wholesale removal of all references to www.answersingenesis.com is something that should be discussed on this talk page first. As a minor point, when you remove the references, you need to remove the ref tags in the text as well so the reader is not confused looking for a reference that isn't there.Sjö (talk) 17:24, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

I agree with Binksternet here. AIG is notoriously unreliable, and cannot be used as a source for what creationists believe. It is an apologetics website with a reputation for patent dishonesty and misrepresentation, including with regards to its own nature and significance in the creationist community. It should be used with the utmost caution, if at all. REAL scholarly sources are far more reliable, and, fortunately, plenty exist. None of the material deleted should be restored without SOLID reliable sources, discussion on this talk page, and clear consensus. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 17:33, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

Sjö, you will likely want to offer your opinion at the Wikipedia:Reliable Sources/Noticeboard where there is a lot of discussion about the huge cleanup job involving low quality sources such as Answers In Genesis. Also, check in on Wikipedia:Reliable Sources/Noticeboard/Large scale clean-ups/answersingenesis.com. If there is something worth keeping you will need to alert others. Binksternet (talk) 17:42, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

POV sockpuppets

A number of pov sockpuppets of Allenroyboy (talk · contribs), including Allenroyboy, have been editing this article - see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Allenroyboy/Archive. The editor with the most edits here, Mthoodhood is a sock, as were Trabucogold and Christian Skeptic. Dougweller (talk) 09:08, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

The Moon

The Moon's gravity affects waves; if the moon were close enough to Earth, and at just the correct precise orbit, would it be able to "hold up" a "vapor canopy" atmosphere? I know its a dumb question but could the moon literally "hold up the sky?" Weather patterns, the movement of the waves, clouds, rain, they are all affected by the moon, it as a powerful effect on water, at precisely the right orbit, an "anti deluvian" world, may be scientifically possible. The moon has been moving away from Earth roughly an inch every few thousand years; is it possible, for the moon to have a closer orbit? If it were closer, what would the sky look like? An even better question though, is why people so ardently deny God, and yet so vigorously act with cruelty and malice towards others..... That is another topic though, my apologies.

Any Physics people out there? How close would the moon need to be to Earth's orbit, to hold up the waters locked up on the poles, up in the sky? According to some creationists, if the water was held up in the sky, you would have 80 degree weather, from pole to pole, all year. Additionally, the oxygen content, as well as the general moisture of the air we breathed, would be higher, and higher oxygen would mean bigger plants and animals. Also, complete protection from cosmic radiation, as well as the sun, could also mean (possibly) longer lifespans.

Of course this is all just conjecture..... sadly I do not have the math equations to back any of this up. Again the moon, has a very powerful effect on water, this is well known; it affects not just waves, but it even affects wind, and rain. If the Earth was originally made in a manner, where "the sky" was literally held up by the moon, if God suddenly pulled away the moon, what would that flood have looked like? I am talking a solid 50 to 60% of the Earth's water, falling, all at once.

Respecting the religious beliefs of some individuals, maybe there was a Henny Penny, and the sky literally fell. In the end though, I doubt people will show respect; westerners enjoy being sadistic and arrogant, and they strive to deny God because ideas of respect for others are not compatible with their personality so they either conveniently modify, or deny outright. Evolution isn't science; its malicious rationalization that justifies genocide and racism, which masquerades as science.

67.148.120.91 (talk) 03:12, 22 January 2010 (UTC)stardino747

It's an interesting question. Can I just offer the following:

1. It's got no basis in Genesis 1, which doesn't say anything about the moon holding up the sky. In fact it has God separating the waters "above the Earth" and the waters "below the Earth" on the second day, but the moon only on the fourth day. (See the article Creation in Genesis). So it's the sky, not the moon, that's holding the waters above the Earth.

2. According to Genesis 1, it's the firmament that's holding up the water. The sky can do this because it's solid. For this you need to know that two words are being used, "shammiyim", meaning heavens (note there's not just one heaven - the /-im/ ending is plural), and "raqiya", which is usually translated as "firmament." There's really no equivalent in English to that word, but it's derived from a Hebrew verb meaning "to beat out" - it's applied to metal being beaten into a thin sheet. So it seems the "firmament " is conceived as something solid which can keep the waters off the Earth, and so the moon isn't needed.

3. What else? Well, if all that water for a vapour canopy got into the atmosphere, it would increase the pressure underneath (think what happens when you put a lid on a pot of boiling water - the steam pressure makes the lid bounce up and down). The Earth would therefore become very hot (far hotter than 80 degrees), and no living thing could survive. For this reason, the vapour canopy idea is generally dismissed by modern academic Creationists, such as those at Andrews University (a good institution - you might like to look them up on the Internet).

Hope this helps. PiCo (talk) 03:29, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

Reply to your third point; the "60%" number was not meant to be an exact figure, I was just pointing out, that the moon would need to hold up "just enough" water up there. Besides, what is to stop God from holding up the water and then create the moon to hold up afterwards right? Also what about the moon's gravity? Wouldn't it compensate for the extra air pressure? Jupiter's moons, many of which are the size of planet Earth, in fact have lower gravity, because of their proximity to Jupiter. Again I was operating under the assumption that everything would be "just right." Also, the sky isn't solid.... its just air. Again the water of the flood had to come from somewhere, and SOMETHING was holding it up there, the only celestial body I can think of that can do that, is the moon, perhaps that is why it was made. I seriously think, God did not put there just for decoration, and its effect on water is well known; I apreciate what you said but I have to politely reject your points, no disrespect, its just that, holding up the water up in the sky, would not create extra air pressure, because that assumes, there was more water during the time of Genesis, than there is now, when the quantity, has not changed at all. It is not a question of having more water for a "vapor canopy" but rather, changing its POSITION, additionally, the Earth's tilt, would keep the temperature even. When the Earth tilts, we get winter, spring, summer, and fall, and so on right? If there was a water canopy in precisely the correct place, held up there by the moon, you would have a positive green house effect, by that I mean, the earths' tilting, would keep the temperature even, all around the world. That is enough heat would be retained, and it would be heat that would be evenly distributed, all around the world, you are talking 80 degree weather, all the time, every single day of the year, a continual growing season, in short, "paradise." I also need to point out that the Hebrew calendar is Lunar; in Judaism, the moon holds a lot of significance, so, there could be a connection. Why is the Jewish calendar lunar? Obviously the ancient Hebrews believed that the moon had great importance; it may have been the force, which held up the sky (literally). Just think of it; a beautiful, paradisical Earth, and the moon just HUGE, brightly lit nights, plants as far as the eye can see. In virtually all visions of paradise, the moon is always portrayed as "overlarge." Perhaps, the idea is programmed into human being's very soul; on a deep level we all "remember" what pardise looked like. Big moon, perfect weather.... Ultimately though sorry, but I disagree; the Earth's tilt, would keep the temperatures even, and the idea of air pressure regarding the boiling pot analogy does not hold ground because that assumes the water content was higher. It also assumes the Earth just sits still, and takes all the heat from the sun, when it TILTS. Additionally there is night time and day time, so between the tilting, and the switching from day to night, all those factors would contribute to keeping the temperature regular. Again your 3rd point asumes, the Earth sits perfectly still. If it sat perfectly still NOW, the atmosphere would get to hot for ANYTHING to survive. The reason the equator is so hellishly hot, is because it gets constant bombardment from the sun, it "sits still" as it were.

67.148.120.91 (talk) 03:52, 22 January 2010 (UTC)stardingo747

I love your theory about the moon's gravity maintaining the antediluvian vapor canopy. What keeps the canopy from eventually falling even if humanity didn't sin? The Moon. Brilliant! I've been wondering why the moon was so important in ancient judaism for awhile now, this is the first time I've heard anything approaching an explanation. I also wondered why God would set up the whole "tide" system, now it makes some sense - maybe what we are seeing is a side-effect or degeneration of one of the moon's original purposes. I had never thought about it before but I think your right about visual depictions of paradise having a large moon, whenever speculative fiction portrays a world more innocent than ours the moon (or sometimes moons) is always prominent. I don't know why people who don't believe there was a global flood always think that there is not enough water for a global flood, the Bible says there were no mountains or basins then and we've got lots of water locked up in the icecaps. It would be very easy to flood the world if the terrain was more even and antarctica melted. PlatinumBeetle (talk) 23:20, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

fossil raindrop marks

I'm bothered by this sentence:

Creationists continue to search for evidence in the natural world that they consider to be consistent with the above description, such as evidence of rapid formation. For example, there have been claims of raindrop marks and water ripples at layer boundaries, sometimes associated with the claimed fossilized footprints of men and dinosaurs walking together.

First, fossilized raindrop impressions are seriously discussed (and, I believe, for the most part accepted) by paleontologists, but they are not accepted by all creationsits (see http://creationwiki.org/Flood_geology#Fossil_.22Rain_Drops.22). Second, they can be used to argue against a Great Flood (because they show the existence of light rain on exposed land in the middle of the Flood), as well as for it (because the imprints would not last millions of years before they are covered - as often the case, true but irrelevant). Leaving this in at this point would require too much explanation. D'ya mind if I remove the reference to raindrop marks? Art Carlson (talk) 09:31, 17 October 2012 (UTC)

Date of the "flood"

There is a date over at Ussher chronology (2349 BCE, or indeed roughly 4400 years ago), sourced to AIG. Of course, AIG is not a reliable source in general, but it might serve for the creationist position. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 23:23, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

It would be better than the reference we have at the moment [2] which appears to be a post on a forum?Theroadislong (talk) 23:32, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

TalkOrigins Archive is accepted as a source, but as a discussion piece that's weaker than most of their stuff. Looking in The Creationists by Ron Numbers, p. 203 of the 1992 edition discusses Morris's The Genesis Flood which attributes rock formations to "the flood, which he and Whitcomb placed at between five thousand and seven thousand years before the present, a minimum of about seven hundred years before Ussher's date." I don't have the current edition of Numbers, as cited in the article. . . . dave souza, talk 15:55, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

A better interim source: Young Earth Creationism : NCSE says "They also make arguments for the feasibility of Noah's ark and for the occurrence of a single worldwide flood within the last 5,000 years." . . . dave souza, talk 16:37, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

Jesus on the Flood

[moved from dave souza, talk]

Hi Dave, don't know whether I'm using talk alright, but let's see. You say the quote "As it was in the days of Noah, so it will be at the coming of the Son of Man. For in the days before the flood, people were eating and drinking, marrying and giving in marriage, up to the day Noah entered the ark; and they knew nothing about what would happen until the flood came and took them all away. That is how it will be at the coming of the Son of Man." (Math.24,37-29) is from Jesus, not about geology.

But the section is called Biblical Basis and the quotes of Jesus are the main constituent of the New Testament, otherwise there was no Bible, only the Jewish Old Testament. The apostles in the Bible also mention the flood often, but they can err. Since Jesus in the eyes of Christians is one of the Persons of the Divine Trinity and the way, the truth and the life, He cannot lie. Thus these verses are taken by all Flood Geologists as a Biblical Basis, next to the verses in Genesis, why the Flood Story is true. This you can read e.g. at http://www.icr.org/article/jesus-flood/ or similar articles on creationist or flood geology web sites.

Furthermore Jesus talks about the flood taking all away, thus being world wide and being sudden, quick. The scale in place and time are important arguments in flood geology.

Can it be placed? Best regards, Han — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jgamleus (talk • contribs) 06:55, 21 June 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for bringing this issue to the talk page, the quote you added is large and has no obvious connection with geology. I think the Christian Bible is generally taken to include both the old and new testaments, and it's clear from our article that adherents to flood geology do take Genesis as a Biblical Basis. Both the Bible and the ICR are primary sources, and we really need a secondary source for any interpretation or assessment of the significance of this to the topic. It may be appropriate to include a brief mention of the point that YECs cite the New Testament as support for the literal truth of Genesis, but on these sources the most we can say is that the ICR hold that position. Does anyone else have a useful source for this point? . . dave souza, talk 08:23, 21 June 2013 (UTC)

Hi Dave, I'm not quite sure what you mean, but am trying to do my best. The Geoscience Research Institute published an article Biblical evidence for the (universality of the) Genesis Flood, by Richard M. Davidson. He is Professor of Old Testament Interpretation at Andrews University, Michigan. He gives 8 points for a Biblical Basis in the Old Testament and 14 points for a Biblical Basis in the New Testament. This includes in point 11 the quote of Jesus in Matthew 24 on the Flood. The article can be found at http://www.grisda.org/origins/22058.htm. Is this what you are looking for? Best regards, Han

Jgamleus (talk) 00:35, 23 June 2013 (UTC)

Thanks, that's a primary source for YEC views but we can present it as such, and it's useful as the opening paragraph is currently only supported by the Biblical texts from Genesis. I've added the following as an improvement, citing it to Davidson:

Richard M. Davidson of Andrews University presents a Seventh-day Adventist Church young Earth creationist Flood theology, citing texts from both the Old Testament and the New Testament to support the traditional belief that there was a literal, universal world-wide Flood, rather than a limited or local flood, or a symbolic interpretation of the Biblical texts.

You can of course edit it or propose changes on this talk page, I think it covers the general point that there is support for a universal Flood in the New Testament. Perhaps this page and the Ellen G. White articles could do with more about her inspiring George McCready Price and hence the modern YEC Flood geology movement.[3] . . dave souza, talk 02:06, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

Correlating the months of the flood with the days of creation

Perhaps this is nitpicking (and most of the references appear to be in books), but the correlation of days and months of flooding to the days of creation doesn't really work. The Hebrew calendar was is lunar rather than solar, which makes most--if not all--months 28 days. (Plus a solar correction every few years to keep holidays in the right place.) 150 days is about 5.35 lunar months.

