Talk:The Genesis Flood

Unreliable sources

In the first case, we have the author touting the impact of his own book, and in the second and third cases we have two non-notable critics whose work is published at an advocacy (read: activist) web site. These are the three sources. Not the best. Not sure if the book has been reviewed somewhere more notable, say, the New York Times, but clearly, if better sources are available, they would improve this article. ImprobabilityDrive 09:31, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

Experts, such as geologists, are solid sources. Well-known scientists are busy finding cures for diseases and rarely have time to scrape the bin of creationist texts from non-scientists. For the record, though, Solum is a well-known defender of science if you glance at the literature. We66er (talk) 04:57, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

How are geologists experts & solid sources on the history of evangelical opinions? What leads you to believe that all well-known scientists are busy finding cures for diseases? How do you know how much recreational time well-known scientists have? How do you know how many well-known scientist don't spend significant time on other hobbies, like collecting baseball cards? How do you know that Solum is well-known? What percent of Wikipedia editors ever heard of him? (FairNPOV (talk) 20:46, 9 January 2022 (UTC))

If you find a statement on the history of evangelical opinions sourced to a geologist, say it. Asking tons of irrelevant questions will not help improving the article. This is not a chatroom. See WP:TALK. --Hob Gadling (talk) 22:18, 9 January 2022 (UTC)

No source

The article states: "the mainstream scientific community rejects flood geology as pseudoscience without any factual basis." This should be reworded to avoid the appearance of original research, be deleted, or have a reliable source (somebody who speaks for or studies the "mainstream scientific community") cited to justify the statement. ImprobabilityDrive 09:47, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

It's true by definition. See creationism for details on its anti-science nature. We66er (talk) 04:53, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

Easily disproved

If there had been a biblical flood only five thousand years ago, it would just be a matter of digging down about four feet anywhere in the world to find evidence of it. 20:09, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

Irrelevant. Any suggestions for actually improving the article?- Runmiler —Preceding unsigned comment added by Runmiler429 (talk • contribs) 06:52, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

Have sea shells been found on the tops of mountains? Should a list of scientists who believe in the flood be added, scientists who cite these sea shells? (FairNPOV (talk) 20:47, 9 January 2022 (UTC))

Yes, they have, but asking tons of irrelevant questions will not help improving the article. This is not a chatroom. See WP:TALK.

No, such lists are just pseudoscientific propaganda designed to impress innumerate ignoramuses. --Hob Gadling (talk) 22:18, 9 January 2022 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:The Genesis Flood.jpg

Image:The Genesis Flood.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 07:09, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Price and Seventh Day Adventism

Hrafn has objected to the following sentence: "The primary promoter of 'flood geology' during the early twentieth century was George McCready Price, but he had little influence among evangelicals because he was a Seventh-day Adventist, a sect treated warily by many conservative Protestants." In support I cited Numbers, 198, 214, 234.

Here are the quotations:

• "...the highly sensitized Whitcomb, who worried that his own material still contained too many allusions to Price and the Adventist tradition....'For many people, our position would be somewhat discredited by the fact that "Price and Seventh-Day Adventism"...play such a prominent role in its support.'"(198)

• Whitcomb "feared that any new organization, like the old Deluge Geology Society, might fall under control of Seventh-Day Adventists." (214)

• Davidheiser, "refused to continue on the CRS board so long as it tolerated such dangerous anti-Christian cultists as the Seventh-day Adventists, whose teachings he abhorred but never quite understood." (234)

I might also cite Barry Hankins, American Evangelicals: A Contemporary History of a Mainstream Religious Movement (Rowman & Littlefield, 2008):

"the Religious and Science Association and the Deluge Geology Society were part of the bitter fundamentalist battle that took place in theological circles as well....These organizations were often top heavy with Seventh-day Adventists, and the fighting often pitted the Adventists against fundamentalists who thought Adventism was cultish with its reverence for prophet Ellen White." (72-73)

What sort of additional support is needed?--John Foxe (talk) 09:51, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

The problem appears to be that the page numbers you give are for the 1992 edition, not the 2006 edition that is listed in the article as the source. The 2006 edition page numbers are 223, 241 & 260 (the latter with some alteration) respectively. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 10:10, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

I've re-cited this sentence to the 2006 edition page numbers. Although none of the short-refs list a date for Numbers, they have always been implicitly referenced to the 2006 edition (originally as the first 'Numbers' reference[1], now as the only Numbers in the 'References' section). I would therefore suggest that we (i) check what edition the page numbers are given for (preferably all to the latest edition (a) for consistency & (b) because that's the edition available on Googlebooks for verification) & then (ii) explicitly state the edition-date in the short-refs. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 10:20, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

I've manually checked the first two section, and all the page numbers appear to be 2006 edition -- so I've updated them to explicitly state this. Do we have any reason to believe that any of the page numbers are 1992 edition?. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 10:35, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

Ah...I used the 2006 edition from a library when I wrote the article, but I actually own the 1992 edition and used it in the citations above. Just forgot. I think the other citations should be to the 2006 edition.--John Foxe (talk) 22:25, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

lead paragraph useless

The lead should summarize the article, not be a bunch of quotes. Without looking at the reference it isn't even clear if these quotes are from the book, or from critics.--24.85.75.88 (talk) 05:40, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

hmmm, upon reading further, the article continues in this style. REWRITE needed!!!! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.85.75.88 (talk) 05:41, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

• The quotes in question seem to give a reasonable summary of the topic and its importance -- although it could probably do with expansion. Direct quotes tend to be used more frequently on controversial topics, to avoid arguments over whether paraphrases/summaries characterise the cited source in a correct and balanced manner. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 05:50, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

Kindly stick to the source

The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth—whether readers can check that material in Wikipedia has already been published by a reliable source, not whether editors think it is true.

