What is flood geology, and what is its primary objective?

Flood geology, also known as creation geology or diluvial geology, is a pseudoscientific approach that seeks to interpret Earth's geological features in alignment with a literal understanding of the Genesis flood narrative found in the Hebrew Bible. Its main goal is to reconcile geological evidence with a belief in a global flood as described in the biblical account.

Why is flood geology classified as pseudoscience?

Flood geology is classified as pseudoscience because it does not adhere to the scientific method, which is the standard for modern geological and other scientific disciplines. Instead, it starts with a conclusion derived from a literal interpretation of religious texts and attempts to fit evidence to that conclusion, rather than allowing evidence to guide the formation of theories.

How did early Greek philosophers interpret fossils found on land?

Early Greek philosophers, including Xenophanes, Xanthus, and Aristotle, interpreted fossils found on land as evidence that the sea had covered these areas in ancient times. This interpretation was part of their concept of vast time periods within an eternal cosmos, a view that contrasted with later biblical interpretations.

What was the prevailing view among early Christian writers regarding fossils?

Early Christian writers like Tertullian, Chrysostom, and Augustine, along with later figures such as Martin Luther, generally believed that fossils were the remains of animals that perished and were buried during the biblical Genesis flood. This interpretation placed the origin of fossils within the timeframe of a single, universal flood event.

How did Nicolas Steno contribute to early geological understanding, and what was his initial stance on the Earth's age?

Nicolas Steno, in the 17th century, established fundamental principles of stratigraphy, demonstrating how rock strata form horizontally and can be subsequently broken and tilted. While his work laid groundwork for modern geology, he initially assumed these processes, including a worldwide flood, occurred within a 6,000-year timeframe.

What were René Descartes' ideas about the Earth's formation, and how did Thomas Burnet adapt them?

René Descartes, in his 1644 work 'Principles of Philosophy,' proposed a mechanical explanation for the Earth's formation, envisioning swirling particles creating a layered sphere. Thomas Burnet later adapted these ideas in his 'Sacred Theory of the Earth' (1680s), applying natural laws to a biblical framework, suggesting the Earth began as a smooth sphere that later collapsed to cause the deluge.

What was John Woodward's theory regarding the Genesis flood and rock strata?

John Woodward, in his 1695 'Essay Toward a Natural History of the Earth,' proposed that the Genesis flood dissolved rocks and soil into a slurry. He believed that as the waters settled, these materials formed strata based on relative density, incorporating fossils within them. He later invoked a divine miracle to explain inconsistencies with gravity.

How did William Whiston attempt to reconcile biblical accounts with Newtonian physics regarding the Earth's history?

William Whiston's 1696 'New Theory of the Earth' combined scripture with Newtonian physics. He suggested the Earth's original chaos was a comet's atmosphere, with creation days lasting a year each, and the Genesis flood caused by a second comet. His theory also attempted to explain geological features like mountains and fossil sequences through these celestial events.

What was Johann Jakob Scheuchzer's famous fossil discovery and its eventual reinterpretation?

Johann Jakob Scheuchzer, in 1726, described a fossil skeleton as Homo diluvii testis, meaning 'man a witness of the flood,' believing it to be evidence of a human victim from the biblical deluge. However, this fossil was later identified in 1812 as belonging to a prehistoric salamander, not a human.

How did the development of modern geology in the 18th century challenge flood geology?

As modern geology developed in the 18th century, geologists like Giovanni Arduino and Georg Christian Füchsel began attributing strata to natural causes rather than solely to the Genesis flood. The concept of an ancient Earth, supported by observations of volcanic activity and rock layering by figures like Nicolas Desmarest and James Hutton, increasingly contradicted the short timescale implied by flood geology.

What was Abraham Gottlob Werner's theory of Earth's formation, and how did it differ from flood geology?

Abraham Gottlob Werner's theory of Neptunism proposed that all rock strata were deposited from a primeval global ocean. While this differed from flood geology by suggesting a universal ocean rather than a specific flood event, it still contributed to the idea of a younger Earth, which was later challenged by Hutton's concept of deep time.

What key geological evidence led to the decline of 'diluvialism' among geologists by the 1830s?

