Talk:Flood geology/Archive 7

Archive 1

←

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Surface-water hydrology

Reference User:Sotuman's edit warring to include "This article is about history of the criticism of the biblical global flood theory. For how floods affect geology, see Surface-water hydrology." at the head of the article There is no mention in the Surface-water hydrology article of how floods affect geology? Theroadislong (talk) 19:19, 11 February 2019 (UTC)

Instead of trying to get me blocked, why not participate in making the article in question better, like I'm trying to do? For a person looking for how water flows affect the earth, the flood geology article is very misleading. The relevant surface-water hydrology article is defficient in information and citations, which I am trying to fix. Practice a little more good faith.Sotuman (talk) 19:24, 11 February 2019 (UTC)

I am not convinced that the surface-water hydrology article is the right one to include anything on the geological aspects of flooding. They could perhaps be added to the flood article, with the inclusion of a section on flood deposits. That being said, flooding is not a particularly important process when it comes to creating geological sequences. Mikenorton (talk) 21:41, 11 February 2019 (UTC)

@Mikenorton:Flooding is a very important process with regards to geological sequences, because geological sequences are nearly always laid down by flowing water. This is because water is a nearly universal solvent, able to pick up and lay down mineral sediments in quantities not remotely matched by any other natural substance. Think of a flood as a big, giant uncontrolled river that is there for a while and then subsides, leaving tons of sediment all over the place. Sotuman (talk) 00:24, 12 February 2019 (UTC)

Marine sequences are probably more common in the geological record, but even for fluvial sequences, flood-related deposits, apart from normal flooding affecting floodplains, are a relatively minor part of the geological record. Mikenorton (talk) 11:10, 12 February 2019 (UTC)

The entire field of sendimentary geology deals with deposits of floods. That is a major part of the geologic record because that is where lots of fossils are found.Sotuman (talk) 07:13, 13 February 2019 (UTC)

Well there you're plain wrong - only a very small part of sedimentology deals with flood deposits and most fossils are not found in such deposits. However, it's not up to me to convince you - it's up to you to convince other editors here that any change needs to be made to this article. Mikenorton (talk) 09:27, 13 February 2019 (UTC)

Well maybe you should read what they put first: "By far, the most erosion occurs during times of flood when more and faster-moving water is available to carry a larger sediment load. Sediments are most often transported by water. Among the three major types of rock, fossils are most commonly found in sedimentary rock."

Isn't it time for this article to tie these concepts together as its title literally indicates? That a quick Google search indicates the issue is superficially contentious is of no consequence to this article, because there it's not even fundamentally about floods and geology, it's about whether or not the Bible is a reliable source, which is a different topic. Sure, the Bible is a notable collection of writings. Apparently, it's more notable than the words "flood" and "geology" themselves, at least when they're put together. Or worse, could it be that any discussion about a topic on which the Bible says a word must be about whether the Bible is right or wrong, rather than the topic itself? So what if the Bible mentions a flood. How is it that one ancient book is such a confounding factor that this article cannot even explain about fluvial sediment transport? There seems to be a mistaken idea that the Bible is not allowed to say anything relevant to science. But oh no, it mentions about a flood and how the earth was affected, therefore we're not allowed to examine about how floods affect the earth, otherwise we will be un-scientific. What a load of nonsense.Sotuman (talk) 08:41, 14 February 2019 (UTC)

Wikipedia should reflect mainstream scholarship, but very notable material can be covered in due weight. Per the WP:PSCI policy, pseudoscience must clearly be described as such. Something from the Bible is not always necessarily pseudoscience, but attempting to retrofit reality to ancient (especially prescientific) tradition is pseudoscience (instead of the scientific method, a claimed authority then dictates where investigation should go and stop, what is the conclusion before assessing it from facts discovered about the world, etc). Relevant may be theistic science, Talk:Intelligent design/FAQ, evidence of common descent, Talk:Evolution/FAQ, etc. To describe the current mainstream scholarship and scientific consensus on topics, source selection, and representing them without editorial synthesis is important. It may be more productive to present more sources (and possibly quotes), then complaining about Wikipedia and its processes and assuming personal motives. There seemed to be a problem with weight or interpretation with the previous sources, but it's in the good direction... —PaleoNeonate – 23:07, 14 February 2019 (UTC)

