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)