By the 1830s, geologists increasingly found that features attributed to a universal deluge, such as erratic boulders and gravel deposits, could be explained by more localized floods or, more significantly, by the action of glaciers. This shift, influenced by figures like Charles Lyell, moved away from a single, global cataclysm as the primary explanation for geological formations.

What was the role of William Buckland in the history of flood geology?

William Buckland, the first professor of geology at Oxford, was a prominent proponent of flood geology in the early 19th century. He sought to reconcile geology with religion, arguing that geological phenomena like erratic boulders and gravel beds provided evidence for a universal deluge, equating the last of Earth's geological catastrophes with the Genesis flood.

How did Charles Lyell's 'Principles of Geology' influence the debate on flood geology?

Charles Lyell's influential work, 'Principles of Geology' (published starting in 1830), strongly argued against diluvialism by emphasizing uniformitarianism – the idea that geological processes occurring today have operated consistently throughout Earth's history. This perspective supported the concept of an ancient Earth shaped by slow, gradual processes, undermining the need for a single, catastrophic flood to explain geological features.

What was Adam Sedgwick's stance on diluvialism, and why did he recant his earlier views?

Adam Sedgwick, a prominent geologist, initially supported the idea of widespread diluvial deposits caused by a single inundation. However, after investigating geological formations in Scotland and reading Lyell's work, he concluded that these deposits were formed at different times and by various processes, leading him to publicly recant his earlier diluvialist views in 1831.

How did John Fleming critique the prevailing diluvialist theories in the early 19th century?

John Fleming, a Church of Scotland minister and naturalist, critiqued diluvialism by questioning the assumption that fossils of modern tropical species were transported by violent means, especially when found in an unbroken state. He also pointed out the inconsistency of classifying similar mud deposits as 'diluvial' in one context and 'fluvial' in another, challenging the uniformity of the flood explanation.

What were 'scriptural geologists,' and what was their impact on the scientific community?

Scriptural geologists were a group of writers in the early 19th century who advocated for a literal interpretation of the Bible regarding Earth's history and age, often quoting outdated geological texts. They were largely marginalized and ignored by the scientific community because they lacked geological expertise and their views were seen as scientifically unsound.

What is the significance of the book 'The Genesis Flood' (1961) in the context of flood geology?

Published in 1961 by Henry M. Morris and John C. Whitcomb Jr., 'The Genesis Flood' revitalized flood geology by presenting it as a comprehensive, biblically-based alternative to evolutionary geology. This book became foundational for the modern creation science movement, arguing for biblical infallibility and a young Earth, and reinterpreting geological evidence through the lens of a global flood.

How did George McCready Price contribute to the revival of flood geology in the 20th century?

George McCready Price, influenced by the visions of Ellen G. White, became a key proponent of flood geology in the early 20th century. He argued that the fossil sequence was not evidence of evolution but rather a result of different organisms' responses to the encroaching waters of Noah's flood, and he promoted these ideas through his writings, including 'The New Geology' (1923).

What is 'creation science,' and how did it emerge from flood geology?

Creation science, also known as scientific creationism, emerged in the mid-1970s as a rebranding of flood geology. Proponents sought to present flood geology as a scientific alternative to evolution, minimizing overt biblical references to make it more palatable for public education, a strategy influenced by legal challenges to teaching creationism in schools.

What is the 'two-model approach' advocated by proponents of creation science?

The 'two-model approach' suggests that evolution and creationism should be presented as equally valid scientific models for understanding origins. Proponents argue that scientific evidence should be evaluated from both perspectives, aiming to give creationism, particularly flood geology, the status of a scientific hypothesis rather than a religious belief.

What are the main tenets of creation science?

The core beliefs of creation science include creation 'ex nihilo' (out of nothing), the conviction that the Earth is only a few thousand years old, the idea that life forms were created as distinct 'kinds,' and that fossils were deposited during a single, global flood event. These tenets directly contradict established scientific consensus on the age of the Earth and the evolution of life.

How do young-earth creationists interpret the fossil record in relation to the Genesis flood?

Young-earth creationists, adhering to flood geology, interpret the fossil record not as evidence of evolution over millions of years, but as the result of a single, year-long global flood. They propose that the sequence of fossils reflects factors like the ecological zones organisms inhabited, their buoyancy, or their mobility in response to the rising floodwaters.