Like I said, I don't have the books to see where that comes from. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 172.218.35.21 (talk) 05:04, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

I agree that these sentences have issues - in fact the whole section is poorly written as many places have one opinion written as "this is what everybody believes". Let me see if I can clear it up. Ckruschke (talk) 17:54, 13 March 2013 (UTC)Ckruschke

The modern Jewish calendar isn't the one being used in the Flood narrative - it was a different one called (by scholars who care about these things) the Jubilees calendar, because it's found most fully expressed in a 2nd Temple work called the Book of Jubilees. This paper is useful to understanding the ideas behind it. I can give you some more references if you're interested - the field is very interesting, but perhaps a bit nerdy. The Jubilees calendar had a 364-day year of exactly 52 weeks, and wasn't compatible with a luni-solar calendar. PiCo (talk) 08:42, 20 July 2013 (UTC)

Paul H. Seely

I've moved Seely's comments on the cosmology of Genesis into a separate paragraph, as he's clearly providing a historical analysis of the text and is not YEC. Indeed, see The GISP2 Ice Core: Ultimate Proof that Noah’s Flood Was Not Global by Paul H. Seely, Perspectives on Science and Christian Faith, Volume 55, Number 4, December 2003. A useful source for this article, or at least for Young Earth Creationism. . dave souza, talk 09:18, 21 June 2013 (UTC)

Seeley is an Evangelical scholar but very sensible, and even well-respected in the field. The views he's expressing are pretty well universally accepted by Biblical scholars. Does it matter whether he's YEC or not? PiCo (talk) 08:39, 20 July 2013 (UTC)

This is really a structural problem with the article: the first section begins with a history showing early attempts to reconcile geological evidence with the Bible, including the flood, and then goes on to modern creationist flood geology. The "Biblical basis" follows on as though it is justification for the creationist view, as indicated by its opening: "Flood geology is based on a literal interpretation of the flood narrative in the Book of Genesis (Genesis 6–9)." This is flatly false in relation to the pre-creationist diluvialism: these geologists no longer held a literal view of Genesis, they were dealing with physical artefacts that contradicted the literal biblical timescale. I suggest moving the "Biblical basis" section so that it becomes the first section, and making a clear distinction between the "flood geology" of early science, and the "flood geology" which began with the visions of Ellen White before being adapted by Price, Morris and White into modern YEC views. The historical "flood geology" should be in one section, creationist flood geology should be in a separate section which can then have subsections on their various beliefs, and how they relate to modern geology. . dave souza, talk 21:31, 20 July 2013 (UTC)

"Biblical basis" should be the first section - without Genesis 6-9 there'd never have been any flood geology. I can shorten that section and provide fuller references (including replacing Seeley with someone else if you want).PiCo (talk) 02:01, 21 July 2013 (UTC)

Thanks, that will be good. I don't have any objection to Seeley as representing the general views of Biblical scholars, more references would only be needed if that is disputed. I've made the move repositioning it as the first section, together with adjustment of section levels and headings to make it clear where sections deal with modern creationist arguments rather than the ideas discussed by early geologists. . . dave souza, talk 05:21, 21 July 2013 (UTC)

I've done some work on it - the essence of the flood story is now presented in the second paragraph, and there are more sources for everything. I need to do a little more on the final para, the Biblical chronology, since this, not the flood story, is the basis for the YEC idea that the earth is very young. I also need to make sure all the sources are in the bibliography. (The biblio probably needs cleaning up - many sources are mentioned but not used).PiCo (talk) 11:44, 21 July 2013 (UTC)

Thanks. Since I've been looking at Young & Stearley, I've summarised their comment on the chronology, and have added their explanation of how the flat Earth/dome of firmanent was accommodated by Calvin. . dave souza, talk 13:19, 21 July 2013 (UTC)

Snelling references not valid

All three Snelling references (52, 57, & 59) are not complete. Does anyone know the sources? Mark B (talk) 21:08, 30 April 2014 (UTC)

Edits to Biblical Basis section

I've edited this section to make it more streamlined - no subsections, fewer words. No change to meaning. As I wrote the original text I feel a certain entitlement to change it. Please don't simply revert, if you disagree with it, as I feel I haven't removed anything of importance. PiCo (talk) 07:41, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

I've edited this section and removed dating of Genesis and YECs views of the six creation days as well as how long it will remain. These ideas serve no purpose in an article about Flood Geology other than to POV the article. Also, not to be rude, but this section is written from a specific POV regarding a fringe interpretation of the creation account that is not shared by most of its modern adherents. Flat earth etc serve no purpose towards explaining the biblical basis for modern day flood geology. This section needs a lot of work and if the section is going to be discussing the "Biblical Basis" for "Flood Geology" it should - at least in part - correctly represent the views of the adherents, since its their basis for believing in the flood account. Gingabox (talk) 23:21, 14 May 2014 (UTC)

Biased article

Currently the article is highly bias in favor of anti-creationist authors. The article reads as a flame war rather than a description of the topic. All references to pseudoscience, modern geology and other topics should be removed outright. While in reality there's no such thing as an agreement in the scientific community, even if there were it has no bearing on the description of Flood Geology - at most there should only be a note that many in the scientific community dispute the claims of Flood Geology. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.197.90.199 (talk) 22:57, 8 May 2014 (UTC)

Hello, please understand that Wikipedia follows the view of the majority of the experts (see WP:WEIGHT) and that flood geology is a fringe view. There is an overwhelming consensus among the scientific community that the claims made regarding flood geology are not supported and that's what that article reports.--McSly (talk) 02:06, 9 May 2014 (UTC)

I agree with the person who raised the objection. I myself am not a young earth creationist but, despite flood geology being a fringe view, the article should explain the view of those who hold it. especially under the "Biblical Basis" section. The "Biblical Basis" section is not about the "Biblical Basis" for "Flood Geology." This section spends most of its time talking about ancient cosmology of a flat earth and Genesis having a first draft that was completed late as a polemic against Babylonian polytheism. The later is not a consensus view, but a view of a handful of scholars (note the reference is from 2001 - find a new source?) and really doesn't need to be included in this section anyway as the authorship of the text is not the basis for believing in it. The article begins "Flood geology is a field of study within creation science, which is a part of young Earth creationism." Very little of this section encapsulates a creation science or young Earth creationism view of the Biblical flood and I feel this section needs a lot of work done to it to actually make it about the "Biblical Basis" for Flood Geology and not about the History of Genesis or the early Church Fathers view of when the flood occurred or the flat earth hypothesis. In short, it should speak more about the geologic issues surrounding the flood events, ie dating of the event from a YEC perspective (which is there, but mainly talks about the Church Fathers) mountains being covered 15 cubits, recession of water, etc. Gingabox (talk) 09:38, 14 May 2014 (UTC)

A further issue: "The early Church Fathers regarded the six days of Creation both as 24 hour days, and as more figurative or allegorical periods which could be of 1,000 years each. They believed and taught that human history would last 6,000 years before ending with the return of Christ, and placed Creation around 5,500 BC. This transfer from the days of Creation may have had Jewish precursors. Around the time of the Protestant Reformation scholars developed a biblical chronology to determine the time since Creation, which they placed at around 4,000 BC." This has absolutely nothing to do with Flood Geology Gingabox (talk) 09:54, 14 May 2014 (UTC)

A Young Earth perspective is clearly relevant to flood geology - you can't argue that for a young earth without denying what geological science says. I also do not see your rationale for removing such a large amount of material and have restored it per bold, revert,discuss. Dougweller (talk) 07:06, 15 May 2014 (UTC)

Dougweller, the section is regarding a Biblical Basis for "Flood Geology", not a Biblical Basis for YECism. That is my rational. The very fact that this article puts forth that Flood Geology as a Young Earth perspective is itself a false representation of the facts. There are many, not only YEC, but OEC, who believe in a Global Flood based on Genesis 6-9. The dating of the event according to a 24 hour day interpretation is largely irrelevant to a discussion of Flood Geology. The Biblical basis for the flood is Genesis 6-9 and later passages making reference to it, not Genesis 1, the creation days and the genealogies. If you want to include a Young Earth perspective, it should not be regarding the days of creation, but the flood account, which this Biblical Basis section completely ignores in favor of dating of Genesis and a Biblical basis (most of the section having nothing to do with the flood) for believing the earth is young. As I said, if you want to include a YEC view on Flood Geology, it should be about rational for a Global Flood, not a rational for dating. Gingabox (talk) 02:13, 16 May 2014 (UTC)

Hardly irrelevant, it's an important part of changing ideas about the Flood. As for modern non-YEC perspectives, please show sources. Of course further discussion of the Biblical basis could well be helpful, what are your proposals, with sources? . dave souza, talk 08:17, 16 May 2014 (UTC)

It is irrelevant to that section, Biblical Basis, but I agree its important to the understanding of changing ideas about the Flood. I will put together a proposal later this afternoon with some sources to expand the section Gingabox (talk) 23:57, 17 May 2014 (UTC)

Good, what's really needed is an analysis showing which parts of the Biblical story are significant to flood geology. It's easy enough to get sources about Genesis 6–9, but what's really needed is a secondary source commenting on the lines which have been taken as a basis for the various forms of Flood geology. . . dave souza, talk 12:07, 18 May 2014 (UTC)

Let me put it another way: would it be fair in a page about Biological Evolution to discuss the rational behind abiogenesis? Absolutely not, those are two separate issues. As are the 24 hour interpretation and flood geology. Do YECs hold a Global Flood view? Of course they do. Is YECism, their basis for believing in a Global Flood? No. Does that clarify my reasoning? Gingabox (talk) 03:30, 16 May 2014 (UTC)

Re "would it be fair in a page about Biological Evolution to discuss the rational behind abiogenesis?" – see Evolution#Origin of life. Similarly, this article needs to briefly discuss changing views of the date of The Flood and show the old Earth perspective of early geologists as well as the modern, largely YEC, "flood geology". When and where did non-YECs believe in a Global Flood? . . dave souza, talk 08:17, 16 May 2014 (UTC)

I think you missed my point. The YEC dating and flat earth view is not the "Biblical Basis" for flood geology. If you want to change the section title to "Dating" or something like that, then it would be correct. Notice in Evolution#Origin of life abiogenesis is briefly discussed under a section that says "Evolutionary history of life", not the crux of the entire basis for evolutionary thought. The way this section is set up, it makes the 24 hour view and flat earth hypothesis the entire basis, which it is not. Gingabox (talk) 23:51, 17 May 2014 (UTC)

The section is mostly about various readings of the Biblical text, the cosmological context of the Flood and the dating of the Flood. The last point obviously involves the Young Earth interpretation as well as others. So, the current content is relevant, but could usefully form a renamed subsection after discussion of the Biblical text as suggested above. . dave souza, talk 12:07, 18 May 2014 (UTC)

Here is what I propose. I suggest adding elements from Genesis 6-9, most importantly Gen 7 "19 ...all the high mountains under the entire heavens were covered. 20 The waters rose and covered the mountains to a depth of more than fifteen cubits. 21 Every living thing that moved on land perished—birds, livestock, wild animals, all the creatures that swarm over the earth, and all mankind. 22 Everything on dry land that had the breath of life in its nostrils died. 23 Every living thing on the face of the earth was wiped out; people and animals and the creatures that move along the ground and the birds were wiped from the earth. Only Noah was left, and those with him in the ark." This establishes the basis for their belief in a global flood. This can be supported using The Genesis Flood: The Biblical Record and Its Scientific Implications by John C. Whitcomb and Henry M. Morris pages 33-34. As well as http://www.icr.org/noahs-flood/

I still don't think all the information about flat earth is necessary. The article itself starts by saying, "Flood geology is a field of study within creation science..." The ancient Israelites weren't involved in creation science and modern adherents to Flood Geology do not believe the earth to be flat. This is typically only brought up in polemics against Young Earth Creationism.

Adding that information and removing the flat earth information seems to me a logical place to start and can be expanded from there. Your thoughts? Gingabox (talk) 08:46, 19 May 2014 (UTC)

These are primary sources for modern (YEC) creationist views. As such, an introductory part of the "Biblical basis" can say something like "The Genesis Flood: The Biblical Record and Its Scientific Implications by John C. Whitcomb and Henry M. Morris pages 33-34 cites the following passages", summarising what they say, and the same or similar arguments are put forward on the ICR website. We'd need a secondary source to say that the same applied to other versions of flood geology. The current wording could come under a subheading such as Scholarship on the Bible or Changing interpretations, and should show how views of the Genesis myth changed. Including the cosmology of the time, involving a flat Earth which obviously affects how the Flood was visualised. This is part of scholarship on the Bible and on the historical development of geology . dave souza, talk 17:38, 20 May 2014 (UTC)

Multiple Issues With Introduction Section / Many False or Wrong Assumptions

I strongly object to the following false and misleading statement on Flood geology. "Most adherents hold to a literal reading of Genesis 6-9 and view its passages to be historically accurate, where the Bible's internal chronology reliably places the Flood and the story of Noah's Ark within the last five thousand years."

This is particularly with using the words "most adherents" and the word "reliably", which needs much more precise and clearer phrasing.

It is logical that most adherents of flood geology would believe in the topic. Fact. But the implications of the sentence has been manipulated here to actually infers most Christians believe in Flood geology. This statement is clearly not true and is unsupported by an independent reference.

Evidence for this is in an article by John C. Munday Jr. "Eden's Geography Erodes Flood Geology", which says;

"The debate over Flood geology in its modern form dates from the publication of The Genesis Flood by John Whitcomb and Henry Morris in 1961.5 They and other young-earth creationists have vigorously pursued an inquiry into possible details of Flood mechanisms and effects, and have sponsored an active creation science educational agenda. Creation science consists more of Flood study than of anything else. In response, conventionally-persuaded geologists, some Christian and others not, have variously criticized (and in some cases ridiculed) the Flood geology position"

Munday here even gives the following as references to support the statement in bold as;

1) J. A. Van de Fliert, Fundamentalism and Fundamentals of Geology (International Reformed Bulletin 32, Jan.-Apr., 1968) 5-27; 2) J. Laurence Kulp, "Deluge Geology" (Journal of the American Scientific Affiliation 2 (1, 1950)) 1-15; 3) David M. Raup, "The Geological and Paleontological Arguments of Creationism" Laurie R. Godfrey, ed., "Scientists Confront Creationism" (New York: W. W. Norton, 1983), 147-162; 4) Patrick L. Abbott, "The Stratigraphic Record and Creationism," in Frank Aubrey, William Thwaites, eds., Proc. 63rd Ann. Mtg., Pacific Div. Amer. Assoc. Adv. Science (vol. 1, part 3, San Francisco, CA: Pac. Div. AAAS, 1984) 164-188.

Hence, it is actually true that "Some adherents…" believe this, NOT 'most' (nor 'all.');

It seems that dave souza, HiLo48) and Bishonen have repeatably (in 'View history') reversed any other User contributions regarding this one line in the Article. They have tried to insist on the wording as to seemingly maintain their own POV (without adding any necessary references), and this has endless debated by them in the Talk pages without compromise. They are clearly defying WP:RNPOV, where the rule guide says; "Conversely, editors should not avoid using terminology that has been established by the majority of the current reliable and notable sources on a topic out of sympathy for a particular point of view, or concern that readers may confuse the formal and informal meanings."

