Talk:Flood geology

Copypaste in section "Runaway subduction"

The final 2.5 paragraphs of the "Runaway subduction" section appear to have been copyed and pasted from http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CD/CD750.html (Text-only copy from Google Cache). I don't know the licensing terms of talkorigins.org, but this might easily be a copyvio.--NetRolller 3D 18:13, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

No, it is in fact a close-paraphrase, not a coypy-and-paste. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 12:04, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

In some places it was a close-paraphrase--too close, which is a copyright infringement anyway as a derivative work--but much was literal duplication. For one example, the source says, "But both radiometric dating and amounts of sedimentation indicate that the age changes gradually, from brand new to tens of millions of years old." The article said, "...but both radiometric dating and amounts of sedimentation indicate that the age changes gradually, from brand new to tens of millions of years old." The only change there is in the capitalization of the word "but." If the material is to be included, it needs to be rewritten in completely original language, unless the source is released under license compatible with GFDL or it is otherwise brought into line with non-free content guidelines. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 15:04, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

Strictly speaking all material that is not WP:OR is a "derivative work" of the cited sources. The literal duplication is however problematical. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 15:35, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

So is close paraphrase, per US Copyright Law. See this section of McCarthy's Desk Encyclopedia of Intellectual Property for more detail. Sadly, it's not all available online, but it does give a succinct overview of the standings of US court on this matter in the material available for preview there. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 15:59, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

If you can derive any hard-and-fast practical rules on how much "fragmented literal similarity" and "comprehensive nonliteral similarity" would constitute copyright violation on the basis of the piece you cited, you are far better at reading legalese than I am. Too strict an interpretation of these limitations would considerably constrict (and possibly eliminate) the middle ground between WP:COPYVIO (which itself makes no explicit mention of non-literal copying) and WP:OR. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 16:35, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, I almost missed this. It's true that substantial similarity is scarcely explained on Wikipedia; the closest we really come is Wikipedia:Copyright FAQ#Derivative works. There have been a number of suggestions at various copyright talk pages about how to explain this, but the daunting challenge of overcoming legalese and coming up with some kind of clear language for a very vague subject has been a problem. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 18:40, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

Copyright problem removed

One or more portions of this article duplicated other source(s). The material was copied from: http://74.125.45.132/search?q=cache:Ac6CDxMmIegJ:www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CD/CD750.html+http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CD/CD750.html&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=1&gl=us&client=firefox-a. Infringing material has been rewritten or removed and must not be restored, unless it is duly released under a license compatible with GFDL. (For more information, please see "using copyrighted works from others" if you are not the copyright holder of this material, or "donating copyrighted materials" if you are.) For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or printed material; such additions will be deleted. Contributors may use external websites as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences or phrases. Accordingly, the material may be rewritten, but only if it does not infringe on the copyright of the original or plagiarize from that source. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously, and persistent violators will be blocked from editing. While we appreciate contributions, we must require all contributors to understand and comply with these policies. Thank you. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 15:04, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

Proposed rewrite

The following is an attempt to rewrite the disputed passage to be a less close paraphrase -- essentially attempting to 'thread the needle' between WP:COPYVIO and WP:OR. It still uses the same examples as the referenced source (with the exception of the seafloor basalt one, as I didn't understand it sufficiently to rewrite it) -- as concrete examples are necessary to give a clear understanding of, and WP:DUE weight to, the inadequacies of the hypothesis under discussion, and we don't currently have a WP:RS for alternate examples.

Not only does catastrophic plate tectonics lack any plausible geophysical mechanism by which its changes might occur, it also is contradicted by considerable geological evidence (which is in turn consistent with conventional plate tectonics), including:

• The fact that a number of volcanic oceanic island chains, such as the Hawaiian islands, yield evidence of the ocean floor having moved over volcanic hot spots. These islands have widely ranging ages (determined via both radiometric dating and relative erosion) that contradict the catastrophic tectonic hypothesis of rapid development and thus a similar age.
• Radiometric dating and sedimentation rates on the ocean floor likewise contradict the hypothesis that it all came into existence nearly contemporaneously.
• Catastrophic tectonics does not allow sufficient time for guyots to have their peak eroded away (leaving these seamounts' characteristic flat tops).
• Runaway subduction fails to account for continental collisions, of which the collision between the Indian and Eurasian Plates, which causes the ongoing formation of the Himalayas, is a spectacular example. (For further information see Orogeny.)

Is this an acceptable rewrite? Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 16:21, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

This is not my field (or I would have attempted a revision myself), but I can evaluate for closeness of following. :) (I'm here because this was listed at the copyright problems board; otherwise, I'd have likely never visited this article.) I think you've done quite a good job with a good bit of this--for example, your revision of the guyot point seems very well done--but would suggest a little more with the last point to further separate it from the source. Using your additions, I might go with something like "Runaway subduction does not explain the kind of continental collision spectacularly illustrated by that of the Indian and Eurasian Plates, which causes the ongoing formation of the Himalayas. (For further information see Orogeny.)" The fact that it's a different sentence structure that incorporates more detail than the original is good for this. Revision to avoid infringement or plagiarism can sometimes be a bit like going around your back to reach your elbow, but I think it's a good rewrite, although I would personally be more comfortable with a bit further revision on the last point. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 16:48, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

One problem with these sorts of articles is that they quite often delve into hard-core scientific detail that makes it difficult for somebody with only a more general scientific background to paraphrase more loosely without risking slipping up and misrepresenting the line of scientific thought (this is the reason I ended up leaving the seafloor basalt example well alone). I've seen not a few unintentional misrepresentations of this type. This is particularly problematic where the cited source is especially succinct/summarised (as was the case here) that it leaves you relatively little room to manoeuvre. I have inserted the rewrite (with your suggested alteration). Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 17:23, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

The Himalaya thing is unfortunately synthesizing a new claim. The creationism articles require punctilious care to follow WP policy to keep disputes to a minimum. There really can't be any wiggle room whatsoever when it comes to original research in these articles. What would be the best solution would be to broaden the sources cited there, but that may not be easy to do for runaway subduction. I've seen cut/paste problems from talk origins in other articles as well-it might do well to make it a habit to give them a 2nd look-over when we come across them, and maybe note it when they're OK with a hidden comment. I gave it a shot to fixing many of them, but I don't know how many more might be out there.Professor marginalia (talk) 18:08, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

As an aside, even though the objection re continental collision is sourced, do we need it here? From the description, it sounds like catastrophic plate tectonics wouldn't necessarily preclude continental collisions in the first place. If the continents are "dragged across the surface of the earth" was this necessarily a tidy rearrangement? I'm asking because if it was an orderly spreading of continents, it isn't clear from the text.Professor marginalia (talk) 18:17, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

I would say that the the effects of these collisions, particularly in the case of the Himalayas, is a compelling argument. Assuming the extreme fluidity that runaway subduction requires, you would expect that Isostasy would prevent such geological phenomena from occurring. I may be reading between the lines here, but I think it is hardly a coincidence that the one (of many) plate collisions that was chosen in TO happens to be the one that causes Earth's highest range of mountains (which, from memory, are still growing). Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 18:29, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

Interesting. I can't say I understand isostasy yet but I gather you feel the collision claim should stay. That's cool, but the Himalayas need to be left off of it. The Himalayas/isostasy argument is a claim not made in the source. It's clearly synth. We need a single reliable source tying flood geology's catastrophic plate tectonics to the Himalayas/isostasy. We can't get there with Indian and and Eurasian plates. And my concern raised above may be resolved by filling in a gap or two about what exactly the flood geologists think the continental "dragging" process looked like. Professor marginalia (talk) 18:45, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

You're probably right on the WP:SYNTH, a pity really -- the Himalayas are clearly the 'trainwreck' resulting from this collision (and thus mentioning the collision directly implicates them -- unfortunately it does not explicate this). The isostasy bit was just me trying to explain the example, not part of the article-material for the example. To understand it, think of the earth's plates as a tub of thick mud with a dried 'crust' on the surface -- by applying pressure you can create a ridge in the dried surface mud, but eventually it will sink back into the molten mud due to gravitational equilibrium. Another analogy is to waves on the surface of a pool of liquid -- they will continue for a while, but eventually diminish to a level surface, unless further forces are applied to recreate/sustain them.

Absurd revert war

These might well be the most pointless reverts I've seen yet in these creationist articles. [1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6]. It would be good if everyone involved could explain what they think they're arguing about (besides nasty edit summaries). Professor marginalia (talk) 22:36, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

Ah, to the creationist mind there's an immense difference between "The only way they [organic remains] can be preserved long enough from the usual processes of decay, scavenging and disintegration is by means of quick burial in aqueous sediments." and "Fossilization requires rapid burial, or the organism will decay. This suggests that a catastrophe is responsible for fossils." You've probably got to have a doctorate in theology to understand that difference. . dave souza, talk 23:17, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

What would really help would be a degree in paleontology with taphonomy.

The article says this: "Sometimes, creationists will claim that fossilization can only take place when the matter is buried quickly so that the matter does not decompose.[26]"

The reference is this: "Isaak 2007 p 137 Creationist claim CC363" At Talk.Origins.

This is what Talk.Origins says:

Claim CC363:

"Fossilization requires rapid burial, or the organism will decay. This suggest that a catastrophe is responsible for the fossil."

Source:

Whitcomb, John C. Jr. and Henry M. Morris, 1961. The Genesis Flood. Philadephia, PA: Presbyterian and Reformed Publishing Co., pp. 128-129.}}

This is what W & M actually say:

"The only way they [organic remains] can be preserved long enough from the usual processes of decay, scavenging and disintegration is by means of quick burial in aqueous sediments."

There is a big difference between an organism being saved from total destruction so that it might become a fossil and the fossilization processes of permineralization or carbonization, etc., which preserve the organism after it has been buried. Talk.Origins conflates the two. If you don't know the difference, you don't have enough knowledge to judge what W & M said and probably don't understand how Talk.Origins blatantly lied.

The above misrepresentation of W & M must be expunged from the article and a sentence reflecting what they actually say with a reliable source be inserted. Talk.Origins has no reliability, as anyone can see, especially in this case. Christian Skeptic (talk) 00:09, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

ASA quotes Whitcomb and Morris to say this, "Under ordinary processes of nature as now occurring, fossils (especially of land animals and even marine vertebrates) are very rarely formed. The only way they can be preserved long enough from the usual processes of decay, scavenging and disintegration is by means of quick burial in aqueous sediments." Unless the accuracy of this quote is in dispute, (someone with a copy of Genesis Flood should check it), then for pity sake, quote both sentences. There's no reason to remove the quote, or the TO cite, on these grounds. Professor marginalia (talk) 00:17, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

Before we move on, Christian Skeptic: the replacement [organic remains] is less accurate than TO's wording, which was "fossil". I don't know if you've seen the fuller quote, or if you did, whether you confused yourself. But if you haven't seen the book itself to verify the quote, you shouldn't cite it to the book. You need to identify the cite where you found it quoted. Professor marginalia (talk) 00:22, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

Whenever you see brackets that means that the editor has added an explanation. In this case [organic remains] was added to explain the word 'they'. While W&M used the word fossil in the previous sentence it is clear that they were referring to organic remains because by definition, recently buried remains (such as what is "now occurring") are not fossils. From the "Dictionary of Geologic Terms", 3rd edition, 1984, by Bates and Johnson: FOSSIL: Any remains, trace, or imprint of a plant or animal that has been preserved in the earth's crust since some past geologic or prehistoric time. Nothing buried in the present can be a fossil, for it is in historic time. And further, you do not quickly bury fossils to preserve them, you quickly bury organic remains to protected them long enough so they they can eventually become fossils in some future geologic era.

W&M likely used the term fossil loosely, like many editors of this WP page, to refer to organic remains that might become fossils per definition in some geologic era in the future. It is unfortunate that W&M were not as precise as they might have been, because uninformed people, such as Talk.Origins, misunderstand and twist what they said.

As much impact as W&M have had on Creationary thought, nearly all fellow creationist today recognize that The Genesis Flood, is now way out of date. Modern creationary geologists have moved well beyond The Genesis Flood. When critics quote it, it displays their complete lack of competency on modern creationism. Christian Skeptic (talk) 06:01, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

I dare say modern creationary geologists religiously motivated pseudogeologists have abandoned the specific claims of The Genesis Flood, but I very much doubt if they've thrown out the procrustian methodology it typifies. The reason that it tends to get quoted is that no book since has as much stature -- most probably because of a combination of an increased marginalisation of creationism as pseudoscientific WP:FRINGE and the increasing fragmentation of YEC into a plethora of competing organisations since their time. Is there a book on Flood Geology since that has even garnered enough third party notice to even warrant a wikipedia article? I doubt it. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 07:41, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

Here is a short list of popular flood geology books on Amazaon.com: (The info there can be used to interlibrary loan them)

Coffin, 2005, Origin by Design (1 ed. ~ 1970s)

Roth, 1998, Origins: linking Science and Scripture

Morris, 2000, The Geology Book

Baldwin, ed. 2000, Creation, Catastrophe, and Calvary

Froede, 2007, Geology by Design

Oard, 2008, Flood by Design

I don't know why they have not received review. Christian Skeptic (talk) 18:48, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

Um, Christian Skeptic, I thought you were the one who wanted the quote from The Genesis Flood to be included? Babakathy (talk) 07:58, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

The important point as I see it is that the material repeatedly being inserted does not address any of the contentious points - the exact statement quoted deals with rapid burial (uncontroversial) not rapid fossilization (controversial). I'm not convinced the Talk.Origins article is the best link for this, as it is not the original source of the claim They claim that fossils are produced not by a process lasting millions of years, but by rapid burial of the remains of many of the Earth's life-forms by sediments in the short period of the flood. This link seems to be to a mainstream creationist site with claims of rapid burial and rapid fossilisation. I would suggest it could replace both the Talk.Origins reference and the disputed text. Babakathy (talk) 07:58, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

The TOA article in turn links to a post listing the following sources:

The people lurking and reading this thread can find and read papers that demonstrated fossilization can happen under non-catastrophic conditions in:

Briggs, D. E. G. (1995): Experimental Taphonomy. Palaios. vol. 10, pp. 539-550.