What is the 'catastrophic plate tectonics' (CPT) model proposed by some creationists?

Catastrophic plate tectonics (CPT) is a creationist model that attempts to explain geological features by proposing that plate tectonics occurred rapidly and catastrophically during Noah's flood. It suggests that the rapid movement of tectonic plates, including runaway subduction, caused continental drift, mountain formation, and other major geological changes within the flood year.

What are the primary scientific objections to the catastrophic plate tectonics (CPT) model?

Scientific objections to CPT include the immense amount of heat generated by such rapid plate movements, which would likely boil off the oceans, and the lack of a plausible geophysical mechanism to initiate and sustain it. Furthermore, CPT struggles to explain geological evidence like the formation of guyots (flat-topped seamounts) or the slow cooling of subducted oceanic plates, which contradict its rapid timescale.

What is the vapor canopy theory, and how is it related to flood geology?

The vapor canopy theory, popularized in creationist literature, posits that a thick layer of water vapor existed in the Earth's atmosphere before the Genesis flood. Proponents suggest this canopy provided the water for the flood, shielded the Earth from radiation, and contributed to a more uniform climate. It is used to explain certain geological phenomena and the longevity of pre-flood life.

What scientific criticisms have been raised against the vapor canopy theory?

Scientific criticisms of the vapor canopy theory include that such a dense water vapor layer would create a runaway greenhouse effect, making the Earth too hot for life. Additionally, it would have an optical depth sufficient to block all starlight, and it does not provide a plausible mechanism for how this canopy would collapse to produce the global flood described in Genesis.

How does modern geology determine the age of the Earth and its rock strata?

Modern geology utilizes the scientific method and various geochronological techniques, such as radiometric dating, to determine the absolute age of rocks and sediments. These methods consistently indicate that the Earth is approximately 4.54 billion years old, with rock strata forming gradually over millions of years, a timeline that contradicts the flood geology model.

What is uniformitarianism, and why is it a cornerstone of modern geology?

Uniformitarianism, a principle championed by Charles Lyell, posits that the geological processes observed today, such as erosion, sedimentation, and volcanic activity, are the same processes that have shaped the Earth throughout its history. This principle is fundamental to modern geology because it allows scientists to interpret the past based on present-day observations, leading to the understanding of deep time.

What evidence from sedimentary rocks challenges the flood geology model?

Sedimentary rock features like angular unconformities, where tilted and eroded layers are overlain by newer horizontal layers, require vast amounts of time for these processes, which flood geology cannot accommodate. Additionally, the presence of lake deposits, wind-blown (eolian) deposits, and multiple in-situ generations of marine life within rock layers across different geological periods are inconsistent with a single, short-lived global flood.

How do creationists explain the sequence of fossils found in the geologic column?

Creationists propose several hypotheses for the fossil sequence, including: 1) hydrological sorting based on organism density and shape, 2) ecological zonation, where organisms from lower elevations or ocean floors perished first, and 3) anatomical/behavioral differences, where more mobile creatures survived longer. These explanations attempt to fit the observed fossil order into the timeframe of Noah's flood.

What is the scientific perspective on the claims of fossilized human footprints alongside dinosaur footprints?

Claims of fossilized human footprints found alongside dinosaur footprints, often cited by flood geologists, have been widely debunked by the scientific community. These alleged footprints have been shown to be misidentified animal tracks, natural geological formations, or even deliberate fakes, lacking credible scientific support.

How do proponents of flood geology interpret widespread flood myths from different cultures?

Proponents of flood geology often cite the prevalence of flood myths across various cultures as evidence for a single, global origin event – Noah's flood. They suggest that the common elements found in these stories, such as a warning, a boat, animal storage, and family inclusion, point to a shared historical event transmitted orally through time.

What is the anthropological counter-argument to the interpretation of global flood myths?

Anthropologists like Patrick Nunn argue that the widespread nature of flood myths can be explained by the common human experience of living near water sources prone to occasional, severe floods. These events, recorded in local mythology, do not necessarily indicate a single, global cataclysm but rather recurring regional disasters.

What scientific evidence contradicts the idea that oil and coal deposits formed rapidly during the Genesis flood?