It should be pointed out that WP:POV centrally applies here, where this sentence by reversing these changes defy a neutral point of view. I'd kindly advise these users to especially again read WP:NPOV FAQ, WP:ASSERT carefully.

(Worst, even dave souza, on 06:22, 5 June 2014 said; ‎"adherents a subset of Christians, and most are YECs", Not only is this false, it is misleading without any evidence to back this reversal up. This is clear evidence of edit warring.

This clearly implies that this sentence is actually making a statement is unrelated to Flood geology, but has been likely added to promote Christianity and/or the ideas these somewhat radical Christians earnestly believing in flood geology. Alternatively, the author of this sentence is likely added this, because, as Munday also says; "Flood geology depends critically on the premise of a young earth." Evidence by scientists and many Christians clearly do not accept this POV.

Again it shows dave souza's reversal of my edit is not justified here.

As for the remaining text in the Introduction, it needs to be rewritten. Flood geology as a subject not necessarily related to the Biblical flood per se, but (as Munday says) that the "Flood must have been the cause of the stratigraphic record, including its fossil content." Hence, the Biblical account is mostly irrelevant, because support for Flood geology is supposed to be based on evidence on the science and scientific data of the mechanism and effects on such a global or localised catastrophic flood. (It is rejected by geologists, because there is no evidence to support this particular assertion.) Nearly all the text in the Introduction is supposition and opinion. I.e. Saying "...interpretation of the geological history of the Earth" is wrong, because the alleged flood only occurs in a relatively short time compared to the time between when it was created and now. I.e. it is an ""..."...interpretation of period of the geological history of the Earth." Clearly "…adherents hold to a literal reading of Genesis 6-9" is therefore quite irrelevant to the alleged evidence of the flood. Arianewiki1 (talk) 10:05, 6 June 2014 (UTC)

You've raised a number of issues. You seem in your last paragraph to be saying that if there wasn't a story of flood in the Bible flood geology might/would still exist. I don't follow that argument. Dougweller (talk) 11:15, 6 June 2014 (UTC)

The problem that the flood occurred is based on the story of Noah's flood (and other stories). The purpose of Flood geology is supposed to be based on some scientific proof via the geological record that such a flood occurred, based on alluvial material, fossilised bones, etc., and is used under the subject. Flood geology is pseudoscience, because the proponents deliberately attempt to use (and confuse) to prove the Biblical account as true - mostly to affirm their own religious / Christian views.

The Introduction is supposed to be an abstract of the whole article, and if you read anything after "Creationist flood geology", it refers to the explanation of the evidence supporting or against the hypothesis of Flood geology.

Hence, the story of the Flood being true or not hinges on the known observation and direct evidence that some flood had occurred - and specifically at one point in time. Flood geology have been widely rejected because no such evidence exists. The introduction needs to be factually correct, neutral, and explains what the subject is about. Moreover it has to be verifiable, based on relevant citations. At the moment, the article is poorly constructed and is more based on opinion and interpretation, not what the subject is about or how it viewed by both its proponents and detractors. At the moment, many of the statements are not factually true. (I'm also not the only one who has expressed this same point of view, as seen within the Talk page.) Arianewiki1 (talk) 11:46, 6 June 2014 (UTC)

It appears that this issue has been discussed six other times without adequate resolution. Unless useful agreement can be reached is solving this, the whole section should perhaps go to Arbitration Committee, whose aim is to make the article comply with WP:POV and achieve some neutrality. The article should be about Flood geology and not about Christianity or the validity or non-validity of the alleged Biblical flood. Also references, to either should be referred to these other Wikipedia pages or proper citations or quotes from the actual written text.

Investigating the edit history, it appears that the person who added "Most adherents believe…" was an anonymous user 63.248.26.218 on 7th February 2012; where it says; "Most adherents believe the Christian Bible is inerrant and hold its passages to be historically accurate." Passive and true.

This sentence has been greatly changed and expanded to; "Most adherents hold to a literal reading of Genesis 6-9 and view its passages to be historically accurate, where the Bible's internal chronology reliably places the Flood and the story of Noah's Ark within the last five thousand years."

It is clearly flawed, and has been seemingly changed for emotive reasons or drive a certain POV. Notably, the word "most" or "reliably is no longer relevant to the actual context.

Either. Remove the sentence or revert to the original statement which is more factually correct than the current statement. Arianewiki1 (talk) 11:20, 6 June 2014 (UTC)

According to the Introduction "...the Flood and the story of Noah's Ark within the last five thousand years." Yet the more detailed article says under the Section 'Biblical basis' ; "places the Flood in the year 1656 after Creation", concluding variations between 2304 BC to 6934BC. This is not 5000 years ago, but between about 4300 or 8950 years ago or averaging 6625 years. Where does the 5,000 years value come from? Worst the open statement; "...where the Bible's internal chronology reliably places the Flood and the story of Noah's Ark within the last five thousand years." must be logically false, because it is far from being "reliable" in any sense of the word.

Logically, the word "reliable should be removed, and the 5000 years be revised or removed as well.

I'll be happy to do this. (I did it before, and it was reverted! Why?) Arianewiki1 (talk) 12:02, 6 June 2014 (UTC)

That's better, these are specific proposals rather than starting by misconstruing "most adherents" as "most Christians" and putting tags at the head of the article without first discussing the issues on the talk page. Yes, remove the word "reliable" and change 5000 years to within 10,000 years as shown in Ron Numbers, p. 8. That can form a basis for normal talk page discussion of improvements: can you make specific suggestions in line with the correct statement by John C. Munday Jr. that flood geology is a YEC endeavour, and not accepted by other Christians? . . dave souza, talk 12:39, 6 June 2014 (UTC)

Um. 10,000 years is wrong too. So let's be very though...

I've noticed on the talk page here by dave souza on the 4 December 2012: "A better interim source: Young Earth Creationism : NCSE says "They also make arguments for the feasibility of Noah's ark and for the occurrence of a single worldwide flood within the last 5,000 years."

Really. How is this an independent source, and worst, this link page does not even mention the "flood" or "5000 years"?

Sorry. This is not legitimate verification of a source and sounds, as I've said before,and confirms issues with WP:POV

Yet, even the alternative resources on the page. I.e. C.G. Weber: "The Fatal Flaws of Flood Geology" http://ncse.com/cej/1/1/fatal-flaws-flood-geology (even Creationist seem to deny Flood Geology from the title says (first sentence); "The flood geology theory teaches essentially that the Biblical Flood of Noah buried all the fossils within a year's time, several thousand years ago." They say on page 25; "God created the earth no earlier than ten thousand years ago, and brought on the Flood one or two thousand years after the Creation." So it seems they do not know this either.

For me the killer in this article (I'll add this soon to our Article) concludes by saying in the "Creation Evolution Journal.", pg.24-37 (1980);

"'But, it will have to be the task of a future article to investigate these and other alleged difficulties in detail. For now, it is sufficient to say there are fatal flaws in the creationist flood geology model, flaws that render it inadequate to scientifically support the Flood or tell us anything about the age of the earth.

Worst, I can now eliminate the "reliable" word too, as this same author says, and I quote; "Modern creationists no longer calculate precise Biblical chronologies because they say there may be small gaps in some of them."

So unless you can provide me evidence to the contrary, as well as justify these statements that has been reversed, it will therefore be OK to change this ASAP? Arianewiki1 (talk) 12:57, 6 June 2014 (UTC)

dave souza said: "That's better, these are specific proposals rather than starting by misconstruing "most adherents" as "most Christians" and putting tags at the head of the article without first discussing the issues on the talk page."

I never actually never said "most Christians" at all. The real point was you (and others) are seemingly wanting to imply that Flood geology was somehow supported by Christian in general, when the fact is, it is only supported (now proven here) only by some creationists. The danger is trying to merge theology with science - which even creationist fear to tread. I.e. Edward's "Why Creationism Should Not be Taught as Science" http://ncse.com/cej/1/1/why-creationism-should-not-be-taught-as-science Here is the 'manual' of the methodology of creationists, which has been implemented verbatim since it as written in 1980. This is the central tenet of why the Introduction need to be rewritten, because it implication reflect this same ideology. Wikipedia's aim is not to have such manipulations in it documents, as it is presumably neutral.

As for changing things, I place my views on the comment when I made the change. If you disagree with an editor, you should be pointing out the flaws in the change, not revering them just because you think it wrong. You seeming put most of this information in the present state, but you haven't properly referenced these changes with citations. A cited page needs to be debated, and if it is not, then it is either personal views or opinions. My changes were clearly not in dispute, because they were really common sense. As for saying "That's better" is openly ignoring Wikipedia policy of being 'nice' and 'polite.' Next time, stick to the argument not the person please. Arianewiki1 (talk) 13:25, 6 June 2014 (UTC)

See above, I've just said to remove the "reliable". "God created the earth no earlier than ten thousand years ago, and brought on the Flood one or two thousand years after the Creation" is a reasonable summary of the YEC position. You don't seem to realise that I fully agree that YEC flood geology is a minority view among Christians, and should be shown as such. The National Center for Science Education links are good sources, check out that Wikipedia article. A caution, C.G. Weber: "The Fatal Flaws of Flood Geology" (NCSE isn't creationist, in case you misunderstood that) is a 1980 source, newer sources would probably be better. A 2010 survey uses the proposition "There was a flood within the past 10 000 years that covered all of the earth and was responsible for most of the rock layers and fossils that are seen across the world." Try searching for others. . . dave souza, talk 13:34, 6 June 2014 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Please first post here the text you want to add/change. By the way, the Arbitration Committee doesn't have anything to do with making sure articles meet NPOV or any other policy. They deal with conduct issues. At one time I was a clerk for ArbCom. And if you want others to stick to the argument not the person, telling people what they are trying to do, ie "you (and others) are seemingly wanting to imply that Flood geology was somehow supported by Christian in general" is not helpful. Nor is accusing someone who says "That's better" of ignoring policy. Dougweller (talk) 14:31, 6 June 2014 (UTC)

Dougweller Thanks for the advice. However, you are somewhat still missing. Most Christians believe in the flood, but only some Christians believe in the Flood geology. The point is, with evidence, the word "most" is quite incorrect. My statement you are objecting too "you (and others) are seemingly wanting to imply that Flood geology was somehow supported by Christian in general" is both factual and evidentially true. (Just read the many responses here on this talk page! Quite rightly it is the conduct in question here, because it is evidential of bias towards a single point of view. To be crystal clear. Here I am not absolutely implying the Christians are acting improperly, I am implying there is lack of balance - mostly towards the lack of neutrality. I.e. Genesis, whatever, is not evidence or lack of evidence for Flood geology.

Reverting edits, especially while highlighting issues with Articles, is also not helpful. Thanks. Arianewiki1 (talk) 06:37, 7 June 2014 (UTC)

Now I'm even more confused. What Christians are you talking about? And if you really think reverting edits isn't helpful, why did you revert at[4] and [5]. Your statement on your talk page that you plan to ignore the discretionary sanctions notice is really not a good idea in light of your comments here about reverting edits and your edit summary accusing another editor of edit warring. Dougweller (talk) 08:41, 7 June 2014 (UTC)

Dougweller "What Christians are you talking about?" Odd question. The question I refer is how many Christians believe in the flood AND how many Christians believe in Flood geology. The original statement reads to me as "Most" believe in both while "Some" believe in Flood geology. As for " you plan to ignore the discretionary sanctions notice" is not qualified, mostly because I said because I believed I've done nothing wrong. As for the reverts. The first was because the source reference said a range "4000 to 5000 years" (three time) not "5000 years" only. The second revert, was because the User ignored the warning tags to discuss before changing. Neither is evidence, in this case, of deliberate "edit warring" I'd think. Arianewiki1 (talk) 20:00, 7 June 2014 (UTC)

Just for the record: I don't see any tags warning to "discuss before changing." The tag on the article page says, This section has multiple issues. Please help improve it or discuss these issues on the talk page. The notice at the top of this page says, The subject of this article is controversial and content may be in dispute. When updating the article, be bold, but not reckless. Feel free to try to improve the article, but don't take it personally if your changes are reversed; instead, come here to the talk page to discuss them. Please supply full citations when adding information, and consider tagging or removing unciteable information. Yopienso (talk) 23:30, 7 June 2014 (UTC)

User:Arianewiki1, you wrote "Here I am not absolutely implying the Christians are acting improperly, I am implying there is lack of balance - mostly towards the lack of neutrality." My question was directly under the section where you wrote that. I repeat, who are you referring to? I still see a conflict between your reverts and your statement about reverts. Dougweller (talk) 21:08, 7 June 2014 (UTC)

Dougweller First correct an error. I said "Here I am not absolutely implying the Christians are acting improperly" meant "Here I am absolutely not implying the Christians are acting improperly." The whole statement I felt was over-stretching its purview and was trying to say that most Christians were supporters of Flood geology just because they believe in Noah's flood. That is a false assumption. The Editor who added the word "most" in his solitary edit, being 63.248.26.218 on 7th February 2012. Why did he add this, and what evidence / citation / reference support this addition.

I think the lack of neutrality is because "The article should be about Flood geology and not about Christianity or the validity or non-validity of the alleged Biblical flood." Flood geology is about determining the effects (or evidence) of such a flood on the Earth.

In summary. I'm not using this to attack Editors who have Christian beliefs, nor of their editing. I am not using my words to attack Christians or their beliefs. I was attacking what the whole sentence seemed to wrongly imply the false link that "Most Christians believe in Flood geology."

Now, is there a citation or reference that can validate that simple statement. I'd say no, but to what degree is this true. I.e. All, most, many, some, few, none? The word "some" indicates a neutral number of Christians I.e. "Some Christians believe in Flood geology."

Q. How many Christians believe in Flood geology (do you think)? Can you just answer that, please? Arianewiki1 (talk) 23:00, 7 June 2014 (UTC)

Uninvolved admin

In his/her original post in this thread, I note that Arianewiki1 credits me among others with repeatedly reversing any other user contributions regarding the line "Most adherents hold to a literal reading of Genesis 6-9 and view its passages to be historically accurate, where the Bible's internal chronology reliably places the Flood and the story of Noah's Ark within the last five thousand years", with having tried to insist on the wording as to seemingly maintain my own POV, without adding any necessary references, and with having endlessly debated it in the talkpages (? not sure if that means this talkpage, or others as well?), without compromise.