Briggs, D. E. K. and Crowther, P. R. (1993): Paleobiology: A Synthesis. Oxford Blackwell Scientific Publications, New York.

Briggs D. E. G. and Kear, A. J. (1993): Fossilization of Soft Tissue in the Laboratory. Science vol. 259, pp. 1439-1442

Briggs D. E .G., Keara, J. A., Martill, D. M., and Wilby, P. R. (1993): Phosphatization of soft-tissue in experiments and fossils. Journal of Geological Society vol. 150, pp. 1035-1038.

Dunn, K. A., et al. (1997): Enhancement of Leaf Fossilization Potential by Bacterial Biofilms. Geology, vol. 25, no. 12, pp. 119-1222.

Seilacher, A., W.-E. Reif, F. Westphal (1985) Sedimentological, ecological and temporal patterns of fossil Lagerstatten. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society of London, vol. B311, pp. 5-24.

Weeks, L. G. (1953) Environment and Mode of Origin and Facies Relationships of Carbonate Concretions in Shales. Journal of Sedimentary Petrology, vol. 23, no. 3, pp. 162-173.

Wilby, P. R., et al. (1996) "Role of Microbial Mats in the Fossilization of Soft Tissues." Geology, vol. 24, pp. 787-790.

There's probably something in there somewhere that is usable. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 08:21, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

Paleontologists agree that organic remains must be buried quickly so they can be preserved long enough to be come fossilized. However, the term fossilized is not a very precise term. There are several factors and metamorphic mineral processes which occur to organic remains that result in what is typically called a fossil. One major factor concerns what kind of organisms are to be fossilized -- vertebrate, invertebrates, radiolarians, sponges, plants, pollen, foot prints, etc. And multiple processes may include permineralization, recrystalization, carbonization, replacement, dissolving, diagenesis, etc. Talking about fossilization is a complex issue, however quick burial is not questioned.

The major question is, how long does it take for these processes to work on organic reamins in the environment they are found in? Experimental taphonomy has resulted in an assortment of remains becoming fossilized by various processes in the lab, which of course implies that given the right conditions, vast ages are not an issue. The metamorphic processes are ongoing until an equilibrium is met between the chemical enviroument of the burial site and the minerals of the organic remains. Flood catastrophic geologists do not expect that organic remains buried during the flood were completely fossilized within the one year period of the flood, but rather that there has been some 4000 years for the processes to have been working. Much more work needs to be done on the taphonomy of organic remains. Yet, how one interprets even those results will depend upon which world view you choose to believe with. Christian Skeptic (talk) 17:31, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

Source please for "Paleontologists agree that organic remains must be buried quickly so they can be preserved long enough to be come fossilized". There are all sorts of fossilisation or preservation, many of which clearly occur without the catastropic process postulated by interpretations based on the biblical flood. As stated in ToA. . . dave souza, talk 19:13, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

No, I think it's best to keep focused. This is not a forum for discussing fossilization. This page is for discussing sourced claims about flood geology. And we're starting to veer away from that and into debating over what the scientific evidence says. Christian Skeptic, you wrote: "Whenever you see brackets that means that the editor has added an explanation". So there's no confusion on this, editors cannot supply an "explanation" for a text, they are simply to describe it. If there is ambiguity in the words used, or if you believe Whitcomb and Morris were using "fossil" loosely, so be it. WP editors aren't allowed to improve upon it, or replace it with what the editor judges to be sounder wording. Especially when quoting them. Professor marginalia (talk) 21:14, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

Well said. Editors shouldn't be explaining texts. dougweller (talk) 21:31, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

But it is most important that the editors report what a source actually says and not twist it to their POV by quoting or paraphrasing it out of context. The "editor's note" provides the context for the reader, it does not try to tell the reader what to think. Talk.Origins twisted what the authors meant to serve it's agenda by keeping the context from the readers. And when WP uses Talk.Origins it promulgates the lies.

The purpose of an encyclopedia is to report what people or groups say and believe without commentary on whether it is good, bad or indifferent. ALL of the articles in WP about and related to Creationism are editorialized up the wazoo. In other words, on this topic, WP has ceased to be an encyclopedia, and has become a propaganda machine. Christian Skeptic (talk) 01:39, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

Let's concentrate on this one claim and relevant quote in the center of the revert war. I don't see that any commentary was added. Talk.origins is cited as the source of a particular creationist claim, without the talk.origins rebuttal. You've alleged that the source mis-characterized the original statement, and tried to supply a quote from the original. I agree that adding both is suitable. The Morris/Whitcomb quote was reverted, but the fact is that this quote directly relates to the Talk.origins claim so it's valid to include it. (I'd tweak it so it fits more naturally from the narrative, but don't want to digress from the point here.) The talk.origins claim cited those exact pages for its claim, and that quote came from those pages, and obviously speaks directly to the claim attributed to them. In the case of this quote, to set aside whether "fossil" or "organic remains" is more suitable for a [plug] in the quote, it's sufficient to quote the preceeding sentence with it, and let the words speak for themselves without [editorial translation]. Then there's no need for any explanation. Professor marginalia (talk) 05:13, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

Except for the danger of giving "equal validity" to fringe assertions. This looks rather like a creationist attempt to portray "rapid burial" consistent with a global flood as a necessary precondition to fossilisation, and the scientific rebuttal that many useful fossils result from much slower processes and need not involve burial, and while rapid burial or a cover of anoxic silt can produce the best fossils, such conditions commonly occur with local flooding. See below. . . dave souza, talk 11:58, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

paleontology sources

(moved from my user talk page by dave souza, talk 11:58, 24 January 2009 (UTC))

sources: Normal 0 MicrosoftInternetExplorer4 from Prothero, Donald, 2004, Bringing Fossils to life, McGraw Hill Higher Education, pp. 8-18.

Taphonomy

“The study of how living organisms become fossilized is known as taphonomy. … From the moment an organism dies, there is a tremendous loss of information as it decays and is trampled, tumbled, and broken before it is buried. The more of that lost information that we can reconstruct, the more reliable our scientific hypotheses are likely to be. …. From the original complete assemblage of living organism, known as a ‘life assemblage” or biocenosis, many events occur that screen out certain organisms, leaving a much smaller death assemblage, or thanatocenosis. The process of breakup and decay of organism immediately after death is known as necrolysis.

“After a death assemblage accumulates, many other factors operate on the hard parts to break them up and scatter them around, so an even smaller percentage ends up buried for future fossilization. These processes occur after necrolysis and are known as biostratinomy. These agents of destruction can be biological, mechanical, or chemical.

“Biological agents are the most important factor in most environments, both marine and terrestrial. Both predators and scavengers are very active in breaking up shells and bones …. In summary, the key factor that prevents biological destruction is rapid burial.”

For those organism that are not buried right away:

“Mechanical agents of destruction such as wind, waves, and currents can be very important. These processes are most effective in shallow waters, where both waves and storm have their highest energies. … In summary, the shape, density, and thickness of the bone or shell are the most important factors in determining survival under mechanical transport [until burial].”

“After burial a variety of digenetic [chemical] changes in the rock can easily destroy shells. … In summary, the original composition and the groundwater chemistry are the most important factors in determining whether digenetic changes are likely to alter or dissolve a fossil.”

“Taphonomic research has come a long way since the pioneering studies of the 1960s and 1970s. Paleontologists can no longer afford to naively take the fossil record at face value, but must always keep in mind the taphonomic “noise” that may obscure the original biological ‘signal’.”

Lagerstatten:

“The processes outlined above account for most fossilization and what we know of the living organism is usually quite incomplete. However, there are extraordinary fossil deposits around the world that preserve soft tissues and sometimes even skin texture and color patterns. … These are known as Lagerstatten (German for “mother lode”), and they have produced some of the most important fossils known. … From all these examples, several general trends emerge. The best fossilization occurs when there is rapid burial and anoxic conditions to prevent scavenging, no reworking currents and little or no digenetic alteration to destroy the fossils.”

The Museum of the Rockies here in Bozeman is the realm of paleontologist Jack Horner. I have often heard Jack speak, pointing out that the dinosaurs of Montana were almost all killed and buried by catastrophic river floods near the shore of the inland sea that is now Eastern Montana, the Dakotas and related Canadian States. The bones and the geology both acclaim to that. Of course, these floods are considered local in extant. This same theme is echoed on many signs and posters through out the museum. Christian Skeptic (talk) 01:27, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

As I've stated above, we have to take care to avoid giving "equal validity" to fringe assertions. There seems to be a creationist attempt to portray "rapid burial" consistent with a global flood as a necessary precondition to fossilisation. The scientific rebuttal as stated in ToA is that many useful fossils result from much slower processes and need not involve burial, and while rapid burial or a cover of anoxic silt can produce the best fossils, such conditions commonly occur with local flooding. See below. . . dave souza, talk 11:58, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

The quotes above come from the textbook used for the Invertebrate Paleontology class at the state university I am attending. This represents current thinking among paleontologists and was emphasized by my professor. Other professors here have echoed the same sentiments. This is NOT WP:FRINGE thinking, it is current science in the realm of taphonomy. Get some real paleontologists, someone qualified, to edit this. Christian Skeptic (talk) 16:19, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

It is well-established in geology that (i) rapid burial has taken place in some localities, and (ii) in some cases this was caused by floods. Does anyone dispute that? I do not think that any geologist would dispute that if a Mosaic flood had occurred it would cause rapid burial and extensive (not necesserily rapid) fossilization. Surely the issue in the section that we are discussing is whether or not there is evidence in the fossil record to support a Mosaic flood. Not could a Mosaic flood produce fossils in general, but could a Mosaic flood account for the fossil record? This is what I have tried to address below. Babakathy (talk) 16:43, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

Proposal

Other creationists accept the existence of the geological column and believe that it indicates a sequence of events that might have occurred during the global flood. This is the approach taken by Institute for Creation Research creationists such as Andrew Snelling, Steven A. Austin and Kurt Wise, as well as Creation Ministries International. They site the Cambrian explosion — the appearance of abundant fossils in the upper Ediacaran (Vendian) Period and lower Cambrian Period — as the pre-Flood/Flood boundary, the presence in such sediments of fossils that do not occur later in the geological record as part of a per–flood biota that perished and the absence of fossilised organisms that appear later, such as angiosperms and mammals, as due to erosion of sediments deposited by the flood as waters receded off the land. Some creationists claim that fossilization can only take place when the organism is buried quickly so that the organic matter does not decompose. They claim that fossils are produced not by a process lasting millions of years, but by rapid burial of the remains of many of the Earth's life-forms by sediments in the short period of the flood. In contrast to this, paleontologists have said that rapid burial is not an essential precondition for fossilisation, and that there is evidence for organic matter surviving for centuries before fossilisation occurs. The Cambrian explosion has been explained as due to population dynamics, other ecological explanations and changes in the environment.

The current (and edit-warred) texts do not do justice to what the various authors actually say. And that is the point of this article, I think. Babakathy (talk) 08:52, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

I think this is a good direction, but I think some areas need a little more work to get it just right.

• "They [flood geologists] claim that fossils are produced not by a process lasting millions of years." This should be tightened. I think what the text in the source given indicates is that they would claim that the sediments the fossils are found in throughout the fossil column, the sedimentary layers, weren't deposited over millions of years. I don't think Brown was rebutting any claim that it takes hundreds of millions of years to produce a fossil. It's obvious to most flood geologists and scientists both, I would assume, that there are bajillion fossils dated less than hundreds of millions of years.
• [scientists say] "that there is evidence for organic matter surviving for centuries before fossilisation"--this needs tweaking. Isaak wrote that there is evidence that some remains can be exposed, or unburied, for centuries and later fossilize. The process of transformation into a fossil isn't really what the dispute's about, but whether remains always have to be quickly buried, and of course, whether there are other ways fossils can be buried besides a global flood event at single point in time. And the "organic matter" I think should be clearly spelled out: the source said "shells" have been exposed that long; bones over a year; and that only soft tissue requires quick burial to be preserved. With disputants on both sides ready to ballyhoo whenever they see an opening to criticize the other side's claims, we should be cautious when it comes to generalizations.
• "The Cambrian explosion has been explained as due to population dynamics,[7] other ecological explanations[8] and changes in the environment.[9][10] " Isn't this a little bit apples and oranges for this paragraph? (Synth problems also). The flood geologists aren't giving an alternative explanation here for the source of the cambrian explosion (I assume it would be special creation, but that's not the thesis of the para). Besides the "quick burial" bit, the para just talks about how these flood geologists interpret the boundary (flood event) and why Cambrian and post-Cambrian animal remains aren't found together in the fossil column. It doesn't talk about where the plethora of creatures in the Cambrian suddenly came from. Professor marginalia (talk) 19:38, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

Suggested revision: [First part sniped, acceptable as is.]

They claim that fossils are produced not by a process lasting millions of years, but by rapid burial of the remains of many of the Earth's life-forms by sediments in the short period of the flood.

When Brown says: "The worldwide fossil record is, therefore, evidence of rapid death and burial of animal and plant life by a worldwide, catastrophic flood,” he is not implying that rapid burial causes rapid fossilization. But that the evidence of the fossil record is one of rapid burial. He is not talking about how long it takes for organism to become fossilized by whatever processes. There is nothing in that entire reference that implies that.

The ONE thing that DOES implies rapid fossilization processes is the idea that the flood was only some 4000 years ago.

One should keep distinct the burial of an organism from the processes that caused it to become permineralized, recrystalized, replacemen, or whatever, resulting in the organism becoming a “fossil” in the colloquial vernacular rather than the strict scientific sense. Brown did. So did Morris.

The sentence above could be altered this way.

They claim that fossils are produced not by processes lasting millions of years, but by the same processes lasting for the short period of time since the flood .

Last sentence:

In contrast to this, paleontologists have said that rapid burial is not an essential precondition for fossilisation, and that there is evidence for organic matter surviving for centuries before fossilisation occurs. The Cambrian explosion has been explained as due to population dynamics, other ecological explanations and changes in the environment.

