Talk:Flood geology

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Neutral point of view?[edit]

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

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

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

"Flood geology" is not standard scientific term describing a subfield of geology handling the impact of floods. It's a pseudo-scientific term used by creationists for narratives trying to "explain" certain geological features in a biblical context. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 23:55, 26 September 2017 (UTC)
You cited the NPOV policy. Please read the WP:PSCI section of that policy and see the notice of discretionary sanctions on your talk page. Jytdog (talk) 00:08, 27 September 2017 (UTC)

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

Editors shouldn't be making such interpretations. If you search for "flood geology" most of the sources make it clear that the phrase relates to a biblical approach to the subject. Please read WP:FRINGE. Doug Weller talk 10:58, 10 February 2019 (UTC)
It is the job of editors to make these interpretations so that a clear and concise article can be constructed.Sotuman (talk) 18:04, 11 February 2019 (UTC)
For info, "The word "science" means "knowledge". Everyone knows something, therefore everyone is a scientist, in the loosest sense of the word" is a couple of centuries out of date. See science and scientist, the latter term dating to 1833 and the original debate about diluvialism. . . dave souza, talk 15:43, 10 February 2019 (UTC)
Thanks for the info guys, however you might consider that words have different meanings depending on the context. The way the word "science" is thrown around these days, everyone is indeed their own scientist.Sotuman (talk) 18:02, 11 February 2019 (UTC)
Wrong. It's the job of editors to adhere to verifiable published information and present it properly, not push "original research. . . dave souza, talk 18:56, 11 February 2019 (UTC)
@Dave souza:Every flood is capable of altering geology in some way, the same way when I jump in the air, it's not just me that falls back down again to the surface of the earth, but it is also the earth that moves up again to meet me. Obviously a flood is much more massive than any one person, and its mechanism of moving the earth is also different, as explained in some detail by other articles related to geology such as Sedimentary rock. So it's an obvious and accurate interpretation to make. An article titled "Flood Geology" should talk about actual flood geology, not be a vicious cyclic gang of people who don't know what basic words mean.Sotuman (talk) 08:57, 12 February 2019 (UTC)
Is there an actionable proposal for a change to the article? Johnuniq (talk) 10:17, 12 February 2019 (UTC)

Add Redirect[edit]

@Mikenorton:@Dave souza: The proposal is not based on anything except what is already in the article of flood geology itself. It is an article about the pseudoscientific fringe theory of "Flood Geology", as it is defined in the article. Sure, some people may not agree with how the article is written. I've articulated some of the reasons why I don't, but that aspect of the discussion is unrelated to the need for there to be a brief explanation, spelled out in big shiny letters at the top of the article to say what "Flood Geology" definitely is and isn't about, so that people who end up here looking for information about the separate topics of floods or geology, or even how floods affect sedimentary geology or their relation to the field of surface-water hydrology, will immediately know where to look. It's called building a functional encyclopedia in the digital age of hyperlinks. The very claim that there needs to be a citation is as lacking in a citation as the proposal itself, because neither my proposal for having a referral at the top of the article, nor an answer in the negative requires a citation. All the information is already there. It's in the title of the article, the content of the article, and the other articles which I have linked to in this post. This is not rocket science, folks. I'll go ahead and do it, and if someone has a problem with my edit, please do explain the reasons against it on this talk page, don't just revert with a half-assed explanation in the edit summary.Sotuman (talk) 06:51, 17 February 2019 (UTC)
You need to start being serious about building the 'pedia, and about building consensus for any changes you want to make. To do that, you'll have to provide sources that say exactly what you're trying to add, not waffle or original research synthesising a position from memory or from sources that don't actually explicitly support the point you're trying to make. Without sources and consensus, you'll continue to get reverted. . . dave souza, talk 23:35, 18 February 2019 (UTC)
@Dave souza:Can someone please explain how there needs to be a source cited to say that the term "Flood Geology" contains the totally unrelated terms of "Flood" and "Geology"? How is it not clear that this causes some confusion? It is a serious matter when the title of an article is misleading, serious enough to warrant an about template at the top of the article.Sotuman (talk) 23:42, 18 February 2019 (UTC)
  • The issue is this edit which added three lines of explanation above the article. Vaguely related topics might belong in a see also section. They are no help for someone wanting information on "flood geology". Johnuniq (talk) 23:56, 18 February 2019 (UTC)
  • Floods and Geology are not even vaguely related to the pseudoscientific fringe theory of flood geology as the article explains it. So it is not correct to imply they are related, even vaguely so, by placing links in the see also section. The correct place is at the top of the article, 1. So that readers don't have to do a bunch of extra scrolling and clicking to get the info they need and 2. To stress that the topics are unrelated to the below article. Sotuman (talk) 00:52, 19 February 2019 (UTC)
People arriving at the article find out in the very first sentence what the article is about, we don't need a pre-amble to explain what it isn't.Theroadislong (talk) 01:21, 19 February 2019 (UTC)
But if the title is ambiguous, as it is for flood geology, it is common to find the about template. That's why we need it.Sotuman (talk) 03:58, 19 February 2019 (UTC)
It is not ambiguous: a search for flood geology (even without quotes) on a search engine like Google only shows creationism related links (at least on the first results page); the article's title is also the WP:COMMONNAME to describe it... —PaleoNeonate – 04:13, 19 February 2019 (UTC)
I can see the possibility of confusion for a reader unfamiliar with the term, since it sounds science-y (by design, I guess). Some version of this [1] doesn't strike me as unreasonable, perhaps with Erosion as a possible target. Possible WP:OSE comparisons at Chemtrail and Intelligent design. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 09:06, 19 February 2019 (UTC)
Concensus achieved!Sotuman (talk) 03:02, 20 February 2019 (UTC)
@Sotuman:, you are joking right? --McSly (talk) 03:23, 20 February 2019 (UTC)

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

First of all, there is no consensus for adding your suggested dab links, and adding them without consensus is disruptive. In my opinion linking to Flood and Geology is out of the question since the article title isn't ambigous. Nobody is going to type "flood geology" when they want to know about floods or about geology. I think that it's rather unlikely that someone finds this article when they want to know about how flooding affects geology, but maybe a dab link along the lines of For water's role in geology see Erosion and Sedimentary Geology isn't unreasonable. Sjö (talk) 09:33, 20 February 2019 (UTC)
Consensus definitely not achieved. The subject of this article has basically no overlap with geology as it is normally understood and I am unconvinced that any hatnotes are necessary. "Flood geology" has virtually no usage other than the one described in this article, as searches on Google Scholar and Google Books show. Mikenorton (talk) 11:30, 20 February 2019 (UTC)

Section on the flood in the bible needed?[edit]

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

Could have been any mythical flood, and Noah or Gilgamesh aren't very relevant. The Genesis flood narrative is linked and noted in the first sentence of the lead, and in Flood geology#The great flood in the history of geology, while the third paragraph of the lead mentions "the story of Noah's Ark"– this article focusses on geology, and it's an inappropriate diversion to repeat the Genesis flood narrative article here. . . dave souza, talk 07:15, 2 June 2019 (UTC)
I wouldn't want to repeat the article, but there'd be no flood geology without the Noah story.PiCo (talk) 09:51, 2 June 2019 (UTC)
The relevant section of Genesis is linked twice in the lead section, which should be more than enough I would have thought. Mikenorton (talk) 10:20, 2 June 2019 (UTC)

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

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