Talk:Creation geophysics

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Creation geophysics article.
Article policies
A common objection made often by new arrivals is that the article presents Creation science in an unsympathetic light and that criticism is too extensive or violates Wikipedia's Neutral Point of View policy (WP:NPOV). The sections of the WP:NPOV that apply directly to this article are:

If you wish to discuss or debate the validity of Creation science or promote Creation science please do so at talk.origins or other fora. This "Discussion" page is only for discussion on how to improve the Wikipedia article. Any attempts at trolling, using this page as a soapbox, or making personal attacks may be deleted at any time in accordance with Wikipedia:Talk page guidelines#How to use article talk pages: Keep on topic
This is a controversial topic that may be under dispute. Please read this page and discuss substantial changes here before making them.
Make sure to supply full citations when adding information and consider tagging or removing uncited/unciteable information.
Archive
Archives

Archives of talkpages of merged articles:


Contents

[edit] Discussion from Talk:Creation science on this article

The field of geophysics includes the branches of:

– Geophysics

Further candidates for this article's Geophysics section include Hydroplates (Tectonophysics), Vapor canopy (Atmospheric science) & Rapid-decay theory (Terrestrial magnetism). HrafnTalkStalk 04:09, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Thinking about it, given that all three of the above articles are fairly short, it would not be unreasonable to roll them together, with expanded treatments of RATE & radiohalos, into a Creation Geophysics article, with each being a major section of that article. HrafnTalkStalk 04:20, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

I've put together a quick prototype of what a 'Creation geophysics' article would look like at User:Hrafn/Creation geophysics. It's basically a merger of the three articles above + the pieces from Radiohalo#Controversy & Creation-evolution controversy#Nuclear physics. What do you think? HrafnTalkStalk 05:27, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

A quick note, to date I've only edited this article for structure, not content. I'm assuming that the latter will occur after it has gone 'live' (assuming that this proposal wins acceptance). HrafnTalkStalk 07:18, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
It needs more of the opposing, scientific ideas, e.g. an explanation of continental drift, etc. Adam Cuerden talk 07:47, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
Agreed. My intention was to to work on the restructuring aspect until the merger is live, and then concentrate on the content issues when there is be a permanent talkpage & article history to document the process. The lack of opposing scientific views is in the proposed-to-be-merged articles themselves, so simple merger of them doesn't worsen this, and provides us with a centralised place in which to correct it. HrafnTalkStalk 08:03, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
I've explicitly tagged the three sections as having neutrality problems. HrafnTalkStalk 08:28, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
One suggestion would be to reference a peer-reviewed journal rather than to talk origins. Although my personal opinion is that it has been shown that there is no radon in polonium halos( Gentry, R.V. 1974. "Radiohalos in Radiochronological and Cosmological Perspective." Science 184, 62 ).EMSPhydeaux 13:56, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

I've just added Catastrophic plate tectonics (a subject/article I'd never even heard of previously) to the list of articles I'm proposing to merge into 'Creation geophysics'. HrafnTalkStalk 14:17, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Immediate issues

The following sections have been templated as having neutrality issues (per Adam Cuerden's discussion above): Hydroplates, Vapor canopy & Rapid-decay theory. Additionally, I would question whether the 'Biblical compatibility' subsection of 'Hydroplates' (which is mostly an uncited and unencyclopedic list) & the 'Scriptural basis for the vapour canopy' subsection serve any purpose. Should they be deleted? HrafnTalkStalk 08:25, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Why a new article?

Somebody cue me in on the concept here. (I've been hanging around Flood geology a bit, but not Creation science, so I may have missed some discussions.) I suppose Creation science is an umbrella article that briefly describes issues like evolution, age of the Earth, and the Great Flood, with links to the detailed articles, if they exist. Topics that don't have another home, whether because of lack of material or because nobody's taken the time yet, can continue to live here. Now, Flood geology already has a long article of its own, in which case there is too much repetition in this article. Either Flood geology should be redirected here or the info here should be reduced to a summary. And then the stuff on the age of the Earth is not any more detailed here than the summary in Creation science, so it doesn't need its own article. Why was it considered necessary to start a new article, and what is planned to reduce the redundancy across Creation science, Creation geophysics, and Flood geology? --Art Carlson 11:29, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

It's not really a new article, it's collection of a bunch of stubs that were rotting away in oblivion. I tend to think it's a good start to getting them under control. – ornis⚙ 11:37, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

As Ornis says, this is a merger of four related existing (but poorly maintained) articles (+ info from a couple of related sections). It is not intended to compete with Flood geology, but to complement it by providing an article into which more detailed creationist hypotheses & claims (along with their more detailed scientific refutations) can go. My impression is that the Flood geology article is already quite lengthy. Did we really want these four (+two) rolled into it as well? HrafnTalkStalk 12:01, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

I don't want to expand the range of the Flood geology article. I was thinking more like either
  • reducing the description of flood geology in this article to a brief summary, expanding the bits about the age of the Earth (if any more information is available), and compactifying the age of the Earth sections of Creation science, OR
  • eliminating this article, keeping Flood geology in its own article, and making the Creation science article the home for the age of the Earth business.
--Art Carlson 14:22, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

You've got me confused. This article makes no direct mention of Flood Geology, merely of three hypothesised geophysical mechanisms underlying it -- which three hypotheses the Flood Geology article only gives the barest of mentions. If you want them, then by all means take them (warts and all, approx 15k) -- I am less worried where they sit than about whether they get sufficient attention and maintenance (which they weren't getting in articles of their own). HrafnTalkStalk 15:47, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