All of this explained on the fossil page and does not need to be repeated here. This article should be explaining what Creationists say without editorializing about if what they believe is true or valid. That should be left up to the readers. They don’t need to be told what they should think.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Christian Skeptic (talk • contribs) 05:02, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

Done. Babakathy (talk) 16:39, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

No. Please take care to read the source and say what the source says, and resist trying to explain ideas that aren't written in it. It doesn't say anything whatsoever about "the same processes" or "short period of time since the flood". It says the fossil record results from a single, catastrophic event - rather than the record of millions of years of slow change. The part about "rapid burial" is completely gone now. This edit is both wrong and less informative. Professor marginalia (talk) 16:57, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, much improved. Babakathy (talk) 18:35, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

An old, but potentially useful article

Towards a Creationist Understanding of "Transitional Forms", Kurt Wise 1995 (but currently linked to at Building the Model, Center for Origins Research at Bryan College -- so still considered relevant by creationists themselves). (Hat tip to Nick Matzke at The Panda's Thumb.) Hrafn^Talk_Stalk(P) 04:26, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

Referencing

I get the point of keeping page numbers. At some point though the article needs one reference system. However that means changing all put three existing inline citations to shortened footnotes or Harvard. Babakathy (talk) 12:39, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

Both are essentially subsystems of footnote referencing to avoid duplication while still allowing different page numbers, and are not generally employed as complete systems in their own right (you could do that -- but that'd just increase duplication for all the single-use citations). Dave prefers Harvard, for myself I prefer the simplicity of un-Havarded shortened footnotes, except where the references list is so long that connecting footnote to reference 'by eye' becomes problematical. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk(P) 13:47, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

My own preference is to continue to use inline quotes with ref name= for websites or similar single page sources, but to use inline Template:Harvard citation no brackets citations together with references in the References section formatted using Template:Citation so that the cite under the Notes section gives a link down to the full reference. To show page numbers, add a |p= section, thus harvnb|Isaak|2007|p=137}} That should work as with the Herbert reference, which also has an external link to the specific page number. Works for me, but I'm not a purist. . dave souza, talk 14:34, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

Cambrian explosion

I've removed this recently added sentence because it needs work. "In contrast to considering the Cambrian explosion as a result of a global flood, palaeontologists have explained it as due to population dynamics, other ecological explanations and changes in the environment."

It was appended to this paragraph :"If the flood were responsible for fossilization, then all the animals now fossilized must have been living together on the Earth just before the flood. Based on estimates of the number of remains buried in the Karoo fossil formation in Africa, this would correspond to an abnormally high density of vertebrates worldwide, close to 2100 per acre."

We need to start with the sources cited. Gould barely alludes to flood catastrophism (going back to the 1820s) - but do the other sources cited talk about flood geology or creationism? If not, this is WP:SYNTH. We cannot rebut flood geologists by searching out a handful of alternative explanations and citing those. No, we have to let secondary sources do these comparisons. Then we can cite them. So unless those other compare their theory to flood geology's explanation, we can't cite them. Even Gould is a bit of a stretch for other reasons besides synth.

But also, this is still confusing by inferring "cambrian explosion" was "caused by the flood". No. The flood caused the fossils to flood geologists. But where do they say that the flood caused the cambrian explosion? In the cite in the sentence preceding in "fossils" that we looked at first, [7], it doesn't say this. The Precambrian to flood geologists is the pre-flood time. That's when flood geologists think all these creatures lived. They think the Cambrian is when they were killed and buried. Does this make sense? So flood geologists don't think what science thinks about the cambrian explosion, but they don't think it was caused by the flood. They think the cambrian fossils were laid down and preserved by the flood. The cambrian explosion in science has an evolutionary explanation, or cause, to explain the seeming rapid appearance of very diverse organisms in the Cambrian era. But flood geology's explanation would presumably be something like, these organisms didn't rapidly appear-they were descendents of created kinds that lived in the precambrian, and the Cambrian fossils are just the graveyard from the flood. The flood explains the sudden appearance of the fossils to flood geologists. If we're going to juxtapose the two explanations for cambrian fossils, we need to explain this better, with directly related cites of course, and no synth. Professor marginalia (talk) 18:28, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

Some sources

Looks to me as though that paragraph needs a majority view statement, suggest CC300 for a source. Note that it cites the YEC book Morris, Henry M. 1985. Scientific Creationism.

As evidence at Kizmiller, Barbara Forrest testified re "the Cambrian explosion. This is a very frequently used target of criticism in evolution theory about the Cambrian fossil. Henry Morris in 1974 pointed out that there's a gap between the one celled microorganisms and the invertebrate phyla of the Cambrian period. I'll repeat that for you. Henry Morris in 1974 points out that there is a very large gap between one celled microorganisms and the mini invertebrate phyla of the Cambrian period, that species appear in the fossil record with no apparent precursors, which he calls no incipient forms leading up to them, and he doesn't anticipate, he forecloses any possibility that further fossil collecting will fill in these gaps."

Padian's testimony quotes (from downloadable pdfs of his slides) "[A]llthe kingdoms, phyla and classes in the organic world have been essentially unchanged since life began, and . . . even the orders and most of the families, genera, and even species appear suddenly in the fossil record, with no incipient forms leading up to them. . . . [W]hilethere may have been changes within the kinds (as provided by creative forethought) [i.e., a designer] . . . the kinds have apparently not varied since the beginning, except for those that have become extinct." (Henry Morris, Scientific Creationism, 1974, pp. 87–88) and also "“In the Cambrian geological strata there occurs a sudden, great outburst of fossils of animals on a highly developed level of complexity. In the Cambrian rocks are found billions of fossils of animals so complex that the evolutionists estimate they would have required one and a half billion years to evolve. Trilobites, brachiopods, sponges, corals, jellyfish, in fact every one of the major invertebrate forms of life are found in the Cambrian. What is found in rocks supposedly older than the Cambrian, that is in the so-called pre-Cambrian rocks? Not a single indisputable fossil! Certainly it can be said without fear of contradiction, the evolutionary predecessors of the Cambrian fauna have never been found." –Duane Gish, Institute for Creation Research, Impact 4, and Padian then provides rebuttals from molecular biology and the fossil record to show that the "explosion" took at least 30 million years, and that there is a lot of evidence of evolution before the "explosion", with, some 50 million years before the Cambrian boundary and even longer before some of the Cambrian explosion took place, evidence of metazoan embryos. . dave souza, talk 20:20, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

More issues with Fossils section and Counter evidence from science

The article now alternates between describing the counter-claims with the corresponding flood geologists claims in the same section, and keeping it separate and putting it in the "evidence against" section later. The counter-argument against the "rapid burial by flood" still isn't in the article anywhere, and it's not clear where it should go with this outline.

Also confusing is this, "Some creationists, notably Morris and Whitcomb in their 1961 book, The Genesis Flood, deny the existence of these pieces of evidence, as do leading contemporary creationists such as Michael Oard and John Woodmorappe.[23] [para break] Other creationists accept the existence of the geological column and believe that it indicates a sequence of events that might have occurred during the global flood." This makes it sound like there are flood geologists that deny the existence of the fossil column, including Whitcomb/Morris. But in the second paragraph about the flood geologists that don't deny its existence, Whitcomb and Morris are cited again. Are there fossil column deniers? Is this more than a semantic difference if both camps of flood geologists come to the same conclusions? And if this is more than semantic, can we do a better job describing who is who? Professor marginalia (talk) 18:48, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

The principle of showing majority view responses alongside minority view claims is a good one, it avoids giving undue weight to the fringe views and saves having to restate the creationist claim when rebutting it. Agree that consistency is a good idea. . . dave souza, talk 20:31, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

Where a statement is a response to a specific claim, it should go with that claim. The only scientific responses that should (potentially) go in their own section are those that are not in response to a specific claim (generally would tend to be critiques/counterevidence of Flood Geology more generally), which are sufficiently prominent to warrant inclusion, for which there is no reasonable pre-existing section for them to go into (and which aren't so earth-shatteringly important as to warrant inclusion in the lead). Hrafn^Talk_Stalk(P) 03:57, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

Philosophical objections

How about this discussion of the Occam's Razor approach: "If one explanation requires only natural processes and the other requires only a belief in an infallible Bible then Occam's Razor has no place in the argument."

Dan Watts (talk) 18:40, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

I personally also prefer to keep Occam's razor locked away in the medicine cabinet except in special situations, but I believe that "many scientists" believe this is one of those situations. We don't want to get into the business of deciding who's right here. More serious is the use of weasel words and the lack of reliable sources in this section. --Art Carlson (talk) 15:46, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

According to The Cambridge Companion to Ockham, the Occam's axiom was, quote, "for nothing ought to be posited without a reason given, unless it is self-evident or proved by the authority of Sacred Scripture". What a can of worms this turned out to be. Meanwhile, flood geology per se was a little too far off the radar to get much "philosophical" criticism, I'm afraid. It received theological criticism and scientific criticism-and the scientific criticism was due to its obvious errors, lack of objectivity towards evidence, and its invocation of fantastical scenarios that were inconsistent with the known laws of physics, etc. Ontological criticisms, if there were any, were very fringe-I can't find any sources for that kind of criticism. That sort of criticism did begin to creep up when creation science was introduced into public school science curriculums. The problem there is that most of those criticisms I can find by this time surrounded the biology related issues in creation science, not its flood geology. (I take that back-flood geologists would invoke "Occam's razor" now and then, ie calling "uniformitarianism" an invented assumption.) You hear a lot of more of the ontological criticism now-but that's only in terms of ID, which has a strong ontological theme associated to the debate--much more than flood geology or YEC/creation science. As the argument is phrased now in that section, I can't find sources for it. It was tagged a year waiting for a source, it was tossed in, unsourced, by an IP "to balance the page"[8]. Get rid of it. The argument was probably born on a messageboard some place. Professor marginalia (talk) 19:07, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

Lame edit war - input please

1. ...the explanation that only requires natural processes is to be preferred.
2. ...the explanation that requires only natural processes is to be preferred.

Quick straw poll on grammar: Which version is more precise? Looking at this another way, which is less ambiguous about the meaning of the word "only"? More to the point perhaps, is there any danger of either being misinterpreted as an attempt at POV pushing by young earth creationists?

• Version 2 is better. It makes clear that the word "only" is associated with the word "natural". In other words, this explanation is to be preferred to an explanation (in this case, flood geology) that requires processes which are not only natural (in this case, natural and supernatural). By contrast, in version 1 the word "only" is associated with the word "requires". This implies that the explanation is being compared with another explanation that does not only require natural processes - perhaps it also implies natural processes, or expects them, or creates them. Pick your own verb. I can't think of one that really fits. SHEFFIELDSTEEL^TALK 19:26, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

• 2 is much clearer, but without a source we can't have the article say something about which explanation is preferred. dougweller (talk) 21:15, 30 January 2009 (UTC)
• Neither without a reliable source given. Neither is consistent with Occam's Razor in its classical sense--the passage seems to be confusing Occam's Razor with methodological naturalism. Occam's Razor is "that explanation is best when it requires the fewest assumptions." Methodological naturalism is "an epistemology and methodology wherein all hypotheses and events are to be explained and tested by purely natural causes and events". To make it worse, the "belief in the Bible" thing is thrown in there in the statement, hopelessly confusing the whole argument. It's a poorly made argument there, and if philosophers or others are making it, it should be sourced. Occam's razor is a fitting argument to to use, but not formulated this way. I've actually got a good source that goes into detail how assumptions mount in flood geology as creation scientists work to resolve niggly problems presented by the vapor canopy, subduction, etc. I'll dig them out. Professor marginalia (talk) 21:49, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

Update: According to Massimo Pigliucci, the "objection" as sketched in the section now isn't raised by scientists, but raised by those holding to the philosophy of "scientific rationalism", some of whom of course will be scientists. Scientific rationalism isn't science, it's a particular metaphysical extension of two scientific maxims primarily, Hume's dictum and parsimony, into non-empirical, non-experiential realms. Even if the argument was reformulated to draw the lines more cleanly, neither alternative works because there's no preference, or choice, between natural explanations and belief in infallibility of the Bible in that position. In scientific rationalism, belief isn't okay even in the absence of natural explanation either. It's a long stretch of argument to tie the scientific rationalist's POV to flood geology-they definitionally disagree with any religious/supernatural supposition offered in any context, in any domain. I can't source this particular view yet more directly to flood geology. The sources I've seen so far have looked at the issue in terms of the larger creationism debate; and most writers (evolution supporters) approach it from the perspective that creationists are wrong when they attribute this POV to science, though some in the evolution camp, such as PZ Myers, claim the scientific establishment is lying/spinning to say science doesn't promote atheism. Even if this was reworked, is it both relevant and notable enough to mention in this article-can we source it to flood geology without WP:SYNTH? I still think the Occam's Razor criticism should stay with assumptions in flood geology about processes in terms of the natural world, ie climatology, physics, etc, and not characterize it in terms of supernatural vs natural. Natural vs supernatural is a "scientism" type criticism, and I'm not sure it qualifies yet as parsimonious or "philosophical". To explain what caused a hole in the dirt, for example, the answer "unguided natural processes" isn't always more parsimonious than, say, "the damn dog dug it".Professor marginalia (talk) 05:58, 31 January 2009 (UTC) Further note-Pigliucci may not have been trying to infer that this philosophical view goes by the name scientific rationalism-it may have been just his term for the view. The meaning he gives it in his argument is clear-but looking at philosophers Pennock and Forrest, they call the philosophical view Pigliucci was referring to "metaphysical naturalism". Professor marginalia (talk) 19:25, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

• The sentence I proposed in the previous section is preferable to me. Dan Watts (talk) 22:00, 30 January 2009 (UTC)
• #2 is clearly more consistent with Occam's Razor. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk(P) 04:00, 31 January 2009 (UTC)
• 2 is better. siℓℓy rabbit (talk) 04:05, 31 January 2009 (UTC)
• "essential pluralities and variables to be reason, experience, and the authority of scripture and of God" - [9] Dan Watts (talk) 16:32, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

It's been deleted as unsourced, probably OR and confusing. Professor marginalia (talk) 17:02, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

Lame indeed! I cannot distinguish the versions. ... said: Rursus (bork²) 21:48, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

1st par of Fossils

The 1st paragraph reads thus:

"Generally, the geologic column and the fossil record are used as major pieces of evidence in the modern scientific explanation of the development and evolution of life on Earth as well as a means to establish the age of the Earth. Some creationists, notably Morris and Whitcomb in their 1961 book, The Genesis Flood, deny the existence of these pieces of evidence, as do leading contemporary creationists such as Michael Oard and John Woodmorappe."

