Changes

This is ridiculous. It would be like having a page that said "according to modern historical consesus, the 4th century came between the 3rd and 5th centuries." There is no "modern scientific consensus" about when the Cretaceous was, its the term we use to describe a certauin time period.

This is ridiculous. It would be like having a page that said "according to modern historical consesus, the 4th century came between the 3rd and 5th centuries." There is no "modern scientific consensus" about when the Cretaceous was, its the term we use to describe a certauin time period.

:I see your point, but it doesn't apply in this case. Tsumetai was trying to accommodate two points of view. As you may know, [[geological time]] is a matter of controversy. A huge number of Americans are [[Young Earth]] creationists, and for them there was no "history of the earth" before it was created around 10,000 years ago.  

:I see your point, but it doesn't apply in this case. Tsumetai was trying to accommodate two points of view. As you may know, [[geological time]] is a matter of controversy. A huge number of Americans are [[Young Earth]] creationists, and for them there was no "history of the earth" before it was created around 10,000 years ago.

:Edit warring doesn't help. So before reverting again here, please explain yourself and get - well - "consensus". --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 08:19, 29 March 2007 (EDT)

:Edit warring doesn't help. So before reverting again here, please explain yourself and get - well - "consensus". --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 08:19, 29 March 2007 (EDT)

::He's got half a point, actually. The weasel words ought to be associated with the dates, not with the ordering of the periods in question. [[User:Tsumetai|Tsumetai]] 08:24, 29 March 2007 (EDT)

::He's got half a point, actually. The weasel words ought to be associated with the dates, not with the ordering of the periods in question. [[User:Tsumetai|Tsumetai]] 08:24, 29 March 2007 (EDT)  

::I agree it needs to be changed. Even though some don't believe the Earth is more than 10,000 years old, you still wouldn't have a page saying:

::I agree it needs to be changed. Even though some don't believe the Earth is more than 10,000 years old, you still wouldn't have a page saying:

::::Let me put it a little more clearly - some articles don't necessarily need to acknowledge all points of view. Despite your personal beliefs, the geologic time scale is inherently ''not'' a YEC topic. The timescale serves '''absolutely no purpose''' for those who disagree with evolution and and the old earth concepts. The Geological Time Scale is a way to group evolutionary leaps and geologic developments in a coherent, organized method. If one adopts the null hyopthesis that the world and life was created at a point in time about 6500 years ago, then they would have no use for the time scale whatsoever - it's not that they would disagree with various timings and dates of the scale, they would disagree with ''the premise of the scale itself.''

::::Let me put it a little more clearly - some articles don't necessarily need to acknowledge all points of view. Despite your personal beliefs, the geologic time scale is inherently ''not'' a YEC topic. The timescale serves '''absolutely no purpose''' for those who disagree with evolution and and the old earth concepts. The Geological Time Scale is a way to group evolutionary leaps and geologic developments in a coherent, organized method. If one adopts the null hyopthesis that the world and life was created at a point in time about 6500 years ago, then they would have no use for the time scale whatsoever - it's not that they would disagree with various timings and dates of the scale, they would disagree with ''the premise of the scale itself.''

::::Philip, I respect your point of view. I understand the points you're trying to make. But please, you can surely see why it's unnecessary to discuss YEC in this article or any other article about geologic time (except, perhaps, an article on the geologic time scale as a whole, where you could discuss the point I brought up in the preceding paragraph). Someone who is researching a period of geologic time isn't going to care what YEC says about that period of time, because they're obviously researching under the assumption that the Earth is old and we can divide geologic time up according to events in the Earth's distant past. '''[[User:Stryker|ΨtrykeЯ]]'''^{<small>[[User_Talk:Stryker| eh?>]]</small>} 11:59, 9 August 2007 (EDT)

::::Philip, I respect your point of view. I understand the points you're trying to make. But please, you can surely see why it's unnecessary to discuss YEC in this article or any other article about geologic time (except, perhaps, an article on the geologic time scale as a whole, where you could discuss the point I brought up in the preceding paragraph). Someone who is researching a period of geologic time isn't going to care what YEC says about that period of time, because they're obviously researching under the assumption that the Earth is old and we can divide geologic time up according to events in the Earth's distant past. '''[[User:Stryker|ΨtrykeЯ]]'''^{<small>[[User_Talk:Stryker| eh?>]]</small>} 11:59, 9 August 2007 (EDT)  

:::::Whilst you are basically correct that the evolutionary timescale serves no purpose within a YEC framework, these articles are not about the timescales per se, but about the distinct rock systems that go by various names, such as Cretaceous.  The geologic system was originally devised within a non-evolutionary paradigm, and many flood geologists accept the legitimacy of the different systems, although not the ages assigned to them by evolutionists.  (And those ages have changed a number of times over the last couple of centuries.)

:::::Whilst you are basically correct that the evolutionary timescale serves no purpose within a YEC framework, these articles are not about the timescales per se, but about the distinct rock systems that go by various names, such as Cretaceous.  The geologic system was originally devised within a non-evolutionary paradigm, and many flood geologists accept the legitimacy of the different systems, although not the ages assigned to them by evolutionists.  (And those ages have changed a number of times over the last couple of centuries.)

:::::Thus those rock systems ''are'' relevant to someone researching in a YEC framework, and it is therefore appropriate to mention the YEC viewpoint on them.  In any case, to mention only the uniformitarian viewpoint as though it was correct would be misleading.  Finally, flood geologists do also "divide geological time up according to events in the Earth's distant past".  It's just that it's done within a different framework and with different timescales.

:::::Thus those rock systems ''are'' relevant to someone researching in a YEC framework, and it is therefore appropriate to mention the YEC viewpoint on them.  In any case, to mention only the uniformitarian viewpoint as though it was correct would be misleading.  Finally, flood geologists do also "divide geological time up according to events in the Earth's distant past".  It's just that it's done within a different framework and with different timescales.

:::::[[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 12:14, 9 August 2007 (EDT)

:::::[[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 12:14, 9 August 2007 (EDT)