I see now that that this article has 5 or 6 times as much material on the proposed mechanisms than the Flood geology article does. My first reaction is that this material belongs in the Flood geology article, but maybe I should mull it over first. --Art Carlson 16:54, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
As I mentioned above, the Hydroplates/Biblical compatibility & Scriptural basis for the vapour canopy subsections can probably go (or at least be heavily trimmed), which would cut down somewhat the material you'd have to fit in. But on the other hand, both Hydroplates & Vapour Canopy both need their scientific rebuttal strengthened, so the reduction won't be as big as it would otherwise be. HrafnTalkStalk 17:30, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

Since I picked up Flood geology again and found myself copying information from this article to that one, I think I will do as I proposed above and reduce the flood geology sections of this article to a summary, with reference to the complete information over yonder. (But not today and probably not even next week.) --Art Carlson (talk) 12:53, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

No problemo. :) HrafnTalkStalk 13:52, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
But do let me know if/when the coverage within Flood geology makes the ' Claims relating to flood geology' section in this article superfluous, so that I can pare the latter down to avoid unnecessary duplication. HrafnTalkStalk 04:06, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
All right, I think I have copied everything usable to Flood geology. Check if I have missed anything important, then you can reduce the sections here to a summary with a reference to there. --Art Carlson 11:38, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

I've trimmed down the section in this article to reflect this & moved all the redirects to point to the sections in Flood geology. You might consider an explicit explanation of what "Runaway subduction" means -- the section is currently rather indirect in its explanation of the term. HrafnTalkStalk 14:10, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Deep water citations

It is unlikely that aqueous fluids are the cause of the high crustal conductivity in northern Tibet. In contrast, basaltic melt is an obvious explanation for the high conductivity.

– Detection of Widespread Fluids in the Tibetan Crust by Magnetotelluric Studies

This citation therefore does not support Brown's claims. HrafnTalkStalk 09:57, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

Water can remain in the subducting plate down to the transition zone as shown by high-pressure experiments. It is, however, unknown whether and how much water indeed is transported to 400 km and below.

...

We interpret this thickened transition of olivine to wadsleyite as being due to 500 to 700 ppm water, present in olivine, at depths near 400 km.

Seismological Evidence for the Presence of Water Near the 410 km Discontinuity (abstract)
Ditto -- 500-700ppm water isn't exactly "a one-mile-thick layer of salt water". HrafnTalkStalk 10:09, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

Secondary ion mass spectrometry measurements show that Earth's representative lower mantle minerals synthesized in a natural peridotitic composition can dissolve considerable amounts of hydrogen. Both MgSiO3-rich perovskite and magnesiowüstite contain about 0.2 weight percent (wt%) H2O, and CaSiO3-rich perovskite contains about 0.4 wt% H2O. The OH absorption bands in Mg-perovskite and magnesiowüstite were also confirmed with the use of infrared microspectroscopic measurements. Earth's lower mantle may store about five times more H2O than the oceans.

– Water in Earth's Lower Mantle (abstract)

Again, a citation that is nowhere like supporting Brown's claims. HrafnTalkStalk 10:16, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

A quick scan of the rest of the stuff indicates more of the same -- hydrated rocks, not Brown's "large volumes of pooled water". I am therefore nuking this entire "evidences" section as no such evidence exists! HrafnTalkStalk 10:23, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

The question is whether it is better to take it out or to refute it. If we removed all the unsubstantiated sections of this article, it would cease to exist. If Walt Brown is just a guy publishing his own books, who made his high water mark 20 years ago, and nobody else, not even Answers in Genesis and the Institute for Creation Research, believes this stuff, then it is not notable and should be dumped. --Art Carlson 10:51, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] American Scientist

Just found this, while looking for sources for the plate tectonics section, Creationism's Geologic Time Scale - American Scientist, DOI: 10.1511/1998.2.160. It's fairly old, but I thought it might come in handy. – ornis⚙ 11:09, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Violation of guidelines.

I would like to draw your attention to this statement from Pseudoscience: "Theories which have a substantial following, such as psychoanalysis, but which some critics allege to be pseudoscience, may contain information to that effect, but generally should not be so characterized." Creation geophysics does NOT fall under the realm of pseudoscience by either the dictionary definition which you have so tried to avoid, or the Wikipedian definition which this site is run by.--69.252.221.116 10:34, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

That would be a fair comment if it were true. Unfortunately for you, creation "science", flood "geology" and creation geophysics clearly falls into the second category: Generally considered pseudoscience, since the scientific community gives them no credence whatsoever.  –  ornis⚙ 10:47, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
Neither creation geophysics nor the parent fields of flood geology and creation science have "a substantial following". Both of these parent fields are likewise classed as pseudoscience within wikipedia. All three "claim[]to be scientific or [are] made to appear scientific, but do[] not adhere to the basic requirements of the scientific method."(Pseudoscience) Likewise all three would come under the heading of:

Generally considered pseudoscience: Theories which have a following, such as astrology, but which are generally considered pseudoscience by the scientific community may properly contain that information and may be categorized as pseudoscience.

– WP:NPOVFAQ#Pseudoscience

HrafnTalkStalk 10:58, 7 October 2007 (UTC)