However, creationist do not deny the evidence of the geologic column and fossil record, rather they interpret the geologic column and fossil record differently. I'd like to suggests the following which is closer what creationists actually say. ( I don't have sources yet. but even the one supplied for woodmoreappe does not deny the fossil record but talks about different interpretation.)

"Generally, the geologic column and the fossil record are used as major pieces of evidence in the modern scientific explanation of the development and evolution of life on Earth as well as a means to establish the age of the Earth. Morris and Whitcomb in their 1961 book, The Genesis Flood, deny that the fossil record in the geologic column represents the evolution of life on earth over millions of years. The age of the fossils depend on the amount of time credited to the geologic column, which they ascribe to be about 1 year. Leading contemporary creationists such as Michael Oard and John Woodmorappe doubt the global extent of the geologic column since index fossils are used to correlate strata with strata across the map. And index fossils are dated by what strata in which they are indexed in the geologic column. So, they claim, the assumed evolution of life becomes the key to the order of strata in the geologic column." Christian Skeptic (talk) 21:20, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

I agree the section now muddles it. I've been working on sourcing this section better to clear it up. The "it doesn't exist" is overly simplistic. Starting with Price, he denied there was any chronology evident in the column, and minimized the degree to which there was any order or pattern in the fossil sequences at all. He emphasized that there was no location on earth where the column could be found in entirety. He called the theory of "thrusts" in thrust faults as a mass delusion among geologists. He dismissed the geological/fossil time scale as something of a tautology, ie strata are dated by their fossils; fossils are dated by their strata. Later flood geologists would take issue with some of his claims, yet share in his overall conclusion that the scientific interpretation of the geologic column couldn't stand. For example, some will allow much more than Price would that there are very obvious, evident patterns found in the fossil distribution. And some acknowledge thrust faults are real, and that dismantling the concept of geologic column is not so easy as Price let on. In Price's day, relative dating was about the only tool in the kit, and he viewed the geologic column as the one source of evidence used by scientists to claim the Earth was ancient. His work was first published for Seventh Day Adventists-the modern geology and the antiquity of the Earth indicated by the geological time scale were irreconcilable with the teachings of Ellen G. White. But let's be careful and source stuff before throwing anything up. Too much of that already. For example, do Oard and Woodmorappe really argue "the assumed evolution of life becomes the key to the order of strata in the geologic column" and all the rest? I assume they're accusing geologists of this assumption. But it seems to muddle up the explanation of index fossil correlation and dating, at least the last sentence doesn't logically follow. Maybe it's just not worded carefully. Professor marginalia (talk) 22:52, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

Here is a direct quote from Oard about the geologic column and fossils:

“Local stratigraphic sections seem to line up with the general order of the geological column at hundreds of locations around the world. But there are many problems with the details, such as 1) the geological column is a vertical or stratigraphic representation abstracted from rock units that are mainly found laterally adjacent to each other in the field, 2) research continues to expand fossil stratigraphic ranges, 3) different names are given to the same or a similar organism when found in different-aged strata, 4) taxonomic manipulations, 5) anomalous fossils, and 6) out-of-order fossils.”

Source: Oard, M., 2006, p. 99, Chapter Seven: The Geological Column Is a General Flood Order with Many Exceptions, In Reed, J.K. and M.J. Oard (editors), The Geological Column: Perspectives within Diluvial Geology, Creation Research Society Books, Chino Valley, AZ —Preceding unsigned comment added by Christian Skeptic (talk • contribs) 03:44, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

It's not much help to find him mentioning a specific example or analysis of a particular sequence in any one individual location's strata. We'll need more statements that make inferences to the overall geologic column. And this source doesn't verify anything in this proposed statement about doubting "the global extent of the geologic column since index fossils are used to correlate strata with strata across the map. And index fossils are dated by what strata in which they are indexed in the geologic column. So, they claim, the assumed evolution of life becomes the key to the order of strata in the geologic column." If Oard is suggesting that the concept of the geologic column is invalidated because he found a single odd anomaly, or a limited number of them; we'd still need a source for the general statement. That's not an obvious conclusion for anybody to make, and so if that's his conclusion, that this one local fossil bed invalidates the entire concept of a geologic column, the source needs to more explicitly say so. If broad statements are made about index fossils, we need sources talking about index fossils. If broad statements are made about "assumed evolution", we need sources that specifically talk about the manner in which flood geologists claim "assumed evolution" is necessarily the method used to interpret the geologic column.Professor marginalia (talk) 04:24, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

The quote above is a summary of what is presented in Chapter Seven: The geological column is a General Flood Order with Many Exceptions. It would take quoting the entire chapter to do the topic justice. And there are some 30 to 40 references from standard geologic literature that go with the article. How big of an article do you want? Also, the point of this article is to note what creationists say and think, not argue why they think that way. If people have issue with what Oard says all they have to do is inter-library loan the book and go into the details. I keep hearing that this discussion page is not the place to argue for or against creationism. The above is what a well known creationists has written and published. If you disagree with him, fine. But it is what he says. If you want to know why he said it, go read the book. Christian Skeptic (talk) 13:37, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

When any of us make a claim A about what Oard or someone says, either they have to have said A straight fowardly or they have to have said something B from which we can obviously infer A from. I haven't seen this book, but the section you quoted for the talk here doesn't verify the edits you proposed so I'm left to guess why you chose it. There's nothing in it about evolution, it's not an obvious conclusion from the statements given, and it's absolutely incorrect since the geologic column predates the theory of evolution by decades. To fit what's verified in the quote and verifiable here, this is better: "doubt the global extent {Some flood geologists} <dispute geology's assembled global> geologic column since index fossils are used to correlate link <geographically isolated> strata to other strata across the map. And index Fossils are often dated by what strata in which they are indexed in <their proximity to strata containing index fossils whose age has been determined by its location on> the geologic column. So, they claim, the assumed evolution of life becomes the key to the order of strata in the geologic column Oard and others claim that the identification of fossils as index fossils has been too error prone for index fossils to be used reliably to make those correlations, or to date local strata using the assembled geologic scale." Professor marginalia (talk) 15:15, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

This quote from Oard indeed does not talk about evolution and does not support part of what I wrote. However it does contradict what the paragraph originally said. I have no trouble with your rewrite. Christian Skeptic (talk) 02:57, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

Prediction 1 Evidence

Maybe I have overlooked something, but I don't see any comments addressing the paper Walt Brown used to attest the integrity of Prediction 1 from his theory (published in 1980). Additional papers from magnetotelluric experiments, sesmological studies, and lab simulations have evinced the presence of subterranean acqueous fluids. I feel it would be appropriate to cite that fact in this article along with a note about the nation-wide telecast of his theory.Tcisco (talk) 21:43, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

From memory, the fluids were in proportions too minute to be relevant to Brown's claims. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk(P) 04:29, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

Prediction 1 qualitatively addressed remnant, subterranean acqueous fluids, not the pre-flood conditions. Also, simulations by French and Japanese teams had inferred extant significant concentrations of water within the Earth's mantle.Tcisco (talk) 07:21, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

"PREDICTION 1: Beneath major mountains are large volumes of pooled salt water." The source that Brown quotes as "confirmation" only hypothesised the existence of a layer of rock "containing 10% of 100 S/m brine" -- hydrolysed rock not "pooled water". This is not even close to confirmation. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk(P) 07:56, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

Studies have indicated the mantle contains much more water than the oceans, but aqueous fluids are not a synonym for hydrolysed rocks. The phrase you quoted was one of several examples used by Wenbo Wei, a member of Project INDEPTH, to support its preceding statement: “A layer of aqueous fluids could produce the conductance observed in Tibet with a lower fluid fraction and/or layer thickness than considered above for partial melt.” Wei also stated a few lines further that geothermal activity can be attributed to aqueous fluids and seismic waveforms could evince aqueous fluids overlapping a zone of partial melting. The ten percent concentration of water in brine with an electrical conductance of 100 Siemans per meter is an example that does not exclude attributing zones of free aqueous fluids within the mantle as an explanation for the magnetotelluric bright spots. A seismic report published two years before Wei’s paper evinced 10% of the Tibetan middle crust containing free aqueous fluids. A few months after Wei’s article, Yoshino’s review of research on the Tibetan crust concluded a zone of trapped free water could explain the high electrical conductivity beneath the Himalayas. Additional papers by Project INDEPTH upheld zones of aqueous fluids overlapping partial melts as the best explanation for the magnetotelluric bright spots in the Tibetan crust. Widespread zones of aqueous fluids beneath the world's largest mountain range is in good agreement with Prediction 1. Other studies have yielded similar results that could be used to confirm Brown's prediction.Tcisco (talk) 05:32, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

1. "Widespread zones of aqueous fluids" does not equate to "large volumes of pooled salt water", nor do any of your other sources appear to be on point.
2. Hypotheses don't confirm anything.
3. None of this seems usable per WP:SYNTH. Do we have any WP:RS stating either (i) explicitly that Brown's prediction is right or (ii) stating in terms that don't require "interpretation" that "beneath major mountains are large volumes of pooled salt water"?

Hrafn^Talk_Stalk(P) 05:59, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

I did come across a WP:RS that reports that some of Brown's predictive models have had some measure of success. (The Evolution Controversy Fowler, Keubler) I can't recall any more than this. I'll hunt it down and take a closer look. Professor marginalia (talk) 18:29, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

More: In the book, the way the hydroplate thesis is described sounds very different from other creationist claims that called for more water during the flood than is found on earth now. The way it's described, there was approx half as much water pre-flood than there is today, the missing half was subterranean. This water was expelled setting off extreme rainfalls, and there were all manner of immense tectonic activity, plates sliding around quickly, ocean basins lifting, mountains and valleys appearing and disappearing--a complete resculpturing of the plant's surface topography. The first prediction is that "large pools of saltwater" should be found "leftover" in chambers under major mountains--but the claim it has been "verified" is sourced directly to Brown's website. The Brown website itself identifies this study, "Detection of Widespread Fluids in the Tibetan Crust by Magnetotelluric Studies" published in Science magazine as a verification of the claim, "why a thick, water-laden layer appears to be under the Tibetan Plateau"--and it requires a bit of an interpretative leap to assert that it confirms prediction one. First, the Tibetan plateau isn't "a major mountain", it's bordered by mountains. And the Science article didn't specify any estimate on the volume of aqueous fluid involved - it did toss out some numbers, estimating that a depth of 1.6 km of aqueous fluid would be needed at about 10% brine solution, but these were simulated-type estimates, not field measurements of any actual water. The Science authors did not seem surprised there could be water there - in other words, it was not a study that said, "scientists discover vast reservoir of water under Tibetan plateau". To paraphrase what they did say, "unusual conductivity in the southern plateau has two most likely factors, presence of a body of briney water at depths <15km and partial melt (not water) deeper under the surface." We can say Brown claims the Science article is some verification of his prediction--but that's about as far as it goes. Professor marginalia (talk) 20:37, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

I agree, Wendo Wei's article provided some verification - not precise confirmation. I believe it is worthwhile to cite that fact in this article. Attaining a rough approximation for a qualitative prediction is notable. Brown's book does not portray the pockets of liquids beneath mountains as pure water. Maybe Brown will cite Makovsky and Klemperer in one of his editions for a better confirmation. The other note that should be incorporated with the Wikipedia article is the fact that CBS telecasted his theory in 1993 across the United States and Canada. That is how I, among millions of other viewers, had first encountered it.Tcisco (talk) 03:52, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

I approve of this research into Brown. As I creationist and a geologist (Brown is not a geologist) I think Brown is wacked. However, I'd like to point out that most flood catastrophic theories today do not call for more water on earth during the flood than now. There is pleanty of water in the oceans to cover all continents. The question is how to get it onto the continents. Some theoris propose a sinking of the continents by a thousand feet or less accompanied with a rise in the sea flood by perhaps a thousand feet or less. Others, incorporate a storm of asteroids striking the earth during a 4 month period. As was illustrated on Jupiter, large asteroids can cause tremendous damage. On Earth impact-tsunami can move kilometer high waves ashore. Rather than just one asteroid which is blamed for killing off the dinosaurs, a storm of them causes innudation of the continents. It has been calculated that pushing about 1000 feet deep of water onto most of the slightly sloping continents would reduce the depths of the oceans by about 300 feet out of an average depth of 12000 feet. There is pleanty of water on earth as it is. And all the high moutains today are said to have formed at the end of the flood. However, I do not have much for documentation, though there is some. This is the talk among flood geologists and few preliminary flood models have been written. However, I hear that some are nearing publication stage. (Remember Whitcome and Morris are yesterdays news.) Christian Skeptic (talk) 06:09, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

At risk of going off-topic from discussion of improvements to the article... Have any of these models allowed for the catastrophic side-effects of such enormous and repeated tsunamis (effects of the waves on the ark, turbulence & mass relocation on sea-life, repeated exposure of shallow-water areas due to trough/draw-back, etc)? Also such an effect should leave very dissimilar remains than the previously hypothesised flood-and-receding. How would repeated tsunamis form the Grand Canyon, for instance? A frequent criticism of creationist models is that they tend to only explain single facts in isolation, but often (always?) conflict with the full set of scientific facts. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk(P) 08:54, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

<outdent>To keep clear where the boundaries are, we need to stick to researching "sourced claims made about Brown's flood geology" rather than "researching the science that may relate to Brown's flood geology". Apparently it's a very small organization, and Brown carries little influence in creation science (where his work was widely disparaged apparently). There's not a lot written about his flood geology that I can find. About all I can find of his work, period, has been a handful of claims made in Counter Creationism Handbook, a critique in Examination of the Research of Creationist Walter Brown, and the somewhat credulous The Evolution Controversy which takes Walt Brown's self-claimed "scientific verifications" posted on the Center for Scientific Creation completely at face value (there are no independent references cited and no explanation given about his work was supposedly "verified"). Note, the "examination" piece didn't go into flood geology topics. He's apparently at the fringes of fringe. Professor marginalia (talk) 17:54, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

Would tend to agree. No indication that he's developed any following, or gained much attention. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk(P) 18:10, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

