Talk:Flood geology

First paragraph still flawed

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

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

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

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

This corrects the following flaws:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I feel this first sentence is still weak.

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

Although it might not come from a reference, I think

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

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

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

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

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

Can I suggest an edited version of your suggestion?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Edits to Biblical Basis section

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

The Moon

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Evidence For a Worldwide Flood

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

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

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

Reply to PiCo

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

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

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

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

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

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

Thanks anyway though.

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

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

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

Flagging

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

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

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

Flood Geologists = Young Earth Creationists?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Historical records

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

I've moved the section here for discussion:

Historical records

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Different erosion rates

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

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

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

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

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

1st sentence

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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