The bulk of the earth's geology formed before anyone alive to today was even alive to make observations, so how exactly is the Bible any more prescience than any other source with regards to flooding or "the fountains of the great deep" or "the earth [being] divided"? There are real mechanisms for all of these things, on of which is plate tectonics. The scientific method states that "The most conclusive testing of hypotheses comes from reasoning based on carefully controlled experimental data." It is not possible to do an experiment on the whole earth to see how it formed. So, we must [apply] rigorous skepticism about what is observed, given that cognitive assumptions can distort how one interprets the observation Notable examples such as the island of Surtsey provide a wealth of reliable data that can be used to interpret the rest of the earth's geology, because they are first hand observations and not simply looking at the aftermath and guessing. This means that there is no excuse to make cognitive assumptions such as the earth being billions of years old. If there is any concensus about the formation of the earth's geology, it is a very speculative, one that has itself claimed the authority to dictate that flood geology is pseudoscience and that there can be no incorporation of readily observable and contemporaneous data on cataclysmic events into that concensus, which is simply un-scientific.

Good points though at WP:SYNTHESIS.Sotuman (talk) 03:18, 15 February 2019 (UTC)

This discussion seems to be heading into forum territory. Is there an actual change to the article being proposed here? And if not, let's close this so people can stop wasting time here. You are welcome to continue on your own talk page --McSly (talk) 03:55, 15 February 2019 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Cognitive assumptions such as the earth being billions of years old It's much more than cognitive assumptions. I recommend using the reference desk for direction then to read any suggested material. Geology is a physical science that also relies on constants, for which there is strong evidence of stability, an example being the decay of radioactive elements used in radiometric dating. We also dig deep into ice cores where years are clearly defined. I recommend following sources used to support articles such as age of the earth, formation and evolution of the Solar System and Big Bang#Features of the model. Doing good science indeed also involves inference, but educated inference. Processes are also used in order to minimize the natural confirmation bias of scientists and to test assumptions, rejecting failing hypotheses. Since your intentions appear to be to debate, I would like to point at WP:NOTFORUM again. The reference desk, or other places on the web are more suitable. —PaleoNeonate – 04:03, 15 February 2019 (UTC)

@McSly: @PaleoNeonate: You are correct, this is not a forum, nor is it being used as one. The discussion may seem to you to be a little convoluted, or even like a debate, but it's really not, because if you look closely at the references which I've carefully provided together with the various responses I've made, it is clear that my efforts are focussed on gaining concensus so that I can begin to improve the article, as it does not yet take into account the full picture of how cataclysmic floods provide an excellent and perfectly valid model for interpreting the age of sedimentary strata as it is observed. Flood geology is as lame and unbalanced as a one-person seesaw. This discussion is exactly what the article talk pages are for, it's unavoidable for there to be a concensus around what has been mistakenly labeled as a pseudoscientific fringe article without this kind of discussion. So kindly please stop intimating that this isn't the place for it, because this is the only place for it on this website, which happens to be the one I am interested in at this time. The age of the earth article is at least somewhat aware that "samples from Earth are unable to give a direct date of the formation of Earth" and even acknowleges by it's link to weathering that "Abrasion by water... processes loaded with sediment can have tremendous cutting power, as is amply demonstrated by the gorges, ravines, and valleys around the world" but then it turns around to assert something completely different, and lacks citations for a lot of its key statements.Sotuman (talk) 06:28, 15 February 2019 (UTC)

To provide a bit of context: You are not the first person who comes to the Talk page of an article about a pseudoscientific idea or about a proponent of pseudoscience and writes things like "this violates NPOV", "the article should say less about what scientists say about it and more about what <X> themselves say". This happens every day, at one pseudoscience article or another. It is caused by the fact that many pseudoscientists have successfully given the public the wrong impression that their ideas are a valid part of science. The public then sees that Wikipedia articles are in conflict with that perception and thinks that changing the Wikipedia article is easier than changing their own perception.

The attitude of those editors is always the same: "I know better than all the other editors here. I just need to convince them."

The methods are always from the same set:

• edit-war,
• personal attacks,
• sealioning,
• wikilawyering,
• soapboxing (walls of text),
• misinformation from and links to questionable websites,
• attempts at logically deriving the truth of their own beliefs from platitudes and from wrong assumptions about science.
• I probably left out a few.

The result is always the same:

• it will not happen. The reason is that Wikipedia is based on reliable sources, and pseudoscientific sources are not reliable sources.
• An additional result that occurs if the editor in question does not back off in time is that the editor is blocked.