Brown does have a fairly good following among creationists, but not among creationary geologists and scientists. Not long ago some of his supporters did flume experiments to prove his liquefaction theory and ended up completely disproved it. (See YouTube, Ian Juby) He still refuses to accept their results and they still agree with some of his other ideas. (Go figure!) He has a following because of his forceful, positive, this is the way it has to be, presentations backed up with quotes which are questionable, but the general public is unlikely to them trace down. As for the flood stuff you talked about Hrafn... It would take a lot of space to properly deal with them, and this is not the place to do it. But Flood catastophe modlers are aware of the points you bring up and have addressed or are addressing them. Christian Skeptic (talk) 23:05, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

With respect to acquiring a following, one should not overlook the fact that he narrated the five-minute animation of his theory that was included in the 1993 telecast by CBS to America and Canada of the film The Incredible Discovery of Noah’s Ark. His website states it was well received by 43 million viewers. I believe it is reasonable to assume that very few theories have been introduced with that kind of exposure.Tcisco (talk) 23:32, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

I found TIME article describing what seems to be Brown's ideas, with the all atomic bomb force et al. He's not named, though, nor is the theory. There was an admitted hoaxster on the program whose story garnered most of the attention, sounds like, with stories from others described as, "dubious testimony by 'experts,' many of them creationists who take the Bible's revelations literally and reject much of modern science. Without presenting evidence, these experts, most of them unknowns, made some startling claims." I don't know what use can be made with this here-I think it's an episode of docutainment type trivia, really. Professor marginalia (talk) 00:37, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

I felt that that film was a total embarrassment to creationism. The authors --Balsiger and Sellier--were trying to turn a quick buck off of the public's extreme interest, ignornace and gullibility. But then they got took themselves, by Jamal. Poetic justice. Christian Skeptic (talk) 02:27, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

The TIME article provides a summary of some of the responses to and the scientific integrity of CBS' telecast. Incoporation of the partial verification by Wenbo Wei and the TIME telecast assessmments could enhances the Wikipedia article through extended thoroughness. Estimated water contents of the mantle has some relevance too. References to those papers could be inserted elsewhere. It is clear that Brown was not the first author to predict suterranean waters. Aqueous concentrations beneath mountains may be the unique feature of his argument.Tcisco (talk) 15:28, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

"Verification" of what? All the Time article appears to 'verify' is that in a program "large segments" of which were "based on blatant and ludicrous pseudo science ... dubious testimony by 'experts' ... without presenting evidence, these experts, most of them unknowns, made some startling claims. Among them: ... The Deluge occurred when water in subterranean chambers burst through the earth's surface with an energy exceeding "the explosion of 10 billion hydrogen bombs." Hardly compelling. And lacking a reliable secondary source, any attempt to link Wei to Brown is pure WP:SYNTH. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk(P) 16:06, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

This is not an example of pure WP:SYNTH because Brown, not a Wikpedia editor, linked Wei's report to the hydroplate theory. Does a more reliable source than the TIME article have to be cited to document the response of the scientific community? Refuting the assessments of that article would require reliable secondary sources. The presentation of his theory to significant segments of national populations is the issue that diserves recognition by the Wikipedia article. The article clearly indicates the merits of his theory have been assessed. Citing the telecast does not alter those judgments.Tcisco (talk) 19:34, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

I'd toss the TIME coverage. It's too vaguely worded to use for this article, focused mostly on CBS's embarrassment for running it, and the hoax played. I think it requires too much "reading between the lines" to even recognize Brown's flood geology theory was alluded to at all there. All we can say about Wenbo Wei is that Brown cites it as confirming one of his predictions, but even that I think is too weak to contribute any content to this article. Of course a child knows there are subterranean bodies of water--any claim about whether or not this one particular "conjectured" large body of water in the southern Tibetan plateau "confirms" anything special would need a third party source, not Brown. So far this article doesn't even explain the significance to these "remnant" water deposits to Brown's concept.

Actually, Brown's flood model is monumental theater, if nothing else. I don't know if we want to take another crack at describing it or not. What's written now says, "the crust of the Earth cracked, allowing this water to escape violently to the surface"--but that's far more tame than Brown's description. In Brown, there's about a 1/2 mile thick layer of water about 15 miles below the surface, all around the globe, the topmost surface layer of the crust floated on top of this water, the enormous weight of which exerted extreme pressure on the water layer. That topmost layer cracked from the enormous stress of the pressures, with the force of "ten billion hydrogen bombs", ripping a split round the globe in just two hours, letting the subterranean water escape with "supersonic" speed (the Biblical "fountains of the deep"), sending rocks all the way to the moon (giving it all those many craters), and spewing water far out into the solar system eventually forming into what we call today "comets". Originally Earth had just one continent, one ocean, but after the massive rip, the big continent shattered into separate pieces forming separate continents that drifted apart about 45 mph, leaving all the canyons and mountain ridges, where weight and resistance interfered with the rapid movement and caused lumps and valleys on the surface. Some of the expelled water fell as the world's most violent rain storm, but another portion froze into "supercooled ice crystals" and fell to earth and formed massive glaciers (what we now call "the ice age", but this was about 4,000 years ago). Those woolly mammoths that we've found frozen in ice were actually buried in this ice fall. (I don't know if he's calculated how many years went by between the pair of mammoths leaving the ark to their or their descendants' ultimate burial in the ice fall. I don't know yet what he says happened to all the ice age ice pack. ) As the waters spouted through the crack, the walls of the crack were eroded and the silt and debris of the erosion was carried up in the water and spread over the earth's surface burying the remains of living creatures with the sediment, ie the geologic column. Thinning caused by the erosion at the crack combined with pressure exerted from the inner earth pushed the rocky plug up from the inside out, filling the crack with that bulgy scar known as the mid-atlantic ridge. The Grand Canyon formed in a few weeks, from the low spot at the corner of "Grand Lake" that spilled through the low spot, eroding it deeper quickly because the surface was then still soft, recently laid sediments. Skimming some of these elaborate details to the hydroplate model, I don't know if we've done justice to it yet. Professor marginalia (talk) 20:04, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

So the CBS telecast should not be cited?Tcisco (talk) 20:29, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

Not on the basis of the TIME article. It's not even specifically identified there. For the evolution creation topics, I don't myself think TV mentions should count for much, but I admit I'm fighting against the tide sometimes. For example, I wonder why nearly every time Penn and Teller mock someone on their TV program it warrants a hat tip mention in article mainspace at the wikipedia. But here, I think what sent us on this path in the first place was trying to answer the question about how much influence Brown's hydroplate model has in the field of flood geology. What other sources do we have to get some idea on this? Professor marginalia (talk) 21:03, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

I dont know of anything written that talks about the influence Brown has. Answers in Genesis may have say something about him. All I have to offer is my experience, which doesn't help much so far as wikipedia goes. Brown has a popular support from people who don't really know much. But creationary geologists have NO support for Brown. I know them all. Christian Skeptic (talk) 00:56, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

My experience is not too dissimilar to CS's. I've come across individual YECs whose support for Brown borders on fanatical, but have yet to see any support in anything that could be considered WP:RS/mainstream-creationist. I should probably clarify my previous statement to read "No WP:RS indication that he's developed any following, or gained much attention." On the Wei/SYNTH matter, Brown is not a RS (per WP:SELFPUB), so cannot be used to link Wei to his claims. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk(P) 03:15, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for diligently responding to my questions. I think we have "beaten the Brown horse into a fine powder." I rescind the suggestion to expand the hydroplate theory. But, while searching for the impact of Brown's theory for our discussion, I discovered Terry Mortenson's article from the Creation Ex Nihilo Technical Journal about George Bugg's theory that was published in 1827.[10] Bugg and other British scriptural geologists had attributed the volume of water to the "fountains of the deep" and rain. Mortenson, at a different link, compares the theories of Murray and Burton, contemporaries to Bugg. We should consider adding a comment, at least, about Bugg. Bugg's publication evinces the fact that Brown was not the first researcher to suggest subterranean water as a major source for the flood.Tcisco (talk) 06:13, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

With respect to WP:SELFPUB, inclusion of Brown's hydroplate theory may be a violation of Wikipedia policy.Tcisco (talk) 06:31, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

I can see two problems with drawing Buggs into this: (i) he is too obscure and too chronologically separated from Brown to have any real relevance & (ii) any attempt to make a linkage between the two would be SYNTH/OR. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk(P) 06:57, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

Way forward

Might I suggest that, instead of an investigation into the thoughts of a relatively obscure early 19th century evangelical Anglican pastor, we should instead be looking at the question of who the more prominent post-The Genesis Flood flood geologists might be, so that we can give them (and their viewpoints) coverage. Ideally such individuals should attain a reasonable degree of:

• recognition from their fellow creationists, including major creationist organisations;
• notice from the scientific community; and
• notice from prominent observers of the conflict

So who are they, and what sources do we have for their prominence? Hrafn^Talk_Stalk(P) 06:53, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

Looking through articles linking to this page for articles on living people, I came up with three names:

• Ariel A. Roth "a leading figure in the field of flood geology" but a zoologist.
• Leonard R. Brand -- biologist/palaeontologist advocate of ID. 'Flood geology' was only a 'see also' and may be erroneous.
• Marcus R. Ross -- YEC vertebrate paleontologist & ID advocate. 'Flood geology' was only a 'see also' and may be erroneous.

Any of these worthy of further investigation? Hrafn^Talk_Stalk(P) 07:11, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

• Dr. Roth's (retired) interest was/is coral reef growth rates--current and fossil. Thus his zoology was tied to geology. He has published in his field in std. and creationary publications and a recent book on Creation and flood geology. Christian Skeptic (talk) 14:48, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

• The wikipedia article on him is virtually useless -- unsourced and extremely short (except for a lengthy 'Selected publications' that does not appear to have been too selective). The Creationists has a small amount on him (notes that his PhD was in parasitology and that he has some formal training in geology), but not really enough to establish notability. Which probably returns us to the original question of "who the more prominent post-The Genesis Flood flood geologists might be". Hrafn^Talk_Stalk(P) 15:31, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

Roth's page has been updated from his "Vitae" which I obtained from him. His "selected publications" is indeed selected for it originally runs over one hundred publications. The main body of the article comes from the journal "Origins" web site where Roth was Editor for 20 some years. Christian Skeptic (talk) 15:20, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

An unpublished CV is not an appropriate source, let alone sole source, for an article. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk(P) 16:42, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

Seriously?

Do we have any article on real Mesopotamian floods in about 3000 BCE? Or if we are going to brag and boast, why don't we tell the entire solar system was flooded? Or the entire galaxy? ... said: Rursus (bork²) 21:50, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Here: History_of_Sumer#Pre-dynastic_period. The Deluge included Uruk and Shurrupak and even as far up as to Kish. No entire earth, just an entire Mesopotamia. You can stop wasting your energy now! Vacation!! ... said: Rursus (bork²) 22:26, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Well written

"The key tenets of flood geology are refuted by scientific analysis and do not have any standing in the scientific community."

This is much better than the insertion of an unsupported POV content fork by Wikipedia editors that raises this concept to a far greater importance in the scientific community than it has (none, except the source of some minor in-jokes). Keep it brief and get back on topic, real flood geology. --KP Botany (talk) 19:50, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

Needs to be Unbiased

Even though I agree with the article this still needs to be unbiased. Such sections as "have presented in support of flood geology has been evaluated, refuted and unequivocally dismissed by the scientific community, which considers such flood geology to be pseudoscience." need to be amended so as to show that this is not a closed topic but still has some serious debating happening . —Preceding unsigned comment added by Micro1123 (talk • contribs) 21:54, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

There is no serious debate on this within the scientific community. Any debate outside it may seem serious to those taking part, but isn't serious from a scientific point of view. dougweller (talk) 22:11, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

Sorry Micro1123: There's no "serious debate" happening. "Flood geology" is not part of real geology whatsoever: geologists have a nice clear record of "no global flood situation" as far as they can measure. If you can find some real (as opposed to say, the discovery institute) scientific bodies that are devoting any time to the notion of a global flood: then you might have some validity in your claim. A global flood did not happen as far as science is concerned (not only no evidence: but evidence to the contrary). NathanLee (talk) 22:22, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

If there's no debate, then what are these sections sourced to? This article is full of anti-pseudoscience quackery that appears to be trying to paint a big picture of a firm scientific stance against flood geology. This appears to be inaccurate POV pushing: no one is debating it seriously or otherwise. This sentence is bullshit. The sentence needs to be deleted, until it can be established that the scientific community or any part of it is discussing this. --KP Botany (talk) 08:20, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

The section does not say "there's no debate" only that "The evidence creationists have presented in support of flood geology has been evaluated, refuted and unequivocally dismissed by the scientific community" -- which is supported by the scientific rebuttals of the FG claims in 'Evidence cited to support a global flood' & 'Proposed mechanisms of the flood'. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk(P) 07:07, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

When was it "refuted and enequivocally dismissed by the scientific community?" Had it really such large standing that it required this, such thorough evaluation, refutation and unequivocal dismissal, by not just a few interested scientists, but by the scientific community at large? What's your source for this?

'Evidence cited to support a global flood' is not a refutation and unequivocal dismissal of flood geology, it's 4 1/2 paragraphs of flood geology theory, based on "creationist" references, and one single sentence at the end saying, "Most of this footprint evidence has been debunked by scientists[33] and some have been shown to be fakes.[34]" "Most" and "some" is not "unequivocal dismissal," but rather more what I am saying: no one spent a lot of time debunking this theory, because something far more interesting was coming out of world of geology that had real compelling evidence. And, 'Proposed mechanisms of the flood' is also a bunch of creationists theory.

What the creationists offer up is not scientists refuting the theory. This theory is not compelling to the scientific community right now. That's what evidence has been offered: no current sources showing anyone is afraid of or really interested in this theory outside of Wikipedia.