For the sake of my admin neutrality regarding this article, I'll point out that those statements regarding me are incorrect. I've never edited the article other than trivially, with the possible exception of this category addition in 2010. The only edit I've made having anything to do with Arianewiki1 is this, where I reverted a syntax error s/he had introduced. I last edited this talkpage in March 2013, to remove a violation of WP:NOTFORUM, see the top of this page.[6] I regard myself as an uninvolved admin in this dispute, and won't take part in it as an editor. Being an uninvolved admin, I may come to impose discretionary sanctions, such as blocks or topic bans, in case any disruptive editing occurs here. Bishonen | talk 00:41, 7 June 2014 (UTC).

Sorry. Evidence says otherwise. For example, see your edits on the Main Flood geology article being 09:17, 20 May 2014 [7] and 23:12, 3 April 2013 [8], I have made no disruptive edits in this dispute, and have requested citations or references for the statements in question. Additions of article warnings were warranted, even though these were reverted by other editors. If you have further issues, please state them. Arianewiki1 (talk) 06:53, 7 June 2014 (UTC)

The biggest issue is that there are too many off-topic words on this talk page. Is it likely that experienced editors need handy links to policies, or links to their own user pages? How about explaining a single issue by saying what is wrong with text in the article (and without mentioning anything else)? Johnuniq (talk) 10:41, 7 June 2014 (UTC)

You're absolutely right. (I though I did in my initial edits which were then reverted.) My issues went with just two words I.e. "Most" and "reliable", but even giving the overwhelming evidence, and then encouraging discussion, some other user avoids the whole issue and just changes the text anyway. I then have a user warning discretionary sanctions because of possible disruptive editing and then another user telling me that I should not have added two recent edit for another who avoids all discussion anyway. Either way, amid caution, I'm unable to do anything unless I want to chance sanctions against me! Damned if I do, damn if I don't.

This is seemingly just another example of those who know all the ins and outs of the rules exploiting an general editor who just wants to improve some article. I think I'll now move on with the Planetary nebula page where I instigated a necessary WP:FAR, mostly in fear of someone issuing some unknowing sideswipe sanction, which then preventing me editing other pages I'm actually interested in. Arianewiki1 (talk) 17:17, 7 June 2014 (UTC)

@ Arianewiki1, thanks for that clarification. Since your issues went with just two words two words I.e. "Most" and "reliable", and both have been removed, it appears that you are no longer disputing this section and the tag[s] can be removed. As you're now moving on to the Planetary nebula page it's appreciated that you may no longer be watching this talk page, so unless you respond promptly I'll remove the tags you added. . . dave souza, talk 18:30, 7 June 2014 (UTC)

No. I'll be still watching this page, because I do think the introduction is still greatly flawed. I.e. "... is the interpretation of the geological history of the Earth in terms of the global flood described in Genesis 6–9." should read "...is the interpretation of part of the geological history of the Earth in terms of the global flood described in Genesis 6–9." Others are statements like "Proponents hold to a literal reading of Genesis 6-9" need citations and explanation. I.e. Who are these proponents and how many people support it? How is the Bible have "its passages to be historically accurate", when there is no verifiable evidence to justify this statement. Furthermore, the Introduction does not reflect the rest of the bulk of the main text of the rest of the article - frankly, its biggest flaw. Lastly, the Introduction doesn't say what Flood geology studies, nor what scientific work it covers ('geology' being inferred as a science in the term 'Flood geology.'

Until that is done, the tags should not be removed until consensus has been achieved. Regardless of what I think, the prerequisites of these problems should be fixed before these tags are removed. Since I seemingly cannot edit the page without some risk, I can say little else. Arianewiki1 (talk) 19:32, 7 June 2014 (UTC)

The cite to Hill and Moshier (currently footnote #4) says, "YEC proponents believe that scientific details of the Earth's creation and early history are evident in the Bible and that examination of the geological record can support a literal biblical narrative." Their article cites to numerous YEC publications. I've read some of Morris and have to say he pretty much predicated his whole worldview, including geological interpretations and theological ramifications, on the Flood. Possibly the lede could insert a second paragraph summarizing flood geology arguments, which are detailed in the body of the article. Yopienso (talk) 20:08, 7 June 2014 (UTC)

My editing of the lede

I've been trying to make the lede clearer. My most recent edit removed all the citations to flood geology being a myth and pseudoscience and refuted by multiple scientific disciplines.
The two cites to myth and pseudoscience didn't actually mention myth that I could see.
The link to Davis Young was dead.
Others were redundant.
I found two new sources that seem to include all the necessary sourcing for our assertions. One is from the University of California Press and the other from NCSE. Here's what I deleted (brackets removed), although of course it's all right there in the history, too:
sfn|Schadewald|1982|pp=12-17 sfn|Scott|2003
sfn|Young|1995 sfn|Isaak|2006 sfn|Morton|2001 sfn|Isaak|2007|p=173 sfn|Stewart|2010|p=123 Young Earth Creationism : NCSE
If the consensus is that I was too bold (drastic!), just mercilessly edit my contribution. Yopienso (talk) 18:03, 7 June 2014 (UTC)

Interesting. A myth is "Myths may arise as either truthful depictions or overelaborated accounts of historical events, as allegory for or personification of natural phenomena, or as an explanation of ritual." It infers that observations of Noah's flood are scientifically valid, when this is not the case. Discussion of this appear in the page Flood myth I'd assume, that this page alone justifies that Noah's flood by some as being myth or mythological. Perhaps the Flood myth could be placed in the Introduction somehow? Thanks for your useful input here. Arianewiki1 (talk) 19:45, 7 June 2014 (UTC)

Jehovh's Witnesses

For a comprehensive and accurate look at their teachings visit their website www.jw.org and use the many tools on their web site. One such tool is the WatchTower online library: http://wol.jw.org/en/wol/h/r1/lp-e — Preceding unsigned comment added by 192.96.88.9 (talk) 12:11, 13 June 2014 (UTC)

Under the section Vapor/water canopy, numerous inaccurate statements were made referencing Ronald Numbers, who does not provide the correct teachings of Jehovah's Witnesses. When these statements were corrected with references to their (JW's) official site, these corrections were removed or changed.

By so doing you are adding to disinformation been circulated about this group. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 192.96.88.9 (talk • contribs) 13:42, 13 June 2014‎

JW's site is a self-published primary source so caution is needed. Ronald Numbers is a highly regarded historian specialising in this topic area, and he cites M. James Penton (1997). Apocalypse Delayed: The Story of Jehovah's Witnesses. University of Toronto Press. pp. 196–197. ISBN 978-0-8020-7973-2. According to the JW site, Apocalypse Delayed -by James Penton | Jehovah's Witnesses: Watchtower Information Service "is a good overview of Watchtower history. It reveals just how many predictions they got wrong, and how many doctrines fell by the wayside. Fortunately, the writer sticks to the facts and doesn’t get into doctrinal debates". The information available from it fully backs up Numbers, who also cites Joseph Franklin Rutherford's Creation of 1927 and Vail. I've clarified it accordingly. . dave souza, talk 15:03, 13 June 2014 (UTC)

Please note that the information on this page with regards to Jehovah's Witnesses is out dated and and not correct. Wikipedia has failed on this article to provide accurate information. This information is almost 25 years old and their understanding and teachings have changed. This article provides disinformation.

Also note that the teachings of Jehovah's Witnesses is irrelevant to this article. It does seem rather bias that you quote the works of people like Ronald Numbers who himself gets his information from old and historic publications of the Watchtower Bible and tract society yet you will not go to the source of the information to ascertain what has changed in the last century and more.

This causes ground's for disinformation. Hence Wikipedia's reputation for not having accurate data. If you feel that the Jehovah's Witnesses teachings of creation and scriptural reference to the length of the creative days is relevant to this topic least provide historic and updated doctrines.

If you do not intend on having doctrine disputes then do not enter it into the article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 197.79.30.110 (talk) 19:55, 13 June 2014 (UTC)

Remove all citations to religious groups.

Due to this article containing false nformation with http://wol.jw.org/en/wol/d/r1/lp-e/1200001061ttp://wol.jw.org/en/wol/d/r1/lp-e/1200001061egards to religious groups, should not all references to religious groups be removed? Unless verified by that groups official sources. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 192.96.88.9 (talk) 12:40, 13 June 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for your edits, but can you actually verify that this is true? To me, it seems you are more likely attempting to impose an alleged view, which are especially unrelated to the topic Flood geology. Suggest you state your reasons and sources in this Talk page, get agreement, and have the page revised. Else you will likely get caught out for disruptive editing WP:DE. Arianewiki1 (talk) 12:53, 13 June 2014 (UTC)

The views that you propose Arianwike1 are incorrect and based on the view point and reference work of a person who has not undertaken the study of any particular religious group. The view in question is that of Ronald Numbers. If you are uncertain of the view then remove the comment all together.

I am speaking with regards to the references that were made with regards to Jehovah's Witnesses. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 192.96.88.9 (talk) 13:05, 13 June 2014 (UTC)

No doubt your correct, but editing here does not depend what you say but the proof of what you say. I also don't have to be a member of the Jehovah's Witnesses, but if I read this article, I have no independent citation or reference to reenforce this. All Wikipedia articles must have verifiable evidence not based on hearsay. Can you quote common available Jehovah's Witnesses material that relates to your points and and relates to Flood geology. I'd be happy to discuss it further with you. Thanks. Arianewiki1 (talk) 17:57, 13 June

Why is it a topic of conversion here anyway. It's off the subject? The information that is been provided and referenced is historic and nolonger taught. Attempts have been made to update but time and again removed complete with references. If the historic information is quoted then so to the new? Note: Arianewiki1 added Special:Contributions/192.96.88.9|192.96.88.9 User talk:192.96.88.9|talk Arianewiki1 (talk) 20:38, 13 June 2014 (UTC)

Please sign your posts with the four tildes 192.96.88.9. Else we don't know who posted it!

As for your statement, I don't understand what you are actually saying! The reference is likely invalid. Please write here what you propose, and we will see what can be done, or we can respond to the perceived problem. Arianewiki1 (talk) 20:38, 13 June 2014 (UTC)

Purpose of the article

I see a lot of overlap between this article and the Noah’s Ark article as well as with the Genesis flood narrative article. I think this might be a good time to discuss what exactly is the purpose and focus of this article. Is it a discussion of the scientific evidence for and against the flood or floods, or is it yet another rehash of the Bible stories? If it is to be a science article – which I would support – then do we need to have huge sections discussing the Bible and the assumed philosophical reasons why the Jewish scholars dreamed up this story in the first place? Do we really need to involve Jehovah’s Witnesses? Or can we stick to the science, and just include a summary paragraph that says “this idea is related to the flood myth of the Bible and Noah’s Ark” and give a "Main article" link or two for those that are interested? Wdford (talk) 11:33, 14 June 2014 (UTC)

I don't think you can separate "flood geology" from religion entirely. Flood geology grew out of 19th catastrophism (which we cover) and scriptural geology which isn't discussed in the article. Do you agree that material based on our article Scriptural geologists should be included? (and if so, we should follow WP:SUMMARY. Dougweller (talk) 15:38, 14 June 2014 (UTC)

This article is a redirect from diluvial geology, and while there might be merit in a separate article for diluvialism the term is used interchangeably with "Flood geology" for the early 19th century concept, while in 1946 Harold W. Clark produced his own variant of creationist Flood geology in The New Diluvialism. So, we should cover 19th century Flood geology and its relationship to the Scriptural geologists, and show how this differs from the Flood geology of Price and Morris which became predominant in post 1961 YEC beliefs. We also need to touch on the variants, including the JW adoption of Vail's canopy system. I think it's fair to trim the overlap with the articles on Noah’s Ark and Genesis flood narrative, as these cover theology rather than the pseudoscience, though we do have to explain the theological points forming a specific basis for the pseudoscience . . dave souza, talk 18:38, 14 June 2014 (UTC)

Another source

Norman Cohn's Noah's Flood: The Genesis Story in Western Thought discusses the subject -- wish I had time to edit this article! Dougweller (talk) 10:57, 17 June 2014 (UTC)

Multiple Issues With Introduction Section : II

There continue to be many issues with this article that remain unresolved. This is mainly due to the Introduction, which has many statements that are either unverified or incomplete. Worst the Introduction does not relate to the bulk of the article here.

1) "Flood geology (also creation geology or diluvial geology) is the interpretation of the geological history of the Earth in terms of the global flood described in Genesis 6–9." This has no references nor citations to this statement, and I can find no reference that agrees with it. Worst the geological history of the Earth is not just related to the flood, as geological processes were before it and after the alleged event.

Q. Does this relate to other 'mythical' floods? Does it relate to other catastrophic floods like the Mediterranean Sea or Black Sea?

2) "Similar views played a part in the early development of the science of geology…" Evidence for this please. Sure, the flood was perceived for the fossil record, but it was only a mall part. Much development of the science of geology was to do with volcanism, earthquakes and erosion. Regardless, where is the verifiable evidence that this statement is true?

3) "...even after the biblical chronology had been rejected by geologists in favour of an ancient Earth. " Again, where is the citation or factuality of this, and it just assumes that the earlier text to this is true. Surely, geologists reject Flood geology based on the scientific evidence

Q: What does it presupposes an "ancient Earth", and why is this linked to the unrelated Geologic time scale? Also the question of the age of the earth has little connection with the events of the flood? If it does, where is the citation for this? The article section "The great flood in the history of geology" says nothing of this connection or link.

4) "Flood geology is a field of study within creation science, which is a part of young Earth creationism." This may or may not be true, but it is unrelated to the earlier statements. None of the references actually verifies the sources of this statement, except 'old' flood geologists now are named "scientific creationists" or "young earth creationists." Worst, the statement says "Flood geology is only part of young earth creationism." Surely the belief of these proponents is mostly based on the Earth being only 5000 or 6000 years old after creation?

As I presented before, from the "Creation Evolution Journal.", pg.24-37 (1980); "But, it will have to be the task of a future article to investigate these and other alleged difficulties in detail. For now, it is sufficient to say there are fatal flaws in the creationist flood geology model, flaws that render it inadequate to scientifically support the Flood or tell us anything about the age of the earth." (Above) Again the age of the Earth IS NOT RELATED to the flood. (I can find no reference to this statement." The article section "The great flood in the history of geology" says nothing of this connection or link either.

5) The Biblical flood is certainly considered by some as "myth", as with the other presumed stories of flood, as even said in the linked article Noah's Ark, and defined as "A flood myth or deluge myth is a narrative in which a great flood, usually sent by a deity or deities, destroys civilization, often in an act of divine retribution." in the article flood myths.