— WP:V

The cited source for much of this article is Numbers(2006). This edit, by Portillo alters a considerable amount of material, cited to this source, to a version that either less closely reflects the source (e.g. by omitting qualifying adjectives in the original), or worse to make claims not contained in the original. I am therefore reverting it. I would suggest that if Portillo wants any of these changes, they need to demonstrate how they are supported by the sources. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 15:18, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

The meaning of the text isnt changed. I tidied up the article, made it more encyclopedic and removed peacock words. Portillo (talk) 01:21, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

The wording removed is very frequently Numbers own, NOT "peacock words", and your changes do change the meaning. E.g.:

• Numbers states "conservative Protestants" you remove the conservative
• You add "Morris, who had befriended Whitcomb" when Numbers does not make that claim
• Numbers states "insistence on six literal days" -- you change "insisting" to "promoting"
• Numbers states "several dozen Christian magazines" -- you change this to "several Christian magazines"
• Numbers states "conservative religious circles" -- you change this to "conservative circles"
• Numbers discusses, at considerable length, Whitcombe's lack of scientific expertise as being the main driving force in his desire to enter a partnership with Morris -- you remove the reference to it from the article.

You very clearly do not have any idea what the source itself says about this -- so kindly cease and desist carelessly misrepresenting the source. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 03:42, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

Why is that the only source you can use? Portillo (talk) 03:50, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

(i) It is not "the only source you can use". (ii) It is however widely-regarded as the most prominent and authoritative source on the topic of creationism. (iii) More importantly, it is the source cited for the material that you yourself chose to modify. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 04:17, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

Can I at least delink Presbyterian and Reformed Publishing Company? Portillo (talk) 04:30, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

I have no problem with that (though others might -- I'm on the eliminationist end of the spectrum on redlinks, whereas some others are far more inclusionist). Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 04:34, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

Above the oft repeated statement is made how "The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is 'verifiability [or secondard sources], not truth... not whether editors think it is true."

But is it not a universal rule that loyalty to THE TRUTH stands above any such lesser rules, & that all men should always regard the truth as sacred? (FairNPOV (talk) 20:59, 9 January 2022 (UTC))

Nobody cares. Asking tons of irrelevant questions will not help improving the article. This is not a chatroom. See WP:TALK. --Hob Gadling (talk) 22:18, 9 January 2022 (UTC)

"Traditional reading" - problematic area.

The text currently states: "Although some conservative Christians continued to support a traditional reading of Genesis, most "readily conceded that the Bible allowed for an ancient earth and pre-Edenic life.", citation given was Ronald Numbers.

The problem with this is that not only is the "traditional reading" not made explicit, Numbers implies that the Seventh Day Adventist literal reading was the traditional reading used in the early 19th Century - which is not correct. Non-literal interpretations of Genesis were standard in early Jewish and Christian interpretations. See "Reading Genesis after Darwin" by Stephen C Barton and David Wilkinson, 2009. Trishm (talk) 00:55, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

Infobox

The infobox should list the book's media type as "print" before listing the book as either hardcover or paperback (and if it was published, at any stage, as both, then it should be listed as both, as far as I'm aware). FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 20:35, 31 August 2016 (UTC)

For what it's worth, Genesis Flood was first published in hardback but remains in print today as a paperback.--John Foxe (talk) 15:51, 1 September 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on The Genesis Flood. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080206004636/http://www.bpnews.net/bpnews.asp?ID=22739 to http://www.bpnews.net/bpnews.asp?ID=22739

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 12:01, 26 December 2017 (UTC)

Is Ronald Numbers a reliable source?

This article relies heavily on Ronald Numbers. But is he a reliable source? How does he know what "most evangelical scientists" believed at some date? Did he define "evangelical" & then poll them? Should everything which has only Numbers say-so be deleted as unsubstantiated, only 1 source & that of dubious reliability? Can it be really said that holding to the gap theory excludes a person from Evangelical orthodoxy? Is not the Scofield Reference Bible an icon of Evangelical orthodoxy promoting the possibility of an indeterminate time between Genesis 1:1 & 1:2? (Not that the SRB is essentially or universally a requirement of evangelical orthodoxy, but that holding to the SRB implies one is among the orthodox evangelicals.) Is it really believable that a person who subscribes to Scofield is outside of Evangelical orthodoxy? Having a "young Adam" is not the same as having a "young earth." Should anyone believe an assertion just because Numbers says so? (FairNPOV (talk) 20:31, 9 January 2022 (UTC))

Yes, Numbers is a reliable source. He is a historian who wrote a fat, carefully researched book on the topic. If you disagree with him, write a fat, carefully researched book on the topic, and we can quote you too. Until then, or until you find another reliable source, your questions are worthless white noise that does not belong here. See WP:OR. --Hob Gadling (talk) 22:18, 9 January 2022 (UTC)

Just want to put in a good word for Ronald Numbers. Though he's an agnostic, his father was a SDA creationist speaker. Numbers treats creationism and creationists both evenhandedly and with considerable respect (though perhaps he overemphasizes the influence of SDA creationist George McCready Price). John Foxe (talk) 02:24, 10 January 2022 (UTC)

But without falling for and embracing their misinformation. --Hob Gadling (talk) 08:20, 10 January 2022 (UTC)

That I'd enjoy reading: a book by a Young Earth agnostic. John Foxe (talk) 02:46, 11 January 2022 (UTC)

I think he has an opinion, but he is very careful not to let on. --Hob Gadling (talk) 07:41, 11 January 2022 (UTC)

• User:PeacePeace sockpuppet comments striked per WP:BE, —PaleoNeonate – 22:19, 12 January 2022 (UTC)