N.Wells
Posts: 1836
Joined: Oct. 2005
|
| Quote (GaryGaulin @ Aug. 04 2016,21:17) | | The phrase "flood geology" can apply to any geology that was caused by flooding. And for me to remain objective I must fairly judge future flood geology theories after seeing them, not before. |
No. "Flood geology" has a very specific meaning, so that now precludes "Geology of generic floods", and using it otherwise risks great confusion. If you wish to study geological aspects of floods, you are studying the sedimentology, stratigraphy, geomorphology, and/or hydrology of floods.
| Quote | | And for me to remain objective I must fairly judge future flood geology theories after seeing them, not before. |
But we have seen everything we need to see regarding the concept of Flood Geology as defined by everyone but you.
"Diluvial Geology" or "Flood Geology" was one of the earliest theories in Geology, and it was thoroughly investigated and disproven very early on. One initial idea was that the entire geological record was the result of the Noachian flood. This was dismissed even before 1800, e.g. by Cuvier and Brogniart recognizing that the stratigraphic section in the Paris basin consists of multiple marine regressions and transgressions. Discussion then centered on the Diluvium, now understood as glacial tills and outwash, on the top of the stratigraphic column.
Pro-Flood
Buckland, 1823, Reliquiae Diluvianae
Sedgewick, 1825, On the origin of alluvial and diluvial deposits
However, even very simple studies showed that the flood was not a tenable explanation: in 1833, Sedgewick told the Geological Society that "one violent and transitory period" is now "a most unwarranted conclusion". Buckland gradually swung to agree with this from 1836 onward.
The idea has been kept "alive" (sort of) under the banner of "Flood Geology" name by young-earth creationists (George McCready Price, Henry Morris, John Whitccomb, Steve Austin), who have gone back to the earlier disproven idea that Noah's Flood deposited the entire geological column, in order to support their young-earth religious beliefs. However, they can only support it by lying extensively about the evidence, so it no longer has any scientific validity. Scientific practice is that theories are indeed tentative, but only until they are disproven. A disproven theory is no longer a plausible or legitimate theory, so (unless you can show that the evidence for the disproof is somehow flawed), it is dead and must be discarded. People who wish to study the geology of generic floods are behoven to do so using other names.
The definitive disproof of phlogiston theory means that people are no longer free to claim that everyone needs to be tentative about phlogistons, nor to re-use the word phlogiston in service of a different concept.
You are not doing the world a service nor helping your cause by ignoring the definitions of well-defined terms.
As I noted earlier, this is also your problem with regard to "intelligent design", as what you are so incompetently trying to propose involves neither intelligence nor design as standardly defined, so you are spreading murk rather than light on the subject.
| Quote | | But you were correct in regards to the phrase "rift valley lake". |
Of course I was correct. I merely stated standard definitions.
|