6) The article Section "Creationist flood geology" talks about adherents, but it has the statements;

"The ideas associated with flood geology have had a considerable impact on creationism and on fundamentalist Christianity. Morris' theories of flood geology are widely promoted around the world, with his books being translated into many languages. Flood geology remains a major theme of modern creationism, though earth scientists reject it."

This has been placed here in May 2012, but still has no citations to support it. No having references for this, makes the introduction to this article as having unsupported and unreferenced material.

Also Is "Creationist flood geology" the same as "flood geology" I can find no reference connecting the two.

7) Section "Creationist arguments for a global flood" as related to the topic flood geology, but the Introduction has, and continues to say it is just based on the Biblical account. Surely; "Creationist arguments for a global flood" argues in the article is interpreted by Creationists by the presumed evidence and their interpretation of that evidence. Again "Creationist flood geology" says nothing about the Biblical account." It also says very little related to the age of the Earth either.

8) Statement "Proponents hold to a literal reading of Genesis 6-9 and view its passages to be historically accurate, using the Bible's internal chronology to place the Flood and the story of Noah's Ark within the last five thousand years." is still incorrect and irrelevant. What proponents? How many proponents? Again "Creationists" hold this to be true, but do "flood geologists" (old term or new term)? "Flood geology" also assumes different mechanisms and effects, and only "search for evidence in the natural world." 80% of this article is on this searching for evidence, which is no even stated in the Introduction.

In all, this is clear evidence that the article warnings are still valid, and have to been discussed in this talk page.

As I've said earlier; "I think the lack of neutrality is because "The article should be about Flood geology and not about Christianity or the validity or non-validity of the alleged Biblical flood." Flood geology is about determining the effects (or evidence) of such a flood on the Earth.""

Please leave the warnings in place until these issues are solve or properly discussed. Arianewiki1 (talk) 12:33, 13 June 2014 (UTC)

Are you actually suggesting we discuss flood geology without the context of Christianity the Genesis flood? Because that would be NPOV. I'm finding it hard to understand exactly what you are trying to do. Some of your specific requests I understand, but how you want this article focussed is unclear. Dougweller (talk) 13:59, 13 June 2014 (UTC)

No I'm not suggesting "we discuss flood geology without the context of Christianity the Genesis flood." The article Noah's flood already does that and covers that fairly well. I would like the Introduction to reflect the bulk of the article, which talks specifically on the possible evidence of a flood (the Flood) in the geological record. Readers of this article, like me, are/could be confused about what Flood geology is about. I.e. What is the difference between flood geology, mythological floods in other cultures, or of historical floods like with the Black Sea. The improvement in the Introduction should reflect what flood geology is about and what is the context to the rest of the article. (I've desperately tried to construct my arguments above by avoiding religion, Christianity or the Genesis flood (specifically) to sharp my concerns clearly.) My arguments I'm trying to be as objective and balanced as possible, in the hope of improving it. Your WP:NPOV point is very much appreciated. Thanks. Arianewiki1 (talk) 17:38, 13 June 2014 (UTC)

In brief, Flood geology as shown in various sources relates specifically to the Genesis flood, and attempts to find explanations of geological phenomena which can be reconciled with religious views of Genesis. This occurred in some of the earliest attempts at geology and theories of the earth, and was subjected to scientific examination in the early 19th century by eminent geologists who found that features they had initially thought of as evidence of a global Flood were only local. The scriptural geologists tried to revive the idea, but were marginal to science. By this time all geologists accepted an ancient Earth, a few religious figures such as Ellen White and Price set out a YEC version which was developed and widely popularised by Morris in the 1960s as a defining characteristic of creation science, and is the modern concept of Flood geology. For a good outline see Stephen Jay Gould (1 September 1982). "Genesis vs. Geology". The Atlantic. Retrieved 2014-06-13. . . dave souza, talk 20:50, 14 June 2014 (UTC)

This cartoon explains Dave's point pretty well.

Rutherford was like the guy in the right-hand panel, as evidenced by the title of his book referred to in our article--Creation: The Scriptural proof of the creation of things seen and unseen, showing the unfolding of the Divine Plan from the Logos to the completion of the royal family of heaven and the restoration of man. The whole thing is online in digital form. Yopienso (talk) 23:21, 14 June 2014 (UTC)

Comment: "Flood geology as shown in various sources relates specifically to the Genesis flood," Why doesn't the article explain that?Arianewiki1 (talk) 10:01, 15 June 2014 (UTC)

Eh? It does, repeatedly. "Chrysostom and Augustine believed that fossils were the remains of animals that were killed and buried during the brief duration of the Biblical Genesis Flood, and later Martin Luther viewed fossils as having resulted from the Flood", "This natural philosophy was recast in Biblical terms by the theologian Thomas Burnet", "Price wrote a treatise in 1923 to provide a Seventh-day Adventist perspective on geology.[28][29] Henry M. Morris and John C. Whitcomb, Jr. subsequently adapted and updated Price's work in their The Genesis Flood in 1961". Do you have proposals for further clarification? . . . dave souza, talk 15:34, 17 June 2014 (UTC)

Removal of tags

This article has a number of tags at the top. We have removed the section that was tagged specifically. Are there any other issues that still need to be resolved here, before we can remove the tags? Please be specific? Wdford (talk) 12:35, 17 June 2014 (UTC)

I've read through this article again, and I should thank those who have added so significantly to improve it. My only concern is having a reference(s) to "Similar views played a part in the early development of the science of geology, even after the biblical chronology had been rejected by geologists in favour of an ancient Earth." The issue is this only played a small part, and it could be argued volcanism was equally influential (which has little to do with flood geology, which relies on sedimentation.)

Also, "...is the interpretation of the geological history…" Surely, this should read; "...is the interpretation of part of the geological history…"

Admire the efforts made here... Arianewiki1 (talk) 03:25, 18 June 2014 (UTC)

Thanks everyone. Can we remove the tags now, or is more required? Wdford (talk) 11:43, 19 June 2014 (UTC)

Yes, please do.

Ariane, when you argued for "part of the geological history" on June 7, my response was, "I've read some of Morris and have to say he pretty much predicated his whole worldview, including geological interpretations and theological ramifications, on the Flood." To clarify, flood geology is not the interpretation of just a part of geological history; flood geology interprets the whole of geological history through the lens of the Genesis flood.

In The Genesis Flood, Morris and Whitcomb make a sweeping attempt to overturn modern science's entire geological philosophy. "Whether or not the Flood . . . produced many of our present rock strata . . . are not mere academic questions. . . [T]hey are profoundly important and . . . may have deep influence upon [one's] whole philosophy of life and, therefore, perhaps even on his ultimate destiny." p. 440

They sought to totally reinterpret the entire geographic column: "We therefore urge the reader to face up to the fact that the actual data of geology can be interpreted in such a way as to harmonize quite effectively with a literal interpretation of the Biblical records." p. 330

On p. 136 they attack "the present system of historical geology" and call uniformitarianism a "neatly packaged system of geologic interpretation."

No, Ariane, "...is the interpretation of the geological history…" surely should NOT read; "...is the interpretation of part of the geological history…" Yopienso (talk) 18:57, 19 June 2014 (UTC)

Eh? Did geology exist before the flood? If it rained, it must have. In the last 2000 years, says, geology is still occurring. I.e Continental drift, volcanism like Krakatoa, rising of mountains, sinking of cities. According to your argument, this is all due to the Biblical flood! Use your common sense, man! Arianewiki1 (talk) 05:46, 22 June 2014 (UTC)

By YEC arguments, it didn't rain before the Flood, plants being watered by a sort of mist. Continental drift is an outdated concept, you presumably mean plate tectonics which for YECs was a feature of the Flood. As the prophetess Ellen White would tell you, volcanoes were caused by masses of vegetation piled up and buried by the Flood turning into coal and oil, and more recently bursting into fire. Suspect that one's been dropped by Morris minor. . . dave souza, talk 08:32, 22 June 2014 (UTC)

Please rephrase your remarks; I don't understand what you're saying/asking.

I'm removing the tags you restored. There is no dispute about the factual accuracy of the lede except for your mistaken assertion that flood geology is not applied by its proponents to all of historical geology. Apparently you didn't read or else you didn't understand the three quotes I provided above. On this page, Morris calls the Flood "the framework of geologic interpretation." He doesn't apply flood geology only to the hypothetical event of the Genesis Flood, but to the interpretation of all of the Earth's geological history.

There are 6 inline citations for 6 1/2 lines of text. Yopienso (talk) 07:25, 22 June 2014 (UTC)

@Arianewiki1: Please would you state the wording you would like to add to the lead, so that we can all see what you are getting at please? Wdford (talk) 07:42, 22 June 2014 (UTC)

Since the lead needed an update, I've done that. The addtional info is well cited in the body of the text, meeting the standard requirements for a lead. By the way, flood geology wasn't applied by all of its proponents to all of historical geology, but that was the belief of Price and became dogma amongst YECs, save only perhaps with the exception of any changes in the last 6,000 years. . . dave souza, talk 08:23, 22 June 2014 (UTC) amend self 08:35, 22 June 2014 (UTC)

Thank you. Much appreciated. I would have done it myself, but I was earlier threatened with sanctions. Arianewiki1 (talk) 00:55, 23 June 2014 (UTC)

Dave,when was flood geology not applied to all of historical geology? Who applied it to anything less than the entire physical history of the earth? Is it enough of an exception to warrant the qualifier "part of"? Thanks. Yopienso (talk) 04:23, 23 June 2014 (UTC)

Let's look at it this way. Did the flood cause the creation of the Earth? Or worst, do you think geology continued after this flood? No, means geology occurs over part of all historical geology. Logic and common sense over just speculation. (If this i wrong, then explain yourself, else let it go.) Arianewiki1 (talk) 06:15, 23 June 2014 (UTC)

Thanks, Yopienso, for identifying a lack of clarity: the Flood geology of the early 19th century viewed superficial deposits as evidence of the Genesis Flood following on from a long prehistory of earlier rock strata. I've revised the section to make it clearer. Agree to an extent with Arianewiki1, there are many twists and turns in the thinking of the modern creationist proponents of Flood geology, but even Morris seems to have assumed that some rock formations predated the flood by around 1,500 years, which is a significant proportion of the YEC timeline : "Because there had been no death before [the Fall], Morris felt 'compelled to date all of the rock strata which contain fossils of once-living creatures to subsequent to Adam's fall.' Most of these formations he attributed to the flood". Ronald L. Numbers (1993). The Creationists. University of California Press. p. 203. ISBN 978-0-520-08393-6. {{cite book}}: Invalid |ref=harv (help) The implication is that non-fossil rocks, such as [most] Precambrian rocks, predated the flood. . . dave souza, talk 10:14, 23 June 2014 (UTC)

@Ariane: Whitcomb and Morris said that at creation a canopy of water vapor was left above the sky. That, they postulated, was the source of the floodwaters. So, yes, flood geology forms their view of creation.

My understanding of the word "geology" is that it is the study of the earth and its formations. (Here, I'll find a dictionary definition: "the science that deals with the earth's physical structure and substance, its history, and the processes that act on it.") Geology is a modern academic discipline. When you talk about geology occurring, I assume you refer to changes in the earth's crust, but I can't be sure what you mean. I'm sorry but I find your remarks, including your most recent one, largely incoherent.

@ Dave: Flood geology has also interpreted the earth's geological history before the Flood. I see the fact that Morris felt "compelled to date . . ." as an example of interpreting that history through the lens of flood geology. Yopienso (talk) 21:04, 23 June 2014 (UTC)

" I'm sorry but I find your remarks, including your most recent one, largely incoherent." This is just deliberate avoidance. Geology is about "is that it is the study of the earth and its formations." If so, your statement means earth's whole geological evolution is logically false. I.e. Geology continues today independent of the alleged flood, and this is clearly not the flood that just applies to all geological history. Arianewiki1 (talk) 06:30, 24 June 2014 (UTC)

The Bible says that "in the beginning" God created the continents and mountains and things, so clearly geology predated the flood, even in the view of fundamentalist Christians. I'm not sure why this point is in dispute? Wdford (talk) 07:37, 24 June 2014 (UTC)

Suggestion for the first sentence

I find this awkward: Flood geology (also creation geology or diluvial geology) is the interpretation of all or part of the geological history of the Earth in terms of the global flood described in Genesis 6–9.
I suggest simplifying to Flood geology (also creation geology or diluvial geology) is the interpretation of the geological history of the Earth in terms of the global flood described in Genesis 6–9. I find it neither necessary for information nor pleasing for style to add "all or part". And I can't for the life of me even understand what it means. Generally speaking, flood geology is a way of interpreting the physical history of the earth to agree with the biblical narrative of the Deluge; no need to be so specific and convoluted, imho. Yopienso (talk) 08:20, 24 June 2014 (UTC)

Good point, but in my view it's not so much interpreting the history as interpreting strata and landforms to fit a preconceived history. Hope that becomes clearer in the article. Here's my suggested version:

Flood geology (also known as creation geology or diluvialism) interprets geological features of the Earth as having resulted from the Deluge described in chapters 6–9 of the Book of Genesis in the Bible.

Note, I think Genesis flood narrative is a better link from Deluge than Flood myth, as this topic is specifically about the Biblical Flood. . . dave souza, talk 11:11, 24 June 2014 (UTC)

Agree with everything except changing "is the interpretation of" to "interprets", even though the latter is briefer. I just like starting out with what the subject is instead of what it does. Ex: The dog is a domesticated descendant of the wolf, not The dog descends from the wolf and has been domesticated. Won't insist on that, though; there's ample precedent here at WP for what the topic does.

Ergo: Flood geology (also known as creation geology or diluvialism) is the interpretation of the geological features of the Earth as the result of the Deluge described in chapters 6–9 of the Book of Genesis in the Bible. Yopienso (talk) 16:50, 24 June 2014 (UTC)

That doesn't really work for me, how about:

Flood geology (also known as creation geology or diluvialism) is the concept or belief that geological features of the Earth were formed by the Deluge as described in chapters 6–9 of the Book of Genesis in the Bible. . . dave souza, talk 17:07, 24 June 2014 (UTC)

OK, so there's a fundamental difference of understanding here on what "flood geology" is. I understand Whitcomb and Morris--whose book I read in its entirety over 30 years ago--to say flood geology not only explains the features of the earth they believe resulted from the Deluge, but that the entire Earth was created so as to permit it, and that all geological evidence points toward the Creator and the literal veracity of the Bible. It makes believing evolution could accurately describe the origin of species--nay, of genera and families and order and the whole gamut--impossible. It totally changes the adherent's worldview. I know; been there, done that. About 10 years ago I started getting a little smarter.