Who evaluated all of this evidence listed in paragraph after mind-numbing paragraph that you are quoting to me? Who refuted it? Who "unequivocally" dismissed it? When? --KP Botany (talk) 06:21, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

I think that KP Botany has a point. Although many early scientists viewed the natural world through the prism of the Bible, I'm not aware that there was any serious scholarly activity to tie the geological record in with the Bible (beyond points like noting mountaintop fossils as "evidence"). My reading is that no one really thought about doing this until after enough geological evidence had accumulated to render the idea of a global flood completely redundant and unsupported (in part because the practise of science, as a discipline, was also evolving alongside geology at the same time). As a result, flood geology as a theory is a relatively recent concoction invented in spite of the evidence. Certainly, many of the "mechanisms" described in the article were written long after "mainstream" science had provided adequate explanations. While some scientists have taken the time to refute flood geology in less formal venues (Talk.Origins and popular science books for instance), the scientific literature is not exactly replete with examples of comprehensive refutation. Not, as noted above, because scientists are afraid of flood geology, but because they're busy following scientifically profitable avenues, something that flood geology simply cannot provide - so contrary is it to what's known about the processes and history of the Earth. While it would be interpreted as synthesis (is there a way around this?), noting that the thousands of geology papers published each year deal with models of the Earth that completely preclude flood geology provides evidence of an implicit rejection of flood geology. Anyway, that's just my take on flood geology scholarship (and it's likely to be oversimplified and/or wrong), but I reckon that KP Botany may have a point about the article implying a careful consideration of flood geology that hasn't really taken place (at least, not in the shape of a formal, hypothesis-testing publication; largely because it's simply unnecessary). Of course, how we communicate this is another issue!  ;-) Cheers, --PLUMBAGO 09:11, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

Many of the geologists of the 18th century were ardent Christians, who did indeed attempt to "tie the geological record in with the Bible" and, when this attempt failed, invented Gap creationism as an attempt to make the bible compatible with their scientific findings. Global flood-compatible geology was thereafter abandoned by both the scientific and Christian communities until Seventh Day Adventist (and thus YEC-believer) George McCready Price resurrected the idea in the early 20th century -- an idea that later received widespread publicity with The Genesis Flood. So the general claims were refuted 200 years ago, with all the work since serving merely to solidify this refutation. The listed mechanisms are however indeed "recent", and are attempts to flesh out the original claims. They have not received widespread attention (but certainly enough for WP:PARITY), but the attention they have received has again refuted them. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk(P) 09:46, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

<undent> Dr Paul Marston (17 September 2002). "Charles Darwin and Christian Faith". Scibel, Gospelcom.net. Retrieved 2009-03-25. gives a useful overview, in line with Bowler 2003. The young Earth one flood laid all the deposits idea was the subject of scientific debate at the end of the 17th century, having already been questioned by Steno, and "by the late eighteenth century all schools of geology had concluded that the world was much older than previously thought" with John Wesley saying of flood geologists "I am more and more convinced that they have no foundation in Scripture or sound reason." In the 1820s there was a debate between geologists about whether the last of a series of catastrophes could be identified as a worldwide flood, concluding against by 1836: that's something needing added to the article. . . dave souza, talk 11:27, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

OK, so I was being a little dismissive of 18th century scientists!  :-) There's still the issue of the bogus mechanisms that more contemporary flood geology has invented. Since much of the article discusses these, the lead's implication that they've been carefully considered and dumped by scientists is still a potential problem. Perhaps reword the relevant portion of the lead to:

"Flood geology directly contradicts current science in disciplines such as geology, physics, chemistry, molecular genetics, evolutionary biology, archaeology, and paleontology,^[1][2][3][4] and the scientific community considers flood geology to be pseudoscience."

With some appropriate modern references (something from appropriate organisations like the AAAS, AGU, EGU, NCSE, RS?) to back up the trailing statement? Cheers, --PLUMBAGO 11:51, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

McLean v. Arkansas: "explanation of the earth's geology by catastrophism, including the occurrence of a worldwide flood. ... completely fails as science.... The creationist writers concede that any kind of Genesis Flood depends upon supernatural intervention. A worldwide flood as an explanation of the world's geology is not the product of natural law, nor can its occurrence be explained by natural law.[11]" . . dave souza, talk 12:47, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

Sites critical of flood geology

Is this a typical wikipedia article section, a collection of links, not necessarily academic nor peer-reviewed critical of the topic of the article? Should they be included in the article or not? I removed them for now, they can go back if agreed upon. --KP Botany (talk) 06:49, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

KP Botany: the topic of Flood Geology has not been part of the 'peer reviewed/academic' discourse since the late 18th century or thereabouts. The sites supportive of the view were removed due to an overly zealous interpretation of WP:EL, the sites critical of it were thereafter also removed as a WP:POINT tit-for-tat. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk(P) 06:57, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

Therefore, the question is about both set of sites, not about one or the other. Should they be included? They're not reliable resources and the topic is not in the purview of peer reviewed literature, so none are available through that avenue. It seems neither set of sites should be here. Wikipedia is not a random collection of links or an opportunity to promote any platform, making keeping internet links of this nature to an absolute minimum. Without any dearly necessary need to link to these sites, they should be left out of the article, or, if they pass any type of reference criteria, they can be used as part of the text. --KP Botany (talk) 07:07, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

I would further point out that the "Sites critical of flood geology" give WP:DUE weight to the majority, scientific viewpoint on the subject. WhoMadeGod removed them on the mistaken interpretation "per WP:ELNO #2 - sites present factually inaccurate material". When you threw a spanner in the works, I was just about to restore these ELs on the basis that while they may be inaccurate in terms of actual science, they are an accurate representation of creationist views, and thus may reasonably be included (especially in an article specifically on these views) when accurately labelled as such. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk(P) 07:06, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

• • That is a possibility, however, why should en.wiki be used as a platform for spreading creationist viewpoints, and this article in particular? Creation viewpoints on flood geology are discussed to a necessary degree within the article, there's no need to provide links to this also. --KP Botany (talk) 07:10, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

• 'Flood geology' is a "creationist viewpoint". Therefore any on-topic EL will of necessity be on this "creationist viewpoint" (be it pro/anti/neutral). It would seem to me that the reader of an article on this "creationist viewpoint" would benefit from further expansion, 'from the horse's mouth', of what this "creationist viewpoint" entails. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk(P) 07:18, 10 April 2009 (UTC)
• I would further point out that this argument does not support your sole action on mainspace, which is the removal of the pro-science/anti-creationism portion of the ELs. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk(P) 07:23, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

Just to point out, I can't delete what isn't there. --KP Botany (talk) 07:55, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

My sole action on mainspace? Huh? Is there some en.wiki policy that says I have to edit this a certain number of times? Quote the policy, and subscribe its relevance, or stay on topic.

The topic is these links. The first one is pure advertising, and wikipedia generally discourages links to web sites hosted by pure advertising. One or two of the others may be relevant on both sides or on neither--I'm not going to defend them. I think the links are crapping up wikipedia. It's clever that the creationists get them included by including the other side. Oh, wait, that's off topic, too. However, wikipedia is not a wholesale repository for links for both sides of an issue.

When a website can expand upon the information in the article in a specific way, add it. When it doesn't or can't stop soapboxing. The website should be informative, have some substance, and be directly related to the specific article. What you've done is add links to creationist platforms of incredibly poor quality (just generally poor, not content wise) to a whole slew of articles.

So, which links do you think belong and why? Specifically, link by link. Or, why the reader needs a dozen links if that many are necessary. And, please, link to the specific topic at the website, not the main page of each web site. Go for it for all of the articles you are adding these websites to. The horse's mouth sometimes vomits, also, and if you're discussing its intake, the vomit is not beneficial. --KP Botany (talk) 07:34, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

I would like to point out that I am not defending any specific EL, or even the number of ELs -- I was merely objecting to the wholesale removal of all ELs on one side (WhoMadeGod) or the other (Christian Skeptic, KP Botany), none of whose edit summaries contained what I would consider to be legitimate justification for such baby-with-the-bathwater tactics. By making all the ELs the subject of debate, it has further complicated things, by necessitating keeping track of all of them in the debate, including ones that (as far as I know) nobody is specifically objecting to. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk(P) 10:02, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

Try to get your facts straight, Hrafn. I deleted all of the remaining ELs, not the one on one side, and I deleted the heading, and I moved all of the links from both sides to the talk page. So, I'm assuming from your including your dislike of my edit summary ("→External links: actually, let's move them to the talk page and discuss the issue--i've never seen a en.wiki article with a critics sections") and your following comments that what you object to is having to discuss the issue with other wikipedia editors on the talk page. Doesn't matter if you object to discussing issues on article talk pages and would rather revert war--objection noted. Discussion wins. --KP Botany (talk) 20:52, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

I have no problem with there being ELs to either side of an issue, it is the wholesale censorship of one side that I find offensive. It is not the job of WP editors to editorialize over truth. WP is not about truth. It is about telling what exists using reliable sources. This article is about Flood Geology, which is a creationary endeavor. It is not up to naturalists to editorialize over whether Flood Geology is truth or not. The readers are smart enough to tell when they are being railroaded. The article should accurately tell what creationists themselves think about Flood Geology, not what critics say-creationists-say. That is like having socialists explaining the benefits of capitalism--its not close to accurate.

I have no problem with there being a section/s explaining why naturalists consider Flood Geology pseudoscience. But I do have a problem with naturalists censoring sources as unreliable just because they support the creationary view rather than the naturalist view. After all, since this is about a creationary position, creationary sources should be used to explain the creationary position. Naturalist sources should be used to support the criticism of the creationary position. To censor one side or the other is biased editorializing. Christian Skeptic (talk) 14:22, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

Christian Skeptic - flood geology (FG) makes scientific claims about the history of the world. These claims are judged false by streams of scientific evidence that range from astronomy, biology and geology, all the way to fundamental physics (i.e. not just evolutionary biology to say the least). As it purports to be science (rather than theology), when we report FG here it is important that the appropriate scientific evidence is clear. If that paints FG as a charade based on little more than wishful thinking, well, so be it. On matters of science, the reality-based view takes precedence. Please see WP:WEIGHT and WP:FRINGE. --PLUMBAGO 14:51, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

Actually, Flood Geology interprets scientific study of nature within the predefined assumption of Biblical creationism. In other words, FG starts with the assumption of Creation and the Flood and interprets data within that paradigm. Since Creation and the Flood are assumptions within which FG science is done, that science cannot falsify the assumptions. For Flood Geologists, Creation and the Flood are not hypotheses to be proved by science, but facts that guide interpretation of science.

Pronouncements by naturalistic scientists, who reject creationary assumptions, are completely irrelevant to creationists and flood geology. Naturalistic scientists work within a mutually exclusive paradigm from creationism and so their interpretation of science is incompatible with and irrelevant to creationism. So editorializing by naturalists does not prove FG false, but simply shows their biases. Christian Skeptic (talk) 15:29, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

Christian Skeptic, we don't care whether or not FG is false, our task it to show it in the context of the clear majority view. It claims to be scientific, it doesn't comply with basic science, and in the overwhelming majority view is clearly pseudoscience. That must be reflected in the article to comply with WP:PSCI and WP:NPOV/FAQ, as well as the guidance at WP:FRINGE. As a religious view (not scientific) it's been a minority view since the 18th century, but has had a significant vogue in the US since 1960 and we should show that. . dave souza, talk 16:38, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

Scientific positions are not determined by majority. FG does not comply with science as interpreted within naturalism (which you think of as 'basic'). In naturalism, FP is considered pseudoscience, when in reality it is irrelevant to naturalistic science. In Creationism, naturalistically interpreted science is irrelevant. Naturalism (either metaphysical or methodological) is a philosophy that is held just as fervently and religiously as creationism, as is witnessed by the recent impassioned exchanges here.

This is an article about a minority view and should reflect what that minority actually thinks, not what critics think they think. The majority view is overwhelmingly represented throughout WP and hardly needs mention in this article. Besides, since FG is so obviously wrong, why would anyone get worked up and heated about it? WP is not about truth. It is about explaining what exists based on reliable sources. NPOV does not mean majority rules, it means that an topic is written from a NPOV. Fringe is not talking about majority rule knowledge in general but fringe with respect to the topic of the article, which is FG. This article is obviously about what the majority of scientists think as pseudoscience. All that is needed is a note to that effect. But at the very least, it should express what Flood Geologists actually say and not what critics say they say.(seems like I've said that before somewhere.) Else it degenerates to propaganda. Christian Skeptic (talk) 17:16, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

That's not what the policies say, and we stick to the policies. If your fringe view is that the majority view is propaganda which you don't want shown in this article, you're in the wrong place. Also note that articles should be based on reliable third party sources, care must be taken to avoid original research in expressing "what Flood Geologists actually say". . dave souza, talk 18:14, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

@Christian skeptic: Science, as it is currently defined, is methodological naturalism. And a discipline that makes conclusions that it calls science but aren't conclusions derived from methodological naturalism are called pseudoscience. Metaphysical naturalism isn't a science either, it's a philosophy. If flood geologists disagree with this definition of science, or naturalism, that's worth describing here. But Wikipedia doesn't adopt these positions when writing about its topics, it describes them. Can you be specific about where in the article the views or claims in flood geology are misrepresented? Professor marginalia (talk) 18:23, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

unindent} Our NPOV policy says "In pseudoscientific topics, the task before us is not to describe disputes as though, for example, pseudoscience were on a par with science. Pseudoscience is a social phenomenon and therefore may be significant, but it should not obfuscate the description of the main views, and any mention should be proportionate and represent the majority (scientific) view as the majority view and the minority (sometimes pseudoscientific) view as the minority view; and, moreover, should explain how scientists have received pseudoscientific theories. This is all in the purview of the task of describing a dispute fairly." So, although it should include what fringe authors have to say, 'all that is needed is a note to that effect' is not the case. And I'm sure you are aware of WP:Fringe which applies here. Dougweller (talk) 18:32, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

Sites critical of Flood Geology

• Answers In Creation — Old earth creationist website explaining the problems of young earth flood geology
  • These are book reviews and links to other sites. Pick a link and tie it in if it does, but not a web ring. --KP Botany (talk) 07:52, 10 April 2009 (UTC)
• Flood Geology at the TalkOrigins Archive
  • Standard anti-creationist fare from a well-known group that speaks out on the issue. Should be fine. And, linked to the correct page in the link. --KP Botany (talk) 07:52, 10 April 2009 (UTC)
• History of the Collapse of "Flood Geology" and a Young Earth, adapted from the book The Biblical Flood by Davis A. Young, ISBN 0-8028-0719-4
  • Excerpt from a book used in the article's text, probably okay. --KP Botany (talk) 07:52, 10 April 2009 (UTC)
• An extended course syllabus from The College of Wooster
  • A collection of links, and, really, it's the syllabus to a college course. Why not pick a link from there, rather than giving the reader a collection of links. --KP Botany (talk) 07:52, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

Flood geology sites

• The online home of Dr. John Baumgardner's work related to the Genesis flood
  • Current working Ph.D. geophysicist who supports flood geology, if not this specific theory.--KP Botany (talk) 07:48, 10 April 2009 (UTC)
• Answers in Genesis' Geology Questions and Answers Page
  • The primary answer from this page is a link to the link right above it. Both aren't necessary. --KP Botany (talk) 07:48, 10 April 2009 (UTC)
• Center for Scientific Creation of Walt Brown, featuring his 'Hydroplate Theory'
  • Good grief, another person with a background in the sciences/engineering who proposes a theory of flood geology. Then, link to his hydroplate theory chapter in the book.[12] This, like the one above (but not the one that just links to the one above) actually expands upon this article. --KP Botany (talk) 07:48, 10 April 2009 (UTC)
• Biblical Evidence for the Universality of the Genesis Flood - Richard M. Davidson - John Nevin Andrews Professor of Old Testament Interpretation - Old Testament Department - Andrews University, Berrien Springs, Michigan
  • Neither the Geoscience Research Institute nor the author, Davidson, are mentioned in the article. If they're not important enough to mention specifically, then the link is not needed. --KP Botany (talk) 07:48, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

Criteria for external links

First, if the link is a reference in the article, it shouldn't be listed as an external link.