You have already exhibited the attitude and some of the methods we know so well. Doug Weller's comment on your user talk page "Your fate is in your own hands" refers to the expected result. --Hob Gadling (talk) 07:35, 15 February 2019 (UTC)

@Hob Gadling: I accept your comment as information, and offer some advice: While the desire to quickly categorize those encountered in one's travels is relateable, and even helpful as a self-defense mechanism, it is unwise to place higher priority on this than actually listening to and evaluating the content of what people say. Not only does it result in pigeonholing, it is somewhat bad-faith and therefore unhelpful to a discussion of the topic at hand, amounting to thinly-veiled ad hominem attack. Also, use of the pronoun "we" to exclude your target audience indicates very little desire to listen or collaborate to actually improve the article. And isn't everyone's fate in their own hands? You might consider your own actions first before lecturing me.Sotuman (talk) 20:44, 16 February 2019 (UTC)

Ah yes, those are a few others of your people's methods. I won't spell them out this time.

Thank you for the supplement. I will now silently wait for the end of this instance. Can't be long now. --Hob Gadling (talk) 05:45, 17 February 2019 (UTC)

@Hob Gadling:LOL, like why is this guy even here? He's like a little Gollum, waiting for my demise or something, and he has nothing to add to the discussion - how sad.Sotuman (talk) 06:51, 17 February 2019 (UTC)

Samples from Earth are unable to give a direct date of the formation of Earth You are attempting to reinterpret this differently: there is no need for precise dates to have an excellent estimate (or the best estimate agreed for, with converging evidence). —PaleoNeonate – 18:44, 15 February 2019 (UTC)

@PaleoNeonate: I made a genuine effort to understand the article that you referred me to when you were trying to back up your POV that flood geology is pseudoscience because science says the earth is billions of years old, and you accuse me of quote mining? The point is that the sort of science about the age of the earth is not in any way certain. This is because there are key assumptions, such as what the initial conditions were when the earth was being formed, and that these conditions were the same as for meteorites. Where there is such uncertainty, any concensus is demanded not by the scientific method, but by preference for a particular hypothesis coupled with extreme prejudice against contrary hypotheses which interpret the evidence differently, and in this case, more scientifically because of direct scientific observations of floods and their role in sedimentary geology:

"Geomorphological records, particularly alluvial deposits, may also register short-lived climatic events of a few hours or days of duration, whereas vegetation and lake systems usually integrate seasons, years, or decades of paleoclimatic information."

Therefore, I hereby move that the flood geology article be clearly labeled with a redirect saying that it is only about the pseudoscientific and historic fringe theory of "Flood Geology", and to look at the flood article or geology article or even surface-water hydrology or sedimentary geology article. This way, readers who do not wish to become embroiled in a contentious topic will be able to find the information they are looking for. Who will second this motion?Sotuman (talk) 20:44, 16 February 2019 (UTC)

No. It's not a "motion", it completely fails to meet the basic requirements of viable proposals based on reliable published sources, relies on "original research", and looks like undue weight to your own tortured arguments. See WP:NOTAFORUM. . . dave souza, talk 22:29, 16 February 2019 (UTC)

Falls at the first hurdle. Not a meaningful proposal and not backed up by reliable sources.Mikenorton (talk) 22:38, 16 February 2019 (UTC)

References

Neutral point of view?

This article should focus more on describing how the flood is supposed to have occurred rather than explaining why such and such creationists are wrong. It's fine to underline the debate, but this belongs to the parent articles.

This article seems filled with disclaimers (science says this, but flood proponents say...). As an article about flood geology, the article should explain just that -- flood geology. That way, the article will be a clear description of the views of flood geologists.

Also, perhaps giving due weight to the main view today would make sense. There are many points of view mentioned here, which seems to be done with the goal of representing the concensus as split; but what does the majority of flood geologists believe today? I may be mistaken, but this would seem to be mainly young-earth creationists? So maybe more of their view should be explained in detail.— Preceding unsigned comment added by DenisGLabrecque (talk • contribs) 23:13, 26 September 2017 (UTC)

"Flood geology" is not standard scientific term describing a subfield of geology handling the impact of floods. It's a pseudo-scientific term used by creationists for narratives trying to "explain" certain geological features in a biblical context. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 23:55, 26 September 2017 (UTC)

You cited the NPOV policy. Please read the WP:PSCI section of that policy and see the notice of discretionary sanctions on your talk page. Jytdog (talk) 00:08, 27 September 2017 (UTC)