So, Wdford's recent edit in the lede is clearer, but, imho, less accurate.

Dave's most recent suggestion likewise limits flood geology to explaining why the post-diluvial world looks like it does, ignoring the fact that flood geology also posits the bizarre hypothesis that originally there was a great vapor canopy around the globe that released its floodwaters at the time of the Deluge. That's on the next page after the one you linked to above. See other of my previous comments.

Sorry, Ariane, but I cannot make sense out of your comments. You use the word "geology" in a way unfamiliar to me. You write partial sentences. Your words are garbled. You are flat wrong that my response is "deliberate avoidance"; it's a sincere attempt to engage. Yopienso (talk) 20:52, 24 June 2014 (UTC)

@ Yopienso, I appreciate your understanding of how Whitcomb and Morris saw flood geology as an overarching concept going beyond geology. My concern for the opening sentence is that it should allow that, and at the same time cover the earlier flood geology which sought to reconcile the emerging science of geology with Biblical beliefs by both finding geological evidence which should support the Genesis account, and by finding natural mechanisms explaining the flood without magical intervention, to meet their standards of science. So, I think it has to cover the features common to both, and the differences should then be explained. That can go in the following paragraphs at at present, or perhaps in a concise expansion of the first paragraph. . . dave souza, talk 21:24, 24 June 2014 (UTC)

Thanks, Dave. I'll be off for at least hours now; maybe when I check back in you all will have it all worked out. :) Yopienso (talk) 21:53, 24 June 2014 (UTC)

Ok, have a good rest from the topic. It's night here now, and I don't expect to do much tomorrow: my priority when time permits is reorganising the "creationism" section using the sources I've got here. Another thought, I don't see any need for #Modern geology and flood geology as a separate section, the modern context should be shown when discussing the claims and most of it seems unrelated to any specific Flood geology issue. We could probably delete it with no great loss, but some aspects might be worth merging into the creationism section. . dave souza, talk 22:10, 24 June 2014 (UTC)

Sorry but I don't see the same definition that you do. I quickly read The Genesis Flood: The Biblical Record and Its Scientific Implications, which doesn't mention quite what you say, but I don't have the actual book itself. I can understand that some people believe the Grand Canyon to be a relic of the Deluge, but Mount Everest? Mount Ararat? Seriously? Surely these geological features are accepted to have predated the Deluge itself? Wdford (talk) 17:11, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

Wdford, I really don't think your changes are an improvement. By coincidence, the stuff I've just added shows that both Ellen White and Price proposed that higher mountains, including the Alps and Himalayas, resulted from the Flood and its aftermath. Haven't got round to Morris etc. yet. . . dave souza, talk 22:34, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

• Well, in my opinion attention should also be paid to style, in the first sentence in particular, so that the reader is encouraged to read on. Rhythm, panache, focus, you know. I think Yopienso's original suggestion above, which was Flood geology (also creation geology or diluvial geology) is the interpretation of the geological history of the Earth in terms of the global flood described in Genesis 6–9. is in those respects superior to the current sentence with its low or trivial elements like "certain" and "features" and "evidence" and its tortured "as being" syntax. Sorry, Dave, but why exactly can't we have that one? Bishonen | talk 00:21, 26 June 2014 (UTC).

I'm not stressing over this, but it seems to me that the phrase "the geological history of the Earth" is very broad and sweeping, and I am not convinced that every element in the entire geological history of the Earth is claimed to be attributable to the Deluge. If 90% of the flood geology proponents really do say that the entire geological history of the Earth is to be attributed to the Deluge then I will accept the above wording, but is this really the case? I used words like "certain features" on the basis that I have not seen anyone claiming that every single feature is a result of the Deluge, but if that is in fact the case then so be it.

Bearing in mind also that many wikireaders are not fluent in English, I try to keep lead paragraphs as simple as possible, specifically to promote accessibility. I personally think an opening paragraph which has lots of panache but is incomprehensible will put off more readers than it attracts. I'm not saying the Yopienso proposal is incomprehensible, but in my opinion it's perhaps not as accessible as it could be. No offence intended. People who are fluent in high-level English might think I'm exaggerating, but every little bit helps.

I prefer Dave's version at 17:07 above, re accessibility. Perhaps change "concept" to "theory"? This is also ambiguous re is it referring to "all features" or just "some features", but that is perhaps appropriate too. Wdford (talk) 16:33, 26 June 2014 (UTC)

How about - Flood geology (also known as creation geology or diluvial geology) is the belief that certain geological features of the Earth were formed by the Deluge described in the Bible at Genesis 6–9. Wdford (talk) 16:46, 26 June 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for your comment, Bishonen.

All editors, please re-read the first paragraph of my comment time-stamped 20:52, 24 June 2014.

Yes, Wdford, "the geological history of the Earth" is very broad and sweeping. So are the claims of flood geology. You wrote, "I am not convinced that every element in the entire geological history of the Earth is claimed to be attributable to the Deluge." As I understand it, flood geology does not make that claim; it reinterprets the entire geological history of the Earth to account for the veracity of the Flood story. Please click "Look inside" to view the Table of Contents of The Genesis Flood and see how broad and sweeping the claims are.

Anyone contributing to this article should at a minimum read these excerpts from pp. 203-04 of Ronald Numbers' The Creationists:

According to Morris, three events--'the Creation, the Fall, and the Flood'--dominated early world history. [. . .] Morris felt 'compelled to date all of the rock strata which contain fossils . . . as subsequent to Adam's fall. [. . .]

In sketching the history of life on earth between the creation and the flood, Morris repeatedly alluded to 'a great vapor canopy' that enveloped the antediluvian earth. Formed on the second day of creation . . . this canopy produced a 'greenhouse effect' . . . and provided a vast reservoir of water that deluged the earth during the flood of Noah. Morris also invoked the canopy to explain away the great ages given by carbon-14 dating methods.

In bringing The Genesis Flood to a climax, Morris stressed the central role of flood geology in adjudicating the conflict between creation and evolution . . . 'and the record of the rocks becomes a tremendous witness . . . to the holiness and justice and power of the living God of Creation!'

We see here that flood geology requires a world in which a massive flood could have inundated the entire globe. Therefore, it goes all the way back to the biblical second day of creation to hypothesize a vapor canopy. The canopy was not a result of the Flood, but a necessary and sufficient condition for the Flood. Notice that Numbers says Morris sketched a history of everything from the beginning of the world until the Flood; he then sketched the results of the Flood, as seen in the Table of Contents of The Genesis Flood. I have quoted the book to show flood geology is not concerned only with the Flood, but goes to great lengths to refute modern geological scholarship:

• It makes a deluge possible by imagining a vapor canopy.
• It denies the reliability of carbon-14 dating and forces the conclusion that all fossils were deposited after the Fall--that is, after the emergence of homo sapiens.
• It denies the possibility that evolution has occurred.
• It points to and glorifies God, the Creator.

Whitcomb & Morris's statement that "a really detailed reorientation of all the multitudes of geologic data that have been accumulated by thousands of geologists for more than a century is entirely beyond the scope of this volume, or of many such volumes. Such could, and should, occupy the undivided attention of many specialists for many years" shows their flood geology aimed to reorient 100 years of scholarly research to align with the Bible.

W & M insisted the Flood was not local, but universal; I'm insisting flood geology is not limited to the alleged geological results of the Flood, but is a complete reinterpretation of the whole geological history of the Earth. Yopienso (talk) 18:18, 26 June 2014 (UTC)

OK, fair enough. Then how about:

Flood geology (also known as creation geology or diluvial geology) is the belief that the Genesis flood narrative described in the Bible at Genesis 6–9 is literally true, and that this requires a complete reinterpretation of the whole geological history of the Earth. Wdford (talk) 20:21, 26 June 2014 (UTC)

Your suggestion is accurate, but I think style matters. What are your objections to my suggestion, which is supported by Bishonen?

Flood geology (also creation geology or diluvial geology) is the interpretation of the geological history of the Earth in terms of the global flood described in Genesis 6–9.

Yopienso (talk) 21:10, 26 June 2014 (UTC)

First paragraph

} Perhaps this could work with a couple of additional sentences:
Flood geology (also creation geology or diluvial geology) is the interpretation of the geological history of the Earth in terms of the global flood described in Genesis 6–9. In early 19th century diluvialism, geologists sought evidence of a brief worldwide flood as the last of a long series of catastrophes marking geological eras, but could only find support for relatively local floods. Flood geology as part of young Earth creationism in the 20th century envisaged conditions for the Deluge as part of the six day Creation, and near complete rearrangement of geological features during the Genesis flood.
Or something on those lines, will also have to clarify that around 1970 Morris and colleagues renamed flood geology, calling it scientific creationism or creation science. . dave souza, talk 08:23, 27 June 2014 (UTC)

Ooh, yes . . . and thanks for major work in the body while I've been niggling over one sentence.

This bit: "but could only find support for relatively local floods" is not clear; does support been from peers or from evidence? How's this? "but could find evidence only of relatively local floods." Or if, as the narrative under "Criticisms and retractions: the downfall of Diluvialism" suggests, there was no support from other geologists, "but the consensus of contemporary geologists was that the fossil record indicated relatively local floods."

I like linking straight to the Bible passage, maybe like this: ". . . described in Genesis 6-9." (Mmm, don't like that little lock icon.)

Replace "envisaged" with "hypothesized"?

How long was the series of catastrophes?

"near complete rearrangement of geological features during the Genesis flood" bothers me. How about "catastrophic geological results of the Genesis flood"?

The current 3rd para of the lead tells about the revival of flood geologists by creation scientists.

Putting it all together:

Flood geology (also creation geology or diluvial geology) is the interpretation of the geological history of the Earth in terms of the global flood described in Genesis 6-9. In early 19th century diluvialism, geologists sought evidence of a brief worldwide flood as the last of a series of catastrophes marking geological eras, but the consensus of contemporary geologists was that the fossil record indicated relatively local floods. Flood geology as part of young Earth creationism in the 20th century hypothesized conditions for the Deluge as part of the six day Creation, and catastrophic geological results of the Genesis flood. Yopienso (talk) 00:03, 28 June 2014 (UTC)

First, the good news is that you can link to wikisource using "s:", thus 6-9.

I must be a bad explainer, the same small group of geologists who had proposed features as evidence of The Deluge found by their own investigations that their critics were right, and the features were better explained by local floods or ice ages.

Flood geology (also creation geology or diluvial geology) is the interpretation of the geological history of the Earth in terms of the global flood described in Genesis 6-9. In early 19th century diluvialism, some geologists proposed that specific surface features were evidence of a brief worldwide flood as the last of a series of catastrophes marking geological eras, but on further investigation found that these features had been caused by local floods or by glaciers. In the 20th century, young Earth creationism was revived by a doctrine of flood geology invoking a recent six day Creation and cataclysmic geological changes caused by the Genesis flood. . . dave souza, talk 06:43, 28 June 2014 (UTC)

I really think we are overdoing the style here. I agree with the content, but can we not simplify it to read:

Flood geology (also creation geology or diluvial geology) is the 19th century proposal that specific surface features of the Earth were evidence of a brief worldwide flood as described in the Bible at Genesis 6-9. However on further investigation it was found that these features had been caused by localised floods or by glaciers. Young Earth creationism was revived in the 20th century around beliefs of a recent six day Creation and cataclysmic geological changes caused by the Genesis flood. Wdford (talk) 11:34, 28 June 2014 (UTC)

@ Wdford, that's not successful: it implies that flood geology is really the 19th century proposal, when it's the 20th century doctrine that is best known. The first sentence definition should state the common factors, interpretation of geology in terms of Genesis. The following sentences then cover the basic features specific to the two different versions. The wording of each can obviously be reconsidered, but for various reasons I don't think your wording is an improvement. . dave souza, talk 18:30, 28 June 2014 (UTC)

So then: Flood geology (also creation geology or diluvial geology) is the proposal that specific surface features of the Earth are evidence of a worldwide flood as described in the Bible at Genesis 6-9. It was first proposed in the 19th century, but on further investigation it was found that these features had been caused by localised floods or by glaciers. Young Earth creationism was revived in the 20th century around beliefs of a recent six day Creation and cataclysmic geological changes caused by the Genesis flood. Wdford (talk) 11:34, 28 June 2014 (UTC)

Great collaboration here.

Dave, thanks for that "s:" trick! Where can I find more stuff like that? Reviewing Gen. 6-9, I find the story ends with a poetic grand finale in the last verse of chap. 8.

I suggest rephrasing the YEC detail.

Also, I forgot to quibble about "brief." How brief? Genesis says it rained for 40 days and nights, that the waters rose for 150 days, and that Noah & Co. were in the ark for 10 1/2 mos. That's brief compared to the theoretical "waterworld" that may have covered 97% of the Earth's surface for millions of years, but long compared to floods in human history.

Wdford, imo your definition is too narrow because it leaves out the vapor canopy and the reinterpretation of the geologic column.

I was going to boldly put this version into the article, but I've fiddled with it too much to do that; what do you all think?

Flood geology (also creation geology or diluvial geology) is the interpretation of the geological history of the Earth in terms of the global flood described in Genesis 6-8. In the early 19th century, some geologists proposed that specific surface features were evidence of a worldwide flood as the last of a series of catastrophes marking geological eras, but further investigation interpreted these features as the result of local floods or glaciers. In the 20th century, young Earth creationists revived flood geology, hypothesizing a recent six day Creation, cataclysmic geological changes, and a creationist interpretation of the geologic column. -- Yopienso (talk) 20:47, 28 June 2014 (UTC)

It's good, but you are using the word "interpretation" in every sentence, and the first sentence is still in my opinion too inaccessible. I see no mention of the hypothetical vapor canopy here - is it really necessary to include it in the lead? How about:

Flood geology (also creation geology or diluvial geology) is the proposal that the geology of the Earth has been shaped by the global flood described in Genesis 6-8. In the early 19th century, some geologists proposed that specific surface features were evidence of a worldwide flood that was the last of a series of catastrophes marking geological eras, but further investigation proved that these features are the result of local floods or glaciers. In the 20th century, young Earth creationists revived flood geology, hypothesizing a recent six day Creation, cataclysmic geological changes, and a creationist explanation of the geologic column. Wdford (talk) 22:00, 28 June 2014 (UTC)

A couple of refinements:

"Flood geology (also creation geology or diluvial geology) is the concept that the geology of the Earth has been shaped by the global flood described in Genesis 6-8. In the early 19th century, some geologists proposed that specific surface features were evidence of a worldwide flood that was the last of a series of catastrophes marking geological eras, but on further investigation they viewed these features as the result of local floods or glaciers. In the 20th century, young Earth creationists revived flood geology, assuming a recent six day Creation, and cataclysmic geological changes during the Biblical Deluge.