There should only be a small number of links -- 5 or so is considered the maximum usually.

In a case such as this, fringe sites should come after mainstream sites and be the minority. Dougweller (talk) 08:00, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

That's a usable number, rather than these lists of a dozen, half pro the other half con creationism/science. The lists are now just unsorted, unverified, unchecked, piles, er bandwagons of POVs. I think not double dipping is a good idea. If it's a reference, don't use it as a link. However, the primary criterion for external links that seems to apply in this case is whether or not they expand upon the article. Since most of the links that are actually usable are citations in the article, then maybe none belong. I don't see external links used often to enhance articles rather than push a POV on wikipedia. I'd be happier with far fewer. --KP Botany (talk) 08:05, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

Excluding links that are already given in inline citations, websites that are the best representatives of the flood geology topic can be included, if there are any left that aren't already cited. The topic is flood geology and it's silly to censor flood geology sites from the el list. But there are fringe theories within flood geology too, and that's where we need more discretion. NSCE's Eugenie Scott is unquestionably an expert on creationist movements in the US, and a couple years ago she identified the 3 biggies in creation science as Answers in Genesis, the Institute for Creation Research, and ... I'm not kidding, Kent Hovind. These three already have huge numbers of followers-this isn't a situation where wikipedia would be giving them a higher profile they currently have. All three cover flood geology. Others, such as Walt Brown, have nowhere near the coverage and I'm not sure as strong a case can be made for including some of the lesser knowns in the el. Professor marginalia (talk) 16:59, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

Prominance, WP:DUE & WP:POINT

Neutrality requires that the article should fairly represent all significant viewpoints that have been published by a reliable source, and should do so in proportion to the prominence of each.

— WP:DUE (my emphasis)

• This dispute started when Christian Skeptic introduced a new section, sourced to one WR Spencer.
• As Spencer is not a prominent creationist (nor AFAIK was the CSF who sponsored the conference it was presented at prominent either), and as the material did not appear to be balanced by the majority scientific view, I reverted.
• Christian Skeptic re-reverted on the basis that the ICC conference has some degree of prominence among the creationist community.
  • However that does not mean that all opinions presented at ICC are themselves prominent. Also it should be noted that ICC's 'prominence' does not appear to extend to notice from acknowledged observers of creationism, or the mainstream media.
• Upon my second reversion, Christian Skeptic reacted by the same tit-for-tat WP:POINT tactics he displayed in the EL dispute above, both on this article ([13][14][15]) and on Creation science ([16][17]). I would note that, unlike Spencer, both Walt Brown and Kent Hovind are prominent creationists, having their own articles and being mentioned in sources both in the mainstream media, and such books as The Creationists and Creationism's Trojan Horse.
• I would conclude by stating that the above policy quotation disproves the edit summary for this edit from Farsight001, which claims "prominent is irrelevant. WP:UNDUE"

So the issues before us would appear to be:

1. Are Spencer's claims sufficiently prominent to be featured in this article?
2. Are Brown's and Hovind's?

For the reasons stated above, my own opinion is 'no' & 'yes' respectively. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk(P) 01:33, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

Actually, I cited undue because it is undue weight to include their arguments, no matter how prominent they are, without the counterarguments as well. No counter position against the minority position is undue. It does not matter how prominent they are in regards to whether or not it is undue. Sorry if there was a misunderstanding.Farsight001 (talk) 01:50, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

The 'Hydroplates' & 'Vapor canopy' sections already featured "the counterarguments as well." Hrafn^Talk_Stalk(P) 02:56, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

Well if that's the case, my apologies. I must have missed the counterarguments. :( Farsight001 (talk) 07:26, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

all creationists are WP:FRINGE/"cracked pot[s]"

The above quote is from a recent edit summary. Can someone please tell me why we allow people who show such unabashed bias to edit these articles and prevail? There's no way such an editor and such edits be allowed on articles about, say, the fringe 9/11 Truther and Dominionism conspiracy theories. 67.135.49.198 (talk) 16:16, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

Because the "cracked pot" label was originally applied by one creationist (an editor) for another creationist (who claims the former was attempting to delete). I was merely pointing out that the use of the phrase was decidedly WP:POT (and that the scientific community generally doesn't see too much difference between the 'cracked pot-edness' of various creationists). Those who live in glass houses should not throw stones -- and when they do throw them, they should expect to live with the consequences. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk(P) 16:59, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

(Edit conflict) As you can probably tell from the history of this article, things often get quite heated here. While this is not an excuse, it does mean that edit summaries are not always diplomatic. Disregarding the "cracked pot" remark, it is certainly true that the ideas of Young Earth creationists (YECs) fall within WP:FRINGE. The prevailing scientific view from fields as varied as astronomy, biology and geology is that the Earth is far, far older than YECs claim, and that this is supported by many and varied streams of evidence. Furthermore, it is not simply the case that YEC ideas represent a minority opinion in scientific circles, they have been falsified and simply do not appear in the scientific literature. As such, they are WP:FRINGE. That's not to say that scientists who are also YECs do not publish in the scientific literature (they do), just that they do not publish YEC ideas there. As it happens, topics like the 9/11 Truth Movement are identified in Wikipedia as conspiracy theories. I hope this helps. --PLUMBAGO 17:07, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

Water/Vapor Canopy

Any attempts to find any information about the biblical account of the flood in Wikipedia are redirected to this article or the one called Deluge Myth. As this article goes into the more specific aspects of that subject than does the other one, this article is the place where the aspect concerning the "waters above the firmament" (i.e., water/vapor canopy) should appear, for it is a key point in the subject of a world-wide flood. After reading much of the discussion on the matter, there is no doubt but that many who have been editing this article would prefer that the whole subject would not appear in Wikipedia at all. The same is probably true regarding any articles on God or the Bible. But even if the whole biblical account is pure fantasy, any article on that fantasy should at least contain an accurate account of the subject from the facts available from its point of view. The word "consensus" is being thrown around a lot, but the original intent of any "consensus" seems to have degenerated into a bully pulpit for many. That is, instead of there being a "consensus" as to a fair presentation of the various aspects of the subject (be those aspects right or wrong), the so-called weight of the "scientific community" is being used to suppress an unbiased presentation of the heart of the subject itself. That is, in many articles where the subject is considered by many to be fictional, at least the various aspects of the fiction are allowed to be stated. But, apparently not in this one. Most curious. If this article is supposed to a purely "scientific" dissertation on the subject, then there should be another separate one on the biblical subject itself.Anyone77 (talk) 03:07, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

This material is almost entirely unsourced, and at approx 1/3 the pre-existing length gives WP:UNDUE weight to the issue. I have removed it. A shorter, well-sourced version would probably be appropriate however. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk(P) 04:25, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

I'm not a big fan of adding citation needed tags to material as it's written. Either it has a source, or it shouldn't be included in the article. Parts of the new material were sourced, and could be included in this article. Firsfron of Ronchester 04:54, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

Here is the problem. Most all of those unsourced arguments against the Water Canopy idea are real, current arguments. They even appeared in the previous version of the subject, though they were unsourced. But the problem is that they are all basically speculative and unsound from the start. So how does one find a reliable source for speculative thinking that will be acceptable to people? Moreover, how does one speak of the arguments against a point (as bogus as they may or may not be) without mentioning them? If an unsound argument is raised by someone of prominence, it holds no more weight than if it was raised by someone obscure. So, what is wrong with stating a common proposition that is really being made in certain circles without stating its source. I would think that one who has raised a bogus point would prefer not to be identified at all.

The idea of the Water canopy stands on its own as a relevant aspect in the flood subject. The length of the section can be shortened by removing the discussion of the pros and cons of it, but that discussion is also relevant. The part about how people use Vail's conclusions for or against the issue also seems relative because some have pointed to his work previously. That part about Carbon Dating is also a key point in the overall issue, so how can it be removed? The very fact that the whole section was removed seems to indicate that there may be a prejudice towards the subject, because suggestions may have been made to improve it, other than complaining about its length. One way to suppress a subject it to limit the discussion of it due to its length. So, unless you have better complaints, I will put it back in without the "citation needed" tags.Anyone77 (talk) 14:37, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

Where do the arguments against the Water Canopy come from? If it's a book, the title, author, and page number are needed. If it's a website, the URL is needed. Wikipedia is not a publisher of original research. Where does this material come from?

Please do not insert material which has no apparent source. Some of your material looks sourced, and a portion of it could be added to the existing article. The rest of the material, the stuff you were adding citation needed tags to as you wrote it, cannot go into the article until it has a source. Best, Firsfron of Ronchester 14:53, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

Since some of your statements suggest that you missed the tag at the top of this page, I reproduce it here:

Trying to put the material back before reaching a consensus here is against the rules of Wikipedia and, I assure you, will be unsuccessful. If you really want to collaborate to improve the article, choose one small change that you think is most important and for which you can make the strongest case, and then discuss it here until you are able to persuade your fellow editors. (On an aside, there are a number of things that you do not seem to understand about physics. This is not the place to discuss them, but if you want to contact me off-line, I will try to explain them to you from my position as a physicist. ) --Art Carlson (talk) 16:56, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

As you can see I put back a part of the Water Canopy section. It has sources and balance which were said to be necessary. I would like to know what objections someone had to the part about the Mayan/Tower of Babel paragraph in the "Widespread flood stories" section? What was stated therein (with a source reference) is a fact, but it was removed, while the mere speculative suggestion that the "rapid filling of the Black Sea (c.7,000 BC) at the end of the last Ice Age may be responsible for the flood myths in the Near East" remains. Hmmm?Anyone77 (talk) 00:57, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

Now it appears that Aunt Entropy is using the blanket of better defining the word "some" to hide the fact that he removed another relevent portion of my addition, without discussion nor complaint. The name he added did not even have a reference to any place where the man stated what he says he states. People complained of me doing that, yet when Aunt Entropy does the same thing without complaint. Where is the fairness of that?Anyone77 (talk) 03:07, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

I have pruned away the material that Anyone77 has readded that is wholly unsourced (and have tagged one piece that Aunt Entropy didn't prune that is likewise unsourced). I do however still see the following problems:

1. WP:UNDUE weight to the Davidian Seventh-day Adventists' (a very minor fringe sect) excessively-long quote
2. Improper WP:SYNTHESIS of what the Bible is "implying"
3. Inclusion, without citation for context/relevance of scientific discussion of the effect of carbon dioxide on the atmosphere, implying (falsely, I suspect) that this supports the vapor canopy hypothesis. I seem to remember seeing an opinion that stated, to the contrary, that this much water vapour in the atmosphere would turn the Earth into a pressure cooker, killing all life.
4. Lack of any direct scientific commentary on whether this hypothesis is practical within the laws of physics, etc (WP:FRINGE & again WP:DUE).