Actually, flood geology is as scientific a term as it gets as it accurately describes the direct relationship between flooding and its effects on geology, which are many and far-reaching. The word "science" means "knowledge". Everyone knows something, therefore everyone is a scientist, in the loosest sense of the word. Obviously some scientists have a phD or other credential, while most people do not attain this level of pretentiousness. But in fact there are many flood geologists who are phD's of geology or related fields of science, so let's stick to what can be seen and observed, shall we? Look at recent and relatively tame natural disasters such as the last major eruption of Mt. St. Helens, and the resulting flooding, landslides, and fossilizations. That is flood geology, and there is a lot to be learned from it by everyone, so stop trying to draw a false dichotomy between science and the Biblical Flood, which is actually a very plausible framework for understanding the earth's geology as it may be observed, while the large manuscript support that the Bible enjoys is noteworthy. The article on flood geology has a very non-neutral point of view to begin with. It is very biased from the get-go against the idea that it should actually be explaining accurately. From the point of view that flood geology is fringe or pseudoscience, of course any edit that attempts to explain it properly will seem to be non-neutral, and repeated edits may even cause the user making the edits to be given a discresionary alert or whatever. But this sort of bad administrating goes against the spirit of Wikipedia, which is to share knowlege, not to stifle points of view, however absurd they may seem. Get it right. Sotuman (talk) 22:14, 18 February 2019 (UTC)

Editors shouldn't be making such interpretations. If you search for "flood geology" most of the sources make it clear that the phrase relates to a biblical approach to the subject. Please read WP:FRINGE. Doug Weller talk 10:58, 10 February 2019 (UTC)

It is the job of editors to make these interpretations so that a clear and concise article can be constructed.Sotuman (talk) 18:04, 11 February 2019 (UTC)

For info, "The word "science" means "knowledge". Everyone knows something, therefore everyone is a scientist, in the loosest sense of the word" is a couple of centuries out of date. See science and scientist, the latter term dating to 1833 and the original debate about diluvialism. . . dave souza, talk 15:43, 10 February 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for the info guys, however you might consider that words have different meanings depending on the context. The way the word "science" is thrown around these days, everyone is indeed their own scientist.Sotuman (talk) 18:02, 11 February 2019 (UTC)

Wrong. It's the job of editors to adhere to verifiable published information and present it properly, not push "original research. . . dave souza, talk 18:56, 11 February 2019 (UTC)

@Dave souza:Every flood is capable of altering geology in some way, the same way when I jump in the air, it's not just me that falls back down again to the surface of the earth, but it is also the earth that moves up again to meet me. Obviously a flood is much more massive than any one person, and its mechanism of moving the earth is also different, as explained in some detail by other articles related to geology such as Sedimentary rock. So it's an obvious and accurate interpretation to make. An article titled "Flood Geology" should talk about actual flood geology, not be a vicious cyclic gang of people who don't know what basic words mean.Sotuman (talk) 08:57, 12 February 2019 (UTC)

Is there an actionable proposal for a change to the article? Johnuniq (talk) 10:17, 12 February 2019 (UTC)

Add Redirect

@Mikenorton:@Dave souza: The proposal is not based on anything except what is already in the article of flood geology itself. It is an article about the pseudoscientific fringe theory of "Flood Geology", as it is defined in the article. Sure, some people may not agree with how the article is written. I've articulated some of the reasons why I don't, but that aspect of the discussion is unrelated to the need for there to be a brief explanation, spelled out in big shiny letters at the top of the article to say what "Flood Geology" definitely is and isn't about, so that people who end up here looking for information about the separate topics of floods or geology, or even how floods affect sedimentary geology or their relation to the field of surface-water hydrology, will immediately know where to look. It's called building a functional encyclopedia in the digital age of hyperlinks. The very claim that there needs to be a citation is as lacking in a citation as the proposal itself, because neither my proposal for having a referral at the top of the article, nor an answer in the negative requires a citation. All the information is already there. It's in the title of the article, the content of the article, and the other articles which I have linked to in this post. This is not rocket science, folks. I'll go ahead and do it, and if someone has a problem with my edit, please do explain the reasons against it on this talk page, don't just revert with a half-assed explanation in the edit summary.Sotuman (talk) 06:51, 17 February 2019 (UTC)

You need to start being serious about building the 'pedia, and about building consensus for any changes you want to make. To do that, you'll have to provide sources that say exactly what you're trying to add, not waffle or original research synthesising a position from memory or from sources that don't actually explicitly support the point you're trying to make. Without sources and consensus, you'll continue to get reverted. . . dave souza, talk 23:35, 18 February 2019 (UTC)