Comment; we should be clear that the same geologists who put Diluvialism forward had all changed their views within a couple of decades on the basis of their own findings, creationist views on the stratigraphic column varied from claiming it was a hoax to saying that it had been put in order during the Flood, so at most it's several views and a bit complex for the first paragraph. . . dave souza, talk 22:10, 28 June 2014 (UTC)

I am happy with this latest wording, thank you to Dave. Wdford (talk) 22:35, 28 June 2014 (UTC)

(You guys posted while I was writing this; here it is FWIW.) Now you have "proposal," "proposed," and "explanation," and you're back to the results of the Flood instead of the conditions for it.

Flood geology (also creation geology or diluvial geology) is the interpretation of the geological history of the Earth in terms of the global flood described in Genesis 6-8. In the early 19th century, diluvial geologists* hypothesized that specific surface features were evidence of a worldwide flood that was the last of a series of catastrophes marking geological eras. Further investigation determined that these features resulted from local floods or glaciers. In the 20th century, young Earth creationists revived flood geology, proposing a recent six-day Creation, cataclysmic geological changes, and a creationist reading of the geologic column.

Note (No reflist on Talk): *"A Puzzle: The Science of the Diluvialists," SHiPS Resource Center, University of Minnesota, last updated 20 June 2007. Retrieved 28 June 2014.

Not really sure we need "that was the last of a series of catastrophes marking geological eras" in the first paragraph. --Yopienso (talk) 23:13, 28 June 2014 (UTC)

Thanks, Yopienso, sorry about the overlap. Can you agree to my last version, at least in the interim?
The source "A Puzzle: The Science of the Diluvialists," SHiPS Resource Center, University of Minnesota, last updated 20 June 2007, looks attractive but unfortunately it gets several things wrong. As an obvious point, Buckland got the chair in geology in 1819, not 1814, and he deduced the Flood in Buckland, William (1820). Vindiciæ Geologicæ: The Connexion of Geology with Religion, Explained in an Inaugural Lecture Delivered Before University of Oxford, May 15, 1819, on the Endowment of Readership in Geology. Oxford University Press. {{cite book}}: Invalid |ref=harv (help), not in 1821. The statement "Buckland's work inspired similar research, even across the Channel in France" is the reverse of the historical situation in which Cuvier inspired Buckland.
I think we need "the last of a series of catastrophes marking geological eras" to be clear that this was an old-Earth concept, in contrast to the 20th century YEC concept. . dave souza, talk 05:07, 29 June 2014 (UTC)

Point taken on the SHiPS page; I was only citing the term "diluvial geologists," which I prefer to "some geologists" as more precise. A far better ref is Arthur McCalla, The Creationist Debate: The Encounter between the Bible and the Historical Mind, 2013, pp. 77-79.

For the final sentence, I like a blend of yours and mine: In the 20th century, young Earth creationists revived flood geology, assuming a recent six-day Creation, cataclysmic geological changes during the Biblical Deluge, and proposing a creationist interpretation of the geologic column. Yopienso (talk) 07:57, 29 June 2014 (UTC)

Good source, thanks. I'd not found the phrases "diluvial geologists" and "diluvial geology", that covers them well. . dave souza, talk 09:35, 29 June 2014 (UTC)

I just can't swallow that first sentence. In the interests of Plain English and the WP:MOS, how about this blend:

Flood geology (also creation geology or diluvial geology) is the concept that the geology of the Earth has been shaped by the global flood described in Genesis 6-8. In the early 19th century, diluvial geologists hypothesized that specific surface features were evidence of a worldwide flood that was the last of a series of catastrophes marking geological eras, although further investigation determined that these features resulted from local floods or glaciers. In the 20th century, young Earth creationists revived flood geology, assuming a recent six-day Creation and cataclysmic geological changes during the Biblical Deluge, and proposing a creationist interpretation of the geologic column. Wdford (talk) 08:30, 29 June 2014 (UTC)

I think we're pretty near agreement. We should emphasise that the flood geologists themselves agreed that their original hypothesis was wrong, and creationists produced several different interpretations of strata. Note that geologic column redirects to Geologic time scale which YECs totally reject, better links would be Stratigraphy or Stratum. So, with a couple of tweaks;

Flood geology (also creation geology or diluvial geology) is the concept that the geology of the Earth has been shaped by the global flood described in Genesis 6-8. In the early 19th century, diluvial geologists hypothesized that specific surface features were evidence of a worldwide flood that was the last of a series of catastrophes marking geological eras, but after further investigation they agreed that these features resulted from local floods or glaciers. In the 20th century, young Earth creationists revived flood geology, assuming a recent six-day Creation and cataclysmic geological changes during the Biblical Deluge, and put forward creationist explanations of the sequence of rock strata.

Further option: trim the second sentence to "In the early 19th century, diluvial geologists hypothesized that specific surface features were evidence of a worldwide flood which had followed earlier geological eras, then after further investigation they agreed that these features resulted from local floods or glaciers." . . .dave souza, talk 09:35, 29 June 2014 (UTC)

I think I've contributed as much useful info as I'm capable of, so will leave it to others to wind this up.

Dave, I do like your "further option," but would insert a semi-colon: In the early 19th century, diluvial geologists hypothesized that specific surface features were evidence of a worldwide flood which had followed earlier geological eras; after further investigation they agreed that these features resulted from local floods or glaciers.

I'm not satisfied with defining flood geology so narrowly. See my comments above, particularly the one time-stamped 20:52, 24 June 2014 that Dave aptly summarized as "Whitcomb and Morris saw flood geology as an overarching concept going beyond geology." Numbers, pp. 80-81, notes G. M. Price's Law of Conformable Stratigraphical Sequence that "served as the bedrock of his scientific opposition to evolution." Price wasn't just saying the Earth's surface was reshaped by the Flood; he was saying geologists had everything wrong. His law discredited the entire geologic column. "'Flood geology,' as he [Price] called his scheme, thus cleared up 'beautifully every major problem in the supposed conflict between modern science and modern Christianity.'"

But, as I said, I really have nothing more to say. :) Have at it! Yopienso (talk) 18:05, 29 June 2014 (UTC)

Ok, on that basis I've gone ahead, trimming the 19th c. bit as suggested, and trying to broaden the creationist sentence. I think refinements can go ahead under normal editing. Here it is for any discussion:
Flood geology (also creation geology or diluvial geology) is the concept that the geology of the Earth has been shaped by the global flood described in Genesis 6-8. In the early 19th century, diluvial geologists hypothesized that specific surface features were evidence of a worldwide flood which had followed earlier geological eras; after further investigation they agreed that these features resulted from local floods or glaciers. In the 20th century, young Earth creationists revived flood geology as an overarching concept in their opposition to evolution, assuming a recent six-day Creation and cataclysmic geological changes during the Biblical Deluge, and incorporating creationist explanations of the sequence of rock strata. . . dave souza, talk 18:24, 29 June 2014 (UTC)

Excellent wording. Now we just have to clean up the last of the duplication that remains between the new first paragraph and the rest of the lead. Perhaps we should mention Price's beliefs in the second or third paragraphs? Does Price represent the consensus, or was his theory just one of several competing theories? Wdford (talk) 21:41, 29 June 2014 (UTC)

Yes, satisfactory in itself; as you say, duplications must be cleaned up. Yopienso (talk) 00:05, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

Proposed mechanisms of flood geology - section improvements

I'm working on some updates to this section. My main source of information is from an article by Timothy H. Heaton - added to the ref. section. The article is very good but is behind a pay-wall online. It may be possible to get a free copy by contacting T. Heaton directly.Mark B (talk) 00:44, 4 July 2014 (UTC)

There are some errors and broken links that I would like to fix. If there are any general objections let me know here. If there are no objections in the next week or so I'll just make the changes - otherwise I'll post for review.--Mark B (talk) 00:25, 15 July 2014 (UTC)

Thanks, that sounds good. My feeling is that at some stage the Flood geology#Modern geology and flood geology section should be deleted, with any useful content folded into the Creationist arguments for a global flood and Proposed mechanisms of flood geology sections so that the modern scientific context is shown for the flood geology arguments. So if points are useful, they can be transferred during these section improvements. . dave souza, talk 04:54, 15 July 2014 (UTC)

Agreed - go ahead. Wdford (talk) 07:24, 15 July 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for the go ahead. I'm fairly new to editing here so I really don't mind advice. Flood geology is not only controversial but difficult to describe in detail - there is such a wide variety of creationist perspectives and a complex history. I agree with you Dave that this article could be better organized/streamlined. My talk page has my proposed changes - any comments or suggestions are welcome. Mark B (talk) 16:10, 15 July 2014 (UTC)

I have a concern about editing existing text. I want to respect what others have done and don't want to recklessly delete or alter existing content. If possible it would be best to integrate what exists with new content but sometimes it might just make more sense to rewrite and/or delete some irrelevant things. Is there a policy or a rule of thumb for this kind of thing?Mark B (talk) 18:51, 15 July 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia has plenty of policies, which can take some time to get the hang of, fortunately the essentials are summarised at Wikipedia:Five pillars. The fifth of which saith (unless someone changes it) –

Wikipedia does not have firm rules: Wikipedia has policies and guidelines, but they are not carved in stone; their content and interpretation can evolve over time. Their principles and spirit matter more than their literal wording, and sometimes improving Wikipedia requires making an exception. Be bold but not reckless in updating articles, and do not agonize about making mistakes. Every past version of a page is saved, so any mistakes can be easily corrected.

If you have a look at the links, you'll notice that the first is ignore all rules, and the third is be bold. As long as you're willing to discuss objections to what you've done, and when asked, provide sources to support the wording, all will be well. Probably.

In other words, go ahead and only keep existing text if it's useful. . . . dave souza, talk 19:11, 15 July 2014 (UTC)

My proposed edits; User:Mark Buchanan/sandbox/FloodGeoEditsMark Buchanan (talk) 13:27, 19 July 2014 (UTC)

Thanks, the edits as implemented look good. A minor point which I've tweaked is overlinking: we try to avoid the same link multiple times in the same section. . dave souza, talk 10:27, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

Creation research

I've removed some unreferenced speculation and the following which basically points to primary sources with no mainstream context:

Morris founded the Institute for Creation Research. Subsequent research by the Creation Research Society has observed and analyzed geological formations within a flood-geology framework, including the La Brea Tar Pits, the Tavrick Formation (Tauric Formation, Russian: "Tavricheskaya formatsiya") in the Crimean Peninsula and Stone Mountain, Georgia. In each case, the creationists claimed that the flood-geology interpretation had greater explanatory power than the uniformitarian explanation. The Creation Research Society claims that "uniformitarianism is wishful thinking".

My intention is to cover the ICR and possibly the CRS under #Creation science, the rest merely tells us that creationist "papers" have discussed these topics: unless they're useful as primary source detail for discussion based on a reliable third party source, there's no need for them to feature in this article, per WP:SOURCES. . . dave souza, talk 10:27, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

References

Debarred Judge.

The fact that the judge was later debarred calls into question ALL of his decisions including the one listed in this article. Thus his criminal actions are of great interest in this topic. --JacobWeiser (talk) 00:07, 11 October 2014 (UTC)

No. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 00:28, 11 October 2014 (UTC)

Ditto.Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 00:33, 11 October 2014 (UTC)

No. Unless you can find a reliable source that says that all his decisions are questionable it doesn't belong in the article. Emphasis on reliable, which in a case like this is someone within the legal community, not a creationist without any expertise in law. Sjö (talk) 08:40, 11 October 2014 (UTC)

Sjo, basically agree, but even if such a reliable source were found, it would have to refer specifically to this topic area to avoid WP:SYN. If an editor finds such a source, it would have to be fully discussed in the talk page, and until then No. . . dave souza, talk 17:38, 11 October 2014 (UTC)

If I lost a case under this judge and I learned he turned out to be a convicted felon due to bribery, I'd be in the appeals court the next day.--JacobWeiser (talk) 20:19, 11 October 2014 (UTC)

...and the appeals court would deny your case unless you were able to prove that the judge's criminal behavior had a direct effect on his or her ruling in your case. In other words, fat chance. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 22:11, 11 October 2014 (UTC)

A person's character does not change much. All I'd need is reasonable doubt. Not proof. --JacobWeiser (talk) 03:51, 12 October 2014 (UTC)

You might want to look at Legal burden of proof, especially the sections beyond reasonable doubt (hint: it only applies in criminal cases) and preponderance of the evidence. What's more, the case was not appealed, and the verdict was very much in line with similar verdicts by other judges. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 07:46, 12 October 2014 (UTC)

Numbers on Adventists

Ellen White "whose pronouncements Adventists placed on a par with the Bible" – Ronald L. Numbers (1993). The Creationists. University of California Press. pp. 73–74. ISBN 978-0-520-08393-6. . . dave souza, talk 09:06, 13 September 2016 (UTC)

As a former disgruntled SDA, Numbers takes every opportunity to misrepresent what SDAs believe. The following is from an official statement by the SDA Church.

The Seventh-day Adventist Church's Understanding of Ellen White's Authority
Issued by the Biblical Research Institute of The General Conference of Seventh-day Adventists

AFFIRMATIONS

We believe that Scripture is the divinely revealed word of God and is inspired by he Holy Spirit.

We believe that the canon of Scripture is composed only of the sixty-six books of the Old and New Testaments.

We believe that Scripture is the foundation of faith and the final authority in all matters of doctrine and practice.

We believe that Scripture is the Word of God in human language.

We believe that Scripture teaches that the gift of prophecy will be manifest in the Christian church after New Testament times.

We believe that the ministry and writings of Ellen White were a manifestation of the gift of prophecy.

We believe that Ellen White was inspired by the Holy Spirit and that her writings, the product of that inspiration, are applicable and authoritative, especially to Seventh-day Adventists.

We believe that the purposes of the Ellen White writings include guidance in understanding the teaching of Scripture and application of these teachings, with prophetic urgency, to the spiritual and moral life.