Hrafn^Talk_Stalk(P) 04:10, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

I have replaced the irrelevant (volcano carbon dioxide) scientific commentary, with commentary specific to this hypothesis. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk(P) 04:25, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

I agree with Hrafn about the length and emphasis of this section. Expanding the article so that a quarter of it dealt with one particular outlandish "theory" is heavily WP:UNDUE (though it is amusing to read what passes for creation science). I've (in my guise as a non-logged-in anonymous IP) tried to trim the remaining quotation back further to its most relevant portions, and I've made a few other copyedits to generally tidy up and expand references (i.e. URL-linking a citation in another wiki is not proper referencing). But extensive use of such a meandering quotation seems indulgent, especially given the nonsense physics that underpins it. Can the gist of it be better summarised? And what do AiG have to say on the vapour canopy? They're generally fairly thorough on creation science (if completely wrong-headed on science). --PLUMBAGO 08:07, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

Come to think of it, if we're talking about Adventists' views at all, shouldn't it be the opinion of the Geoscience Research Institute (who are the official creation science arm of the mainstream Adventists), not the religious leader of a splinter group? Hrafn^Talk_Stalk(P) 09:30, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

The truly odd thing about the vapour canopy theory is that it's a hypothesis which is advanced purely to explain another hypothesis: one begins with the proposition that the Bible is a factually accurate description of events, (Genesis 1's line about "waters above" the Earth, plus the Flood narrative), and then one advances another hypothesis to explain the first. At no point is there any reference to the world outside the text. PiCo (talk) 02:38, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

The view may be odd, but a viewpoint of privileging the Bible over scientific discoveries does seem to be pervasive in YEC circles (e.g. see organisations' statements of beliefs, statements contained in creationist textbooks & statements made by Kurt Wise). There's little we can do beyond simply documenting the viewpoint & the evidentiary problems it creates for its subscribers. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk(P) 03:14, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

I realize that no one cares, but the vapor canopy idea has largely been abandoned by Flood scientists and geologists. It is still held by some in the general public because the one old book that promoted the idea is still in circulation. There have been articles in creationary publications that point out the problems with the idea, but it is not allowed to quote from them because 1) it is always called original research to do so, or 2) called fringe view point and deleted. This page basically lies by continuing to claim that the vapor canopy idea is a current creationary position. But what else can you expect. No one here is interested in truth, but just to smear BS all over the place............ Christian Skeptic (talk) 14:33, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

From your knowledge, what is most commonly held by flood geologists today to be the source of the flood waters? If not atmospheric sources, then subterranean sources? Or extraterrestrial sources? --Art Carlson (talk) 14:44, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

There are a few flood models: Hydroplate, Catastrophic plate tectonics (CPT), Asteroid impacts. (note: These flood models assume that the Genesis Flood is a fact.) The Hydroplate model has popular general public interest but few adherents among creationary scientists. Rains come from water ejected from below crust. Flooding is also by sinking of continents. CPT is promoted by some PhD creationary scientists, problems with it are noted by other equally degreed creationists. Flooding is by tsunami from oceans, rains are a side product. Asteroid impacts are credited in two models -- Asteroid impacts w/CPT and Asteroid impacts w/vertical tectonics. There are critics of both among creationary scientists. Flooding is by tsunami from oceans, rains are a side product. Discussions of these models are found in creationary publications, which are, of course, automatically rejected as FRINGE so....... So all you get are anti-creationists misrepresenting creationists and claiming this is what creationists say. No one cares what creationists actually say nor why. It's all automatically pseudoscience because everyone knows that creationism is pseudoscience. It doesn't matter if they are misrepresented or not. They're FRINGE freaks anyway.... Christian Skeptic (talk) 19:36, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

Calm down a little - personally I care a great deal that the article should represent the subject accurately. If academic creationists say something we should note it; and if something else is believed at a popular level (vapour canopy) but not at the academic, we should note that too. As for fringe, the entire idea of flood geology is fringe, but there are, so to speak, mainstream fringes and fringe fringes. You're welcome to describe here (preferably in a new thread) what you think should be covered.PiCo (talk) 01:10, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

I agree with the "mainstream fringes and fringe fringes" division, and would suggest that one aspect of being "mainstream fringe" is being sufficiently prominent that mainstream science sources have commented upon the claims (thus meeting both WP:FRINGE & providing a reliable secondary source showing that the inclusion of the material meets WP:DUE). Hrafn^Talk_Stalk(P) 05:00, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

It seems like the article as it now reads represents the situation roughly as CS presents it.

The source currently most often discussed is that the ocean basins were closed by some form of rapid tectonics, spreading the water over the whole Earth.

In the last decade, most proposed flood mechanisms involve "runaway subduction" (the rapid movement of tectonic plates) in one form or another, ...

Furthermore, the section Vapor/Water Canopy cites the years 1912 and 1940 prominently, at least suggesting that the hypothesis is not currently so important. I'm sure improvements can still be made, and I believe the Vapor Canopy section was just recently expanded by one editor, so we might want to consider rolling that back a bit.

(By the way, is there a difference between "assuming that the Genesis Flood is a fact" and "examining the consequences of the hypothesis that the Genesis flood is a fact"?)

--Art Carlson (talk) 10:28, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

In response to your parenthetical, I think there is a difference. "Examining the consequences of the hypothesis that the Genesis flood is a fact" would lead to rejection of the hypothesis if no scenario of the consequences could be found that meshed with known science. "Assuming that the Genesis Flood is a fact" (as a non-negotiable presupposition) would lead instead to adopting what you perceive to be the least-implausible scenario -- hence the widespread disagreement among Scientific Creationists about how the Flood happened (as they have different perceptions as to the scenarios' relative implausibility). If you believe that the Flood definitely happened, therefore there must exist a scenario by how it did happen, so you'll only reject your current preferred scenario when you faced by one that you perceive to be more plausible. Rejection of all scenarios as implausible is simply not an option from this viewpoint. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk(P) 10:59, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

Creationists consider the Flood to be a fact, not an hypothesis. It is a fact just as is Jesus' birth, life, death and resurrection and that Jesus is not only The Savior, but also The Creator and The Judge. And all this is based upon witness evidence of the Bible alone. These are not hypotheses to be disproved by science.

All geology is to be interpreted within the fact of the Flood. There a currently several flood models being developed at the same time by creationary geologists. Some are more well received than others. For the most part, creationary geologists do not have an adversarial relationship with each other but rather a friendly competition/comparison of ideas. We all know each other fairly well. Some are easier to get along with than others.

The differences between models reflects assumptions, geologic knowledge, experience, and preferences. We all expect that over time a comprehensive Flood model will emerge.

It is really irrelevant whether Flood Geology is considered FRINGE by most geologists. This article is ABOUT Flood Geology which Creationary geologists are proposing, therefore it ought to accurately reflect what Flood geologist actually think, not what anti-creationists THINK-THEY-THINK. And to do that, you must quote from (or accurately paraphrase) Flood geologists.

I would expect standard geologists to respond in the article to the interpretations given by Flood geologists. That would make the article a neutral POV. But make sure to compare apples with apples and oranges with oranges. Christian Skeptic (talk) 14:55, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, but "the flood" - no matter by which non-miraculous mechanisms its supposed to have taken place - is incompatible with basic results of science, and has been recognized as such by (mostly Christian) scientists two centuries ago. No matter how much you fiddle with the details, unless you can handle the fundamental problems, few serious scientists are going to waste their time figuring out in how many other ways the proposed "models" violate well-understood laws. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 15:32, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

I disagree that "It is really irrelevant whether Flood Geology is considered FRINGE by most geologists." WP:FRINGE, WP:WEIGHT & WP:PSTS place considerably greater constraints when covering material that is fringe. It is not "ABOUT Flood Geology which Creationary[sic] geologists are proposing", but about the Flood Geology that is documented in prominent and/or secondary sources (this would be true even if it weren't fringe, but is especially important for fringe subjects). "[S]tandard geologists" will not "respond in the article", as that would be OR. All that we can do is to reference whatever pre-existing scientific response there is to the pseudoscientific claims. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk(P) 15:54, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

One of the biggest lies out there is that Flood Geology is pseudoscience. It is no different that typical geology because typical geology starts with the assumption Naturalism. Naturalism is a philosophy that, like creationism, is based upon unprovable and unfalsifiable assumptions. It is not an hypothesis, rather it is the basic paradigm that most scientists do science within whether they realize it or not. Both Creationism and Naturalism must be accepted as true first before any science can be done. This is a point made by S.J. Gould in his book Time's Arrow, Time's Cycle. Christian Skeptic (talk) 21:26, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

In my opinion, science does not make an a priori assumption of naturalism, but if it did, then the contradictory assumption of creationism made by flood geology would logically classify it as pseudo-science. You made the point forcefully above that flood geologists assume that a global flood actually occurred. Scientists may or may not assume that there are no miracles, but they certainly don't make any assumption along the lines of "there has never been a global flood". I think you have made the point as eloquently as any of us could that flood geology, whether it is true or not, is not science. --Art Carlson (talk) 22:24, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

It is logically impossible to do science without a priori assumptions. And those assumptions come from either naturalism or creationism. The two most important assumptions required for science are supplied by both: 1) Uniformity of natural law across time and space, and 2) uniformity of process across time and space. Gould (Time's Arrow, Time's Cycle) has pointed out that these assumptions have been accepted by all scientists (creationists and naturalists alike) ever since the concept of science began.

The primary difference between creationists and naturalists is that creationists accept as true the witness evidence of the Bible, while the Naturalists, such as Hutton and Lyell and their ilk (deists, agnostics and atheists), forcefully rejected the Biblical evidence. The idea that the early geologists rejected the flood because there was no evidence to be found in the geologic record is pure fantasy. They intentionally refused to interpret geology that way.

According to Gould, Lyell won over vacillating, weak faithed Christians by rhetoric not by evidence. (again see Time's Arrow, Time's Cycle). The supposed capitulation of Creationism in the 18th and 19th centuries is pure fantasy. The position of Scriptural Geologists of the 19th Century, who held nearly the identical position as YECs of today, was not addressed but was simply and arrogantly ignored. Today, the position of Scriptural Geologists is alive and well and will not go away.

Both Naturalism and Creationism are philosophical positions that cannot be proven true nor false and they are both held by faith and belief. Naturalism by blind faith in chance and nothingness. Creationism by faith in the Creator/Savior/Judge.

I do not claim that scientists doing science within Naturalism are pseudoscientific. They are following the process of science the way it should be done. The same goes for creationary scientists. The difference is in the worldview in which the scientific evidence is interpreted. Kuhn talks about immeasurablity between paradigms. That is what is going on here. Naturalism and Creationism are mutually exclusive paradigms (which is why Gould so desperately grasped for NOMA). The interpretations of data by one is completely irrelevant to the other. Christian Skeptic (talk) 00:12, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

Nonsense. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 00:38, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

Wow! Such a well thought out, amazing, counter argument! Why didn't I think of that?!! Christian Skeptic (talk) 01:07, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

Expansion: I am a scientist. I think it would be nice if science and Christianity agreed. There would be many fewer issues. Unfortuantely, literal interpretations of the bible disagree with scientific evidence. Scientists (as a generalization) do not forcefully reject the bible. What they do not do is assume a priori that it is correct. They instead assume that their observations are the manifestation of fact. Awickert (talk) 04:35, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

1) You are first assuming that Science and creationism should some how be equal. They aren't. The Bible and creationism comes first, just as naturalism comes first. Then science is done within one or the other paradigm.

2) Literal interpretations are not "literal" but rather common sense reading of the text just as one does any other text. This "scientific evidence" is not true evidence but interpretation of the evidence within naturalism which is in conflict with common sense reading of the texts. It is interpretation vs. interpretation not evidence vs. evidence.

3) Any scientist that does not start with the Bible automatically starts with naturalism. Those are the only options. Science does not and indeed, cannot stand alone. It is dependent upon the assumptions of a philosophy in order to even exist. It makes no sense unless it is interpreted within a philosophy.

4) The Bible is not up for correction. Science cannot prove it wrong or right. You either accept it based on logic as true or you reject it as false. It doesn't need science at all.

5) Kuhn (and others) has made it clear that all observation is colored by ones paradigm. What is an observed fact to one is irrelevant to another in differing paradigms. Christian Skeptic (talk) 19:52, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

Christian Skeptic - first off, you complained about certain assumptions that scientists made and then pointed out that creationists make the exact same assumptions. So why is it bad for scientists to make them, but creationists not to?

The same assumptions are needed in order to do science. The difference lies in the interpretations of data that is acquired by scientific means. Christian Skeptic (talk) 20:24, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

You also mention that flood geologists base their evidence on the "witness" accounts. What witness accounts would those be? Moses is considered the author of the torah, and he lived quite a long time after the flood. He was no witness. Not that that matters.

Amos 3:7 "Surely the Sovereign LORD does nothing without revealing his plan to his servants the prophets." In other words, whatever an author may not have personally witnessed, that what God has done and will do has been revealed to the Biblical authors. You have to accept this as true or false without benefit of science. Christian Skeptic (talk) 20:24, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

A book is not scientific evidence, even one so great as the bible. Books are for historians to study, not for geologists. They are not "bookologists". They are geologists, geo meaning earth. If they use the bible as "evidence", they are de facto NOT geologists anymore as it is not "earth" that they are studying.

One does not have to be a scientists to observe an eclipse of the moon and record said eclipse in some record. Just so in the Bible. None need to have been scientists to observe and record events seen or revealed. And just as the non-scientific record of the eclipse can been later used by scientists to say something about the nature of the universe, so to can scientists make use of the Bible. Christian Skeptic (talk) 20:24, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

There is no intent to refuse to interpret the evidence that way. It is simply impossible to interpret the evidence that way without blatantly ignoring some of it. We can look at the geologic column and see where each and every big flood has occured, except for the biblical flood. There is no evidence of that, which in this case, it actually evidence against it. That geologists refused to interpret the evidence that way is simply a lie. They did not because the evidence pointed elsewhere. It is not some insidious conspiracy designed by those who hate scripture.

The entire geologic record is the Flood, not just some insignificant layer. The early Naturalists had an agenda to do away with Christianity--I.e. Hutton, Lyell, Hume, etc. You can read their intentions on-line. The evidence was intentionally interpreted by ignoring the Biblical record in order to do away with the Bible and Christianity.

In short, you have absolutely zero comprehension of what you are talking about. The one word response of "nonsense" that you got was actually a very clear "argument", but you actually understand so little about science that you can't even begin to see that. And you bring your ignorant complaints here, the talk page, which is for article improvement ONLY. This is not the place for them. They do not belong here. I would have simply deleted your rant above, and been well within my rights to do so as it is off topic, except it had already been responded to. So stop talking about it. Pick a sentence, suggest an improvment here on the talk page, we will discuss it and when a solution is reached, we can move on to the next sentence. Further rantings will simply be deleted.Farsight001 (talk) 06:16, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

I too am a scientist. I am trying to improve the article, but keep get censored and so I try to explain what I'm trying to do and the actual position of creationists. The only ones "ranting" here are those who baselessly exclaim "nonsense". Christian Skeptic (talk) 20:24, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

• Concerning the definition of science and pseudoscience: You seem to be using different definitions than Wikipedia. If you think you can support your definition with reliable sources, then you need to do it in those articles first, before you introduce that usage in this article.
• Concerning the statements about pseudoscience in the article: I am generally uncomfortable with labeling subjects as pseudoscience in Wikipedia without attribution. The position that the pseudoscience label should not be used at all has been discussed but did not receive consensus, so we are stuck with the status quo. It would be an improvement if we could reference the statements now attributed to "the scientific community" and the "vast majority of geologists", although I don't think the veracity of those statements is in doubt.
• Concerning the great flood in the history of geology: Your take on the history is contrary to the version in the article. If you can support your version with reliable sources, you can improve that section of the article. Do you have any sources besides Time's Arrow, Time's Cycle? Is there any other editor here who has read this book and can comment on its content?
• @Stephan Schulz: Small world. I work at LRZ.

--Art Carlson (talk) 08:33, 14 June 2009 (UTC)