Talk:Geology

This page implies that you're an atheist if you believe the mountains of scientific research which supports plate tectonics and other foundations of geological science. The vast majority of people who know anything at all about Geology agree with the assertions found in this field of study, so while is this viewpoint marginalized? Everwill 08:45, 22 April 2007 (EDT)

Hopefully, I won't get reverted, but I attempted to acknowledge the controversy, without turning this into a debate page. Conservapedia will become a laughing stock if every science is undermined to support a specific theological conclusion. Everwill 12:43, 22 April 2007 (EDT)

This page should be divided into two parts or made into two articles:

• Old-Earth Geology
• Young Earth Geology

Auld Nick 06:52, 27 April 2007 (EDT)

I think it would be more accurate to say Geology and Bible-based Geology. Everwill

Given that early geologists worked within a Biblical framework and the Non-biblical Geology came later, I think it would be more accurate to say Geology and Non-biblical Geology (or Anti-biblical Geology), but as far as names are concerned, I'll compromise on Auld Nick's suggestion. Philip J. Rayment 23:20, 29 April 2007 (EDT)

It's scary just how quickly this page has turned into some kind of theological rant. Additionally, the musings under the "How Old is the Earth" are not supported by credible references, and in some cases the references are broken links.

I would defend any man's right to believe the Earth is any age which might fit his philosophy, but this is like something which would seem familiar to Galileo. Everwill 10:10, 30 April 2007 (EDT)

Could you be specific? Which points don't have references, or which references don't you consider credible? And which are broken? As far as I know, Galileo (see the blue link) believed that the Earth was created around 4,000 B.C. Philip J. Rayment 10:15, 30 April 2007 (EDT)

Reference #16 has a list of "facts". The facts are all dead links. Reference 17 relies upon the opinions of someone with any established credibility. I didn't go any further because the entire Young Earth Creation idea relies upon the belief that geologists worldwide are part of a vast conspiracy to push an atheistic agenda. I'm quite sure I can find a long list of things that Galileo thought, or would have thought, that have since been proven quite wrong, but to do so would be a waste of time. You will dismiss anything which does not support your interpretation of the Bible.

In my experience, mainstream geology finds natural resources. Young Earth Creation geology, on the other hand, finds arguments to support a religious agenda. There is nothing wrong with pursuing the theology behind Young Earth Creation, but it's a waste of time to put the two ideas in side by side. Everwill 12:03, 30 April 2007 (EDT)

Reference 16 is an FAQ list, and the links in that list work for me at the moment, but that site has had some technical difficulties lately, which may be the problem you encountered.

I'm guessing that reference 17 is for the list of links also, rather than the text at the start of the page. If so, there is not a single "someone" to question the credibility of.

That YEC believes that geologists are part of a conspiracy is merely your interpretation and specifically denied by those YECs.

I will not "dismiss" anything that does not support the Bible. I will point out why it is wrong.

Mainstream geology finds natural resources, and also claims to know what has happened in the past, from an anti-Biblical ideology. Creationist geologists also find natural resources, but dispute the claims about the past. Allowing one side to make ideological statements about the past but dismissing others doing so as ideologically driven is not fair.

Incidentally, I'm not a fan of FAQ lists for references (although there may be some cases in which they are appropriate).

Philip J. Rayment 19:10, 30 April 2007 (EDT)

Locked?

This article has been locked for a long time now. Any chance that it could be opened up again for further improvement? Kenservative 14:55, 3 September 2007 (EDT)

Article in need of serious help ...

This is one of the articles that caused me to walk away from Conservapedia for a long time. There are several assertions in this article which are based upon a gross misunderstanding of geology and a presumption that geology undermines a particular theology. They have stood unchallenged for quite a long time. Until such time as this article and others like it are brought up to standard, Conservapedia will suffer a credibility problem, just as Wikipedia suffers a bias problem. As a conservative, I defend the rights of those who believe in a Bible-based geology and there should be a framework and forum where they can explain their theories and views. That said, this article is not the place to argue whether the Earth was created in 7 days and when the universe was created. Is there anyone else who sees the strong need for a better article here? Everwill 07:48, 30 March 2008 (EDT)

Your concern is expressed in rather vague terms (perhaps deliberately), so I can't be certain what you are getting at, but certain geological ideas do "undermine" the biblical account. However, relatively little of this article is to do with when the universe was created, and what is there seems to be fairly balanced. If this article can be written so that it doesn't mention the old-Earth viewpoint, then there's no need to mention the young-Earth viewpoint either, but I doubt that's really feasible. Perhaps you'd like to make some more specific proposals? Philip J. Rayment 09:09, 30 March 2008 (EDT)

Quite frankly, it's difficult to engage in any discussion with you about this topic because the "Young Earth" position is not dissimilar to the "Flat Earth" position or the "9/11 Truth" position. In all these cases, it is true that some people believe these theories. But, it is also true that the vast majority of informed people know that these theories are preposterous.

As I size up various angles to broach the subject with you, I am only reminded that I will be fighting tooth-and-nail against your strongly held beliefs with facts that have already been discovered by generations of geologists. These facts have been ignored or rejected by you, but are mostly unknown to you. That means it will fall to me to educate you about a great many things. I'm not a very good teacher in the best situations. And, I refuse to teach those who don't want to learn, but rather they wish to use their own ignorance as a basis of argument.

I'm well aware that this may sound insulting, but it is not my intention to insult. It my intention to explain to you and others why I feel debate on this subject is pointless with you. The bottom line is you are arguing from what I believe is a position of absolute ignorance fueled by religious beliefs. To argue against you would be to relive Galileo's argument against the cardinals, bishops and astronomers who believed the Earth was the center of the universe. This is a painful argument and there is no joy in being right. The argument is about educating the position of ignorance. But Galileo made the argument because it was important for others to understand. In this case, others already understand. There is but a tiny head-in-the-sand minority who agree that there is geological evidence that Earth is only 6,000 years old. So, this argument with you has all the pain of Galileo's argument, but none of the nobility of the result. It's just a huge time sink.

That statement aside, I have no idea when the world was created---nor does any geologist. For all I know it was created the day before I was born. But if it was created the day before I was born or 6,000 years ago, the Creator saw fit to leave evidence of an prehistory. In other words, I see absolutely no theology in earth science. (No theology -- except for the obvious fact that the Creation is so intricate and divine as to defy the belief that it was created randomly from randomness.)

All that aside, my best suggestion is that there are two different articles here. For those who want to believe in Young Earth Geology, more power to you. Good luck finding oil and explaining coal. I wish you the best. But, there is no place in a Geology article for those opinions and for that position.

The best you can hope for is two distinct articles/sciences which allow the reader to choose. You cannot hope to blend the two together and be taken seriously by anyone. On this I can see no possibility of compromise. So long as this article stakes out the position that YE Geology and geology are just two different views of geology, Conservapedia will suffer serious credibility problems.

As a parting shot, why not mention that the Celts and Irish believe in fairies who tend the Earth and the Norse believe that earth spirits and dwarves shaped the mountains? Why not mention the Greek creation theory and how the gods deposed the titans before taking their place atop Mount Olympus?

Surely, I can't be the only conservative who has a grasp of the science of geology? Everwill 07:24, 31 March 2008 (EDT)