Scientific analysis indicates that the formation of oil and coal requires specific conditions of heat, pressure, and time, typically over millions of years, involving the slow burial and transformation of organic matter. Flood geology's proposal of rapid formation during a single flood event is inconsistent with the complex geological and chemical processes involved in creating these resources.

How does modern paleontology view the fossil record in relation to the age of the Earth?

Modern paleontology views the fossil record as a testament to the long history of life on Earth, spanning billions of years. The sequence and diversity of fossils found in different geological strata provide evidence for evolution and the gradual development of life, supporting an ancient Earth rather than a recent creation and a single global flood.

What are the scientific challenges to the vapor canopy theory regarding its physical properties?

From a physics perspective, a vapor canopy dense enough to hold sufficient water for a global flood would have significant thermal and optical properties. It would trap heat, potentially making the Earth uninhabitable, and its density would obscure starlight, contradicting astronomical observations and the known properties of water vapor as a greenhouse gas.

What is the scientific consensus on the age of the Earth?

The scientific consensus, based on extensive evidence from radiometric dating, astronomical observations, and geological studies, is that the Earth is approximately 4.54 billion years old. This age is vastly different from the few thousand years typically proposed by flood geology and young-earth creationism.

How did the 'Scriptural geologists' attempt to reconcile geology with the Bible?

Scriptural geologists attempted to reconcile geology with the Bible by prioritizing a literal interpretation of Genesis and often arguing that geological formations could be explained by biblical events, particularly the Genesis flood. However, they generally lacked formal geological training and their arguments were not accepted by the mainstream scientific community.

What was the impact of the Sputnik launch on the teaching of evolution and creationism in US schools?

The launch of Sputnik in 1957 spurred a focus on improving science education in the United States. This led to the development of new biology textbooks, such as those from the Biological Sciences Curriculum Study, which reintroduced the teaching of evolution, prompting creationist efforts to counter this in schools.

What legal challenges arose concerning the teaching of evolution in schools in the mid-20th century?

Legal challenges arose from creationists seeking to ban or limit the teaching of evolution in public schools, arguing it conflicted with religious beliefs. Landmark cases like Epperson v. Arkansas (1968) ultimately ruled such bans unconstitutional, citing violations of the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment, which prohibits government endorsement of religion.

What is the significance of the 'Ararat anomaly' in the context of searches for Noah's Ark?

The 'Ararat anomaly' refers to purported evidence, such as radar images or alleged artifacts, found on or near Mount Ararat that some believe are remnants of Noah's Ark. However, these claims have not been substantiated by scientific investigation and are generally dismissed by the scientific community as misinterpretations or hoaxes.

How did the Creation Research Society (CRS) influence the creationist movement?

The Creation Research Society (CRS), founded in 1963, provided a platform for scientists who adhered to creationist beliefs, including flood geology. By publishing the CRS Quarterly and developing educational materials, the CRS played a significant role in promoting creation science and advocating for its inclusion in school curricula, particularly in opposition to evolutionary biology.

What role did Bernard Ramm play in the creationism vs. evolution debate?

Bernard Ramm, in his 1954 book 'The Christian View of Science and Scripture,' critiqued flood geology and the literalist approach of George McCready Price. Ramm proposed progressive creationism, suggesting that Genesis days represented long periods of time, and advocated for a more nuanced reconciliation of science and faith, though his views were not fully embraced by all evangelical theologians.

What are the main arguments creationists use regarding the origin of oil and coal?

Creationists often propose that oil and coal deposits formed rapidly during Noah's flood. They suggest that vegetation was quickly buried and then decomposed under the heat of subterranean waters or the pressure of flood sediments, transforming into oil or coal in a short period, contrary to the scientific understanding of these resources forming over millions of years.

How does modern geology explain the existence of features like angular unconformities?

Modern geology explains angular unconformities, where rock layers are tilted, eroded, and then covered by new horizontal layers, as processes that require immense spans of time. These features demonstrate periods of uplift, erosion, and subsequent deposition, which are incompatible with the short timeframe proposed by flood geology for the Earth's history.

What is the scientific perspective on the claim that fossils indicate a single cataclysmic flood?

The scientific perspective is that the fossil record, with its distinct layers and sequences of life forms, indicates a long history of gradual changes and evolutionary development over millions of years, not a single cataclysmic event. Features like erosion between strata and the presence of multiple, distinct fossil assemblages contradict the idea of a single flood being responsible for all fossilization.