We believe that the acceptance of the prophetic gift of Ellen White is important to the nurture and unity of the Seventh-day Adventist Church.

We believe that Ellen White's use of literary sources and assistants finds parallels in some of the writings of the Bible.

DENIALS

We do not believe that the quality or degree of inspiration in the writings of Ellen White is different from that of Scripture.

We do not believe that the writings of Ellen White are an addition to the canon of Sacred Scripture.

We do not believe that the writings of Ellen White function as the foundation and final authority of Christian faith as does Scripture.

We do not believe that the writings of Ellen White may be used as the basis of doctrine.

We do not believe that the study of the writings of Ellen White may be used to replace the study of Scripture.

We do not believe that Scripture can be understood only through the writings of Ellen White.

We do not believe that the writings of Ellen White exhaust the meaning of Scripture.

We do not believe that the writings of Ellen White are essential for the proclamation of the truths of Scripture to society at large.

We do not believe that the writings of Ellen White are the product of mere Christian piety.

We do not believe that Ellen White's use of literary sources and assistants negates the inspiration of her writings.

We conclude, therefore, that a correct understanding of the inspiration and authority of the writings of Ellen White will avoid two extremes: (1) regarding these writings as functioning on a canonical level identical with Scripture, or (2) considering them as ordinary Christian literature.

--OtisDixon (talk) 22:50, 13 September 2016 (UTC)

Thanks, that's an interesting primary source for the SDA Church's official position in the 1980s, prepared in response to requests and first published on July 15,1982, but has little relevance to the early days of the church which are discussed in the article. The statement in our article uses the past tense – "The Seventh-day Adventist Church, led by Ellen G. White, took six day Creation literally, and put her prolific inspired writings on a level with the Bible." White published in 1864 and died in 1915, so this is clearly about that period. The source, linked above, is Ron Numbers, a well-regarded historian. It's unsurprising that SDAs might accuse Numbers of being "disgruntled" and might say he "takes every opportunity to misrepresent what SDAs believe", but that's merely your opinion and at best is original research. Numbers is a good secondary source on the topic. . . dave souza, talk 07:27, 14 September 2016 (UTC)

Disgruntled former SDA. "Ron Numbers is not just a disgruntled former SDA, he was SDA "royalty", related to some of the top names in Adventist leadership." --OtisDixon (talk) 02:10, 15 September 2016 (UTC)

Really? A comment in an Amazon customer review, and you're putting it forward as a source on a living person? Even at that, note that the review is "5.0 out of 5 stars Well-researched, well-written by a former SDA By Amazon Customer on September 4, 2008". If anything, that supports the point you made earlier that "Numbers' book on Creationists is the recognized authority on the topic". . . dave souza, talk 08:40, 15 September 2016 (UTC)

It points out that I'm not the only one who thinks that Numbers is a disgruntled former SDA. The fact that he was the "son of a preacher man" explains much of his antipathy toward not only the SDA church but all churches and religion in general. Many offspring of pastors from all denominations have a common propensity to rebel against there parents and their beliefs. Numbers never grew out of it. And yes his book is recognized as an authority on the topic, but that does not mean that every word he wrote is true and correct. The fact that he's a former SDA turned atheist should warn everyone that he is going to be extremely biased against SDA teachings, and should make historians cautious about taking everything Numbers says about SDAs as unmitigated truth. The book is about Creationists, not about SDAs and to what level they hold the authority of White. He gives no source to support his assertion about White in the book. It is just his opinion. There have always been a few SDAs, such as Numbers' overly strict and unhappy pastor father, who misrepresent White by holding idolic views of White not shared or supported by the SDA church in general. Statements like the one I posted above can be found through out SDA literature. I found one with a simple google search. While White was alive she would quickly squash the notion that her writings were to be held on the same level as the Bible. It was after her death in 1915 that that notion became noised more widely about and the church made repeated resolutions over the years to hold in check the idea. --OtisDixon (talk) 19:37, 15 September 2016 (UTC)

You've yet to cite a reliable published source. . . dave souza, talk 07:10, 16 September 2016 (UTC)

I could find no mention of White in the 1931 Yearbook. "Fundamental Beliefs of Seventh-Day Adventists" begins on page 377 and does not mention her or her writings. Point 1 (of 22) states: That the Holy Scriptures of the Old and New Testaments were given by inspiration of God, contain an all-sufficient revelation of His will to men, and are the only unerring rule of faith and practice. 2 Tim. 3:15-17. YoPienso (talk) 13:56, 16 September 2016 (UTC)

"section 19. That God has placed in His church the gifts of the Holy Spirit, - as enumerated in 1 Corinthians 12 and Ephesians 4. That these gifts operate in harmony with the divine principles of the Bible, and are given for the perfecting of the saints, the work of the ministry, the edifying of the body of Christ. Rev. 12:17; 19:10; 1 Cor. 1:5-7." This includes the gift of prophecy as they see in Ellen White. --OtisDixon (talk) 02:10, 17 September 2016 (UTC)

Adherents' views and practices frequently diverge from official church doctrines. It seems the SDA has never officially deemed White's writings "on a par" with the Bible, which is not to say Ronald Numbers' parents did not. From "Questions on Doctrine," by the SDA:

Briefly then, this is the Adventist understanding of Ellen G. White's writings. They have been for a hundred years, to use her own expression, "a lesser light" leading sincere men and women to "the greater light."

To answer the last part of the question, concerning the matter of church fellowship, we would say that while we revere the writings of Ellen G. White, and expect all who join the church to accept the doctrine of spiritual gifts as manifested in her experience, we do not make acceptance of her writings a matter for church discipline. She herself was explicit on this point.

Her husband, James White, thrice General Conference president, speaking of the work of Ellen G. White, expressly declares that Adventists believe that God called her "to do a special work at this time, among this people. They do not, however, make a belief in this work a test of Christian fellowship.—The Review and Herald, June 13, 1871, p. 205.

The SDA officially states: "And this has been our consistent attitude throughout our history." YoPienso (talk) 14:59, 16 September 2016 (UTC)

It's interesting as a 1958 "Explanation Of Certain Major Aspects Of Seventh-Day Adventist Belief Prepared by a Representative Group of Seventh-day Adventist Leaders, Bible Teachers, and Editors" and from its quotations, through the years there has been a recurring question of whether White's pronouncements should be placed on a par with the Bible. The argument the linked page puts is that the Spirit of God bestowed the Spirit of prophecy on White as "one through whom such spiritual guidance is to come. Seventh-day Adventists believe that this gift was manifested in the life and ministry of Ellen G. White" Though not "a matter for church discipline", "we revere the writings of Ellen G. White, and expect all who join the church to accept the doctrine of spiritual gifts as manifested in her experience". As you say, a "lesser light", equivalent to the prophets rather than the disciples.

This nuance is veering away from the topic of this article, which is flood geology, how it was expressed in White's visions, and how these visions were a forerunner and direct influence on George McCready Price from 1883, and subsequently on Morris and Whitcomb from the 1940s. That sequence is directly covered by Numbers as a historian; adding our own original research based on 1958 official doctrine is highly dubious. It's a crucial point that White's visions were highly influential on SDAs including Price, who revered them as at least a "lesser light" to scripture. The wording "on a level with the Bible" is close to the assessment of Numbers, and not far from the SDA official doctrine – we can review if that's the best way of putting it, but Numbers remains the only secondary source so far covering the Price family's position. . dave souza, talk 19:17, 16 September 2016 (UTC)

For almost everything Numbers says he has sources to back up his statements. But about Ellen and her position of authority in the SDA church he has none. It is just his opinion. And for that reason, his statement is not worth the paper it is written on. There is no doubt that White influenced Price, but Numbers has no source to back up his assertion that Price, or any other SDA, held White on the same level as the Bible. For that reason, that phrase about White needs to be deleted. It is not historically supported by any facts.--OtisDixon (talk) 01:45, 17 September 2016 (UTC)

Proposed rewrite of last paragraph of Section 1.4 and intro to Section 2:

Little attention was paid to Flood geology over the rest of the 19th century; its few supporters included Eleazar Lord in the 1850s and the Lutheran scholar Carl Friedrich Keil in 1860 and 1878.

Creationist flood geology

The visions of Ellen G. White influenced 20th century creationism.[43] Based on her prolific writings, which they revered as divinely inspired, the Seventh-day Adventist Church taught a literal six-day Creation. White's visions of the Flood and its aftermath, published in 1864, described a catastrophic deluge which reshaped the entire surface of the Earth, followed by a powerful wind which piled up new high mountains, burying the bodies of men and beasts. Buried forests became coal and oil, and where God later caused these to burn, they reacted with limestone and water to cause "earthquakes, volcanoes and fiery issues".[44][45]

I have omitted links and refs. YoPienso (talk) 19:35, 17 September 2016 (UTC)

Further tweak on last part:

... followed by a powerful wind which piled up new mountains, burying the bodies of men and beasts. Coal and oil were formed from buried forests; from time to time they ignited to cause "earthquakes, volcanoes and fiery issues".[44][45]

Numbers doesn't mention--at least on the referenced pages--any reactions with limestone and water.

Also, "Based on her prolific writings, which they revered. . ." could be better as "which it revered," or even "Based on her prolific writings, revered as . . ." YoPienso (talk) 19:48, 17 September 2016 (UTC)

Good idea trying a rewrite, a couple of immediate issues: at the least, it's worth mentioning and linking the Seventh-day Adventist Church in the paragraph about "the rest of the 19th century", but accept the reference to White can be trimmed. In the section on Creationist flood geology, it doesn't work starting with "The visions of Ellen G. White influenced 20th century creationism.[43] " as her visions were published in 1864 – the influence on 20th century creationism belongs after the description of these visions. Fair point about the reactions with limestone and water as described in White's writings not being noted by Numbers. That can be omitted, but then it's worth using more of the points quoted by Numbers, including White being "carried back to the creation and was shown that the first week, in which God performed the work of creation in six days and rested on the seventh day, was just like every other week", therefore rejecting following "infidel geologists" as the infidel supposition that the events of the first week "required seven vast, indefinite periods for their accomplishment, strikes directly at the foundation of the Sabbath of the fourth commandment".[9] This relates to SDA rejection of the then-prevalent day-age or gap theories. So, will think it over. . . dave souza, talk 18:20, 18 September 2016 (UTC)

Thanks, Dave. I haven't fact-checked the assertion that "Little attention was paid to Flood geology over the rest of the 19th century." I don't know how to incorporate White into that paragraph, though it seems appropriate to do so. Perhaps you can figure out how.

Regarding the topic sentence of Creationist flood geology, I think it's good English composition form to let that sentence make the main point and then develop it. The part about being carried back to observe the first week of the earth's creation may be better left for her bio, but if you can work it into this article, that's fine by me.

I'm pasting in my tweaked proposal and requesting that you and/or others revise it.

Little attention was paid to Flood geology over the rest of the 19th century; its few supporters included Eleazar Lord in the 1850s and the Lutheran scholar Carl Friedrich Keil in 1860 and 1878.

Creationist flood geology

The visions of Ellen G. White influenced 20th century creationism.[43] Based on her prolific writings, which it revered as divinely inspired, the Seventh-day Adventist Church taught a literal six-day Creation. White's visions of the Flood and its aftermath, published in 1864, described a catastrophic deluge which reshaped the entire surface of the Earth, followed by a powerful wind which piled up new mountains, burying the bodies of men and beasts. Coal and oil, she said, were formed from buried forests; from time to time they ignited to cause "earthquakes, volcanoes and fiery issues".[44][45]

YoPienso (talk) 21:24, 18 September 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Flood geology. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130128125415/http://www.creationresearch.org/crsq/notes/39/39_1/Note0206.htm to http://www.creationresearch.org/crsq/notes/39/39_1/Note0206.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 19:27, 1 January 2017 (UTC)

Title and Scope

If half the energy devoted to flood geology were directed to say, Surface-water hydrology, that would be great. There is a lot of confusion with the name. The fact is, nobody cares about how much you disagree with Genesis 6-8, or why you disagree with the ideas of a bunch of guys who aren't even alive any more.

Like me, they probably want to learn about how floods actually affect the geology of the earth. Too bad this article has the exciting name, but doesn't tell me anything about the topic I wanted to learn about, and the "surface water hydrology" article is about as boring and incomplete as can be.

So the name should be changed to something else to avoid confusion, or else just delete the whole article, because as-is, it does not make for encyclopedic content. The words eat themselves, it's intellectually unsatisfying.Sotuman (talk) 17:50, 11 February 2019 (UTC)

The name is the standard term for the topic, and appears in multiple sources. The article is history, not "criticism". Surface-water hydrology makes no mention of geology so is a completely inappropriate link: you're welcome to improve it, but remember to work on the basis of reliable sources and cite them. . . dave souza, talk 18:36, 11 February 2019 (UTC)

That's right, I am interested in improving Wikipedia. You're welcome to join me.Sotuman (talk) 18:40, 11 February 2019 (UTC)

Also, look again at Surface-water hydrology, which besides the mention of geology which I just added, does use words like "globe" "land" and "surface" i.e. the surface of the earth, like what else could it be a surface of? That involves geology, as anywere there is a movement of water on the surface of the earth, there is also sedimentation. The earth is 71% covered by water, obviously pure geology involves the study of water flows moving earth, might as well mention it in the relevant article, which is basically a stub.Sotuman (talk) 18:47, 11 February 2019 (UTC)

You did it wrongly, see no "original research. . . . dave souza, talk 19:02, 11 February 2019 (UTC)

Look again, and bear in mind that it's just as easy to correct as it is to point out the error. I can't be expected to fix everything on Wikipedia and would like to see you help out a little more, though it is understood that I can work harder to do it right the first time, haha.Sotuman (talk) 19:21, 11 February 2019 (UTC)

Again, no "original research doesn't mean others should do it for you, and WP:COMMONNAME reaffirms that the current title and scope is good. . . . dave souza, talk 13:15, 12 February 2019 (UTC)

It doesn't mean they're obligated to not do it either. If you disagree with an edit on the grounds that it lacks a citation rather than the content of the edit itself, that's technically great, you're doing your part to conserve Wikipedia by removing it. The bulk of Wikipedia is made up of un-cited statements that do not and never will have citations because they are obvious enough to be seen as true by most people. Some things are obvious to me but not to you. You demand a citation, and I don't see the need. But hey, I don't mind helping to build a book for dummies, because in many, many areas that is exactly what I am, why do you think I came here in the first place?Sotuman (talk) 09:02, 14 February 2019 (UTC)