@Dave souza:Can someone please explain how there needs to be a source cited to say that the term "Flood Geology" contains the totally unrelated terms of "Flood" and "Geology"? How is it not clear that this causes some confusion? It is a serious matter when the title of an article is misleading, serious enough to warrant an about template at the top of the article.Sotuman (talk) 23:42, 18 February 2019 (UTC)

• The issue is this edit which added three lines of explanation above the article. Vaguely related topics might belong in a see also section. They are no help for someone wanting information on "flood geology". Johnuniq (talk) 23:56, 18 February 2019 (UTC)
• Floods and Geology are not even vaguely related to the pseudoscientific fringe theory of flood geology as the article explains it. So it is not correct to imply they are related, even vaguely so, by placing links in the see also section. The correct place is at the top of the article, 1. So that readers don't have to do a bunch of extra scrolling and clicking to get the info they need and 2. To stress that the topics are unrelated to the below article. Sotuman (talk) 00:52, 19 February 2019 (UTC)

People arriving at the article find out in the very first sentence what the article is about, we don't need a pre-amble to explain what it isn't.Theroadislong (talk) 01:21, 19 February 2019 (UTC)

But if the title is ambiguous, as it is for flood geology, it is common to find the about template. That's why we need it.Sotuman (talk) 03:58, 19 February 2019 (UTC)

It is not ambiguous: a search for flood geology (even without quotes) on a search engine like Google only shows creationism related links (at least on the first results page); the article's title is also the WP:COMMONNAME to describe it... —PaleoNeonate – 04:13, 19 February 2019 (UTC)

I can see the possibility of confusion for a reader unfamiliar with the term, since it sounds science-y (by design, I guess). Some version of this [1] doesn't strike me as unreasonable, perhaps with Erosion as a possible target. Possible WP:OSE comparisons at Chemtrail and Intelligent design. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 09:06, 19 February 2019 (UTC)

Concensus achieved!Sotuman (talk) 03:02, 20 February 2019 (UTC)

@Sotuman:, you are joking right? --McSly (talk) 03:23, 20 February 2019 (UTC)

@McSly: More and more people are beginning to see the reasonableness of my suggested edit.Sotuman (talk) 05:52, 20 February 2019 (UTC)

First of all, there is no consensus for adding your suggested dab links, and adding them without consensus is disruptive. In my opinion linking to Flood and Geology is out of the question since the article title isn't ambigous. Nobody is going to type "flood geology" when they want to know about floods or about geology. I think that it's rather unlikely that someone finds this article when they want to know about how flooding affects geology, but maybe a dab link along the lines of For water's role in geology see Erosion and Sedimentary Geology isn't unreasonable. Sjö (talk) 09:33, 20 February 2019 (UTC)

Consensus definitely not achieved. The subject of this article has basically no overlap with geology as it is normally understood and I am unconvinced that any hatnotes are necessary. "Flood geology" has virtually no usage other than the one described in this article, as searches on Google Scholar and Google Books show. Mikenorton (talk) 11:30, 20 February 2019 (UTC)

Section on the flood in the bible needed?

How come there's no section on Noah's flood? No Noah's flood, no flood geology...PiCo (talk) 03:54, 2 June 2019 (UTC)

Could have been any mythical flood, and Noah or Gilgamesh aren't very relevant. The Genesis flood narrative is linked and noted in the first sentence of the lead, and in Flood geology#The great flood in the history of geology, while the third paragraph of the lead mentions "the story of Noah's Ark"– this article focusses on geology, and it's an inappropriate diversion to repeat the Genesis flood narrative article here. . . dave souza, talk 07:15, 2 June 2019 (UTC)

I wouldn't want to repeat the article, but there'd be no flood geology without the Noah story.PiCo (talk) 09:51, 2 June 2019 (UTC)

The relevant section of Genesis is linked twice in the lead section, which should be more than enough I would have thought. Mikenorton (talk) 10:20, 2 June 2019 (UTC)

Is the Center for Scientific Creation and the book "In the Beginning: Compelling Evidence for Creation and the Flood" a reliable source?

It's a reliable primary source about its views on flood geology, but should it be used as an independent secondary source? WorldQuestioneer (talk) 18:29, 5 November 2020 (UTC)

Yup, it is a WP:RS for the views of cranks and their alone. tgeorgescu (talk) 15:42, 9 August 2021 (UTC)

Unlikely , Mostly – cranks may be revolutionary but they're neither independent nor secondary in this context. . . dave souza, talk 16:24, 9 August 2021 (UTC)