What is the significance of the alternation between calcite seas and aragonite seas in Earth's history?

The cyclical alternation between calcite seas and aragonite seas throughout the Phanerozoic eon is explained by geochemistry and plate tectonics, linked to seafloor spreading rates and hydrothermal vent activity. This geochemical pattern, occurring over vast geological timescales, is not accounted for by flood geology's model.

How does flood geology account for the differing levels of erosion observed in mountain ranges like the Appalachians and Rockies?

Flood geology struggles to explain the significant differences in erosion levels observed between mountain ranges like the Appalachians and the Rockies. These variations are better explained by modern geology through factors such as the age of the mountain ranges, their geological composition, and the long-term geological processes and climate variations they have experienced, rather than a single global flood.

What is the scientific consensus on the 'created kinds' concept in creation science?

The scientific consensus does not support the creationist concept of distinct, fixed 'created kinds' (baraminology) as the basis for life's diversity. Evolutionary biology, supported by genetics and the fossil record, demonstrates that species evolve and change over time through natural selection and other mechanisms, leading to the vast array of life observed today.

What is the scientific explanation for the formation of coal and oil deposits?

Coal and oil deposits are scientifically understood to form over millions of years from the slow accumulation and transformation of organic matter under specific conditions of heat, pressure, and geological burial. This process is fundamentally different from the rapid formation proposed by flood geology, which suggests these resources were created during Noah's flood.

Flood Geology Wiki: Earth's Stratified Past: An Inquiry into Flood Geology

Dive in with Flashcard Learning!

When you are ready...
🎮 Play the Wiki2Web Clarity Challenge Game🎮

Introduction to Flood Geology

Defining the Concept

Flood geology, also referred to as creation geology or diluvial geology, represents a pseudoscientific endeavor to interpret Earth's geological features through the lens of a literal belief in the Genesis flood narrative found in the Hebrew Bible. This perspective posits that geological formations are primarily the result of a single, global catastrophic flood event, aligning with a young Earth chronology.

Historical Context

In the early 19th century, "diluvial" geologists hypothesized that surface features provided evidence of a worldwide flood. However, subsequent investigations led the scientific community to attribute these features to local floods or glacial activity. In the 20th century, young-Earth creationists revived flood geology as a counter-argument to evolutionary theory, proposing a recent six-day Creation and attributing geological changes to the biblical flood.

Scientific Consensus

Mainstream geology and related scientific disciplines, including stratigraphy, geophysics, paleontology, and biology, operate under the principles of the scientific method. These disciplines have established a comprehensive understanding of Earth's history, including an ancient age and evolutionary processes, which fundamentally contradicts the tenets of flood geology. Consequently, flood geology is widely regarded as a pseudoscience by the scientific community.

Historical Development

Early Interpretations

Ancient Greek philosophers, observing fossils, proposed that the sea had previously covered the land. Early Christian writers, including Augustine and Martin Luther, interpreted fossils as remnants from the Genesis flood. In the 17th century, natural philosophers like Thomas Burnet and John Woodward developed elaborate "Theories of the Earth," attempting to reconcile biblical accounts with natural laws, though their models were often speculative and relied on interpretations of scripture over empirical evidence.

The Rise of Modern Geology

The development of modern geology in the 18th century, particularly through the work of James Hutton and Charles Lyell, introduced concepts like uniformitarianism and an ancient Earth. These principles, based on observable processes and extensive geological evidence, directly challenged earlier catastrophic models. Geologists like William Buckland initially attempted to integrate the Genesis flood into geological explanations, but later retracted these views as evidence mounted for gradual processes and vast timescales.

Scriptural Geologists

A group known as "scriptural geologists" emerged in the early 19th century, advocating for a literal interpretation of the Bible and a young Earth. They critiqued the emerging scientific consensus, often drawing on outdated geological literature. Despite their efforts, their views were largely marginalized by the scientific community due to a lack of rigorous methodology and empirical support.

Key Theoretical Frameworks

Diluvialism and Catastrophism

Early geological thought often incorporated catastrophic events. Diluvialism specifically attributed surface features like gravel deposits and erratic boulders to a global deluge. Catastrophism, a broader theory, proposed that Earth's geological history was shaped by a series of large-scale, sudden events, contrasting with the gradualism later championed by uniformitarianism.

Creation Science

In the mid-20th century, figures like Henry M. Morris and John C. Whitcomb Jr. revitalized flood geology, rebranding it as "creation science" or "scientific creationism." This movement sought to present biblical creation and the Genesis flood as scientifically viable alternatives to evolutionary theory, emphasizing a literal interpretation of scripture and challenging established scientific dating methods.

Literal interpretation of Genesis creation accounts.
Belief in a young Earth (typically under 10,000 years old).
The global flood as the primary agent for geological formations and fossil distribution.
Rejection of evolutionary theory and uniformitarianism.
Emphasis on "created kinds" rather than evolutionary lineages.

Flood Geology vs. Scientific Understanding

Geochronology and Dating

Mainstream geology utilizes geochronological methods, such as radiometric dating, to establish Earth's age at approximately 4.54 billion years. Flood geology, conversely, posits that geological strata were deposited rapidly during a single flood event approximately 6,000 years ago. This fundamental discrepancy in timescales is a primary point of divergence.

Paleontology and Fossil Record

The fossil record, as understood by paleontology, reveals a sequence of life forms evolving over millions of years. Flood geology interprets this sequence as a result of ecological zonation or differential mobility during the flood, with organisms buried according to their habitat or buoyancy. Scientific analysis indicates that the fossil record's complexity, including evidence of gradual change, extinction events, and distinct geological periods, is incompatible with a single, short-duration flood.

Sedimentary Features and Physics

Geological formations such as angular unconformities, which show tilted and eroded rock layers subsequently covered by new strata, require vast periods for their formation. Similarly, the existence of distinct terrestrial and marine deposits, wind-blown (eolian) deposits, and evidence of multiple, long hiatuses in sedimentation are inconsistent with the rapid, global depositional model proposed by flood geology. Furthermore, physical principles related to heat generation from rapid tectonic movement and the properties of water vapor suggest that the proposed mechanisms are not scientifically plausible.

Proposed Mechanisms

Catastrophic Plate Tectonics (CPT)

Some proponents of flood geology have developed models of "catastrophic plate tectonics" (CPT). This hypothesis suggests that the Earth's continents rapidly separated and moved across the globe during the Genesis flood, driven by runaway subduction. While attempting to explain geological features through a rapid version of conventional plate tectonics, CPT faces significant scientific challenges, including implausible energy release, heat generation, and contradictions with observed geological evidence like oceanic island chains and sedimentation rates.

Vapor Canopy Theory

Another proposed mechanism involves a "vapor canopy" or "water canopy" surrounding the Earth before the flood. This canopy, upon collapsing, is theorized to have provided the water for the global flood and potentially contributed to a pre-flood greenhouse effect. However, physics calculations indicate that such a canopy would have generated excessive heat, making life on Earth impossible, and would have obscured starlight.

Critiques and Refutations

Scientific Rejection

Flood geology is overwhelmingly rejected by the scientific community due to its lack of empirical support and its reliance on interpretations that contradict established scientific principles. Key criticisms include the inability to explain the vast diversity of geological formations, the sequence and preservation of fossils, the age of the Earth, and the physical processes required for a global flood.

Methodological Concerns

The methodology employed by flood geology proponents often involves selectively interpreting data to fit a predetermined conclusion, rather than allowing evidence to guide theory formation. This approach, characteristic of pseudoscience, fails to adhere to the rigorous standards of the scientific method, including falsifiability and peer review.

Teacher's Corner

Edit and Print this course in the Wiki2Web Teacher Studio

Edit and Print Materials from this study in the wiki2web studio

Click here to open the "Flood Geology" Wiki2Web Studio curriculum kit

Use the free Wiki2web Studio to generate printable flashcards, worksheets, exams, and export your materials as a web page or an interactive game.

True or False?

Test Your Knowledge!

Gamer's Corner

Are you ready for the Wiki2Web Clarity Challenge?

Learn about flood_geology while playing the wiki2web Clarity Challenge game.

Unlock the mystery image and prove your knowledge by earning trophies. This simple game is addictively fun and is a great way to learn!

Play now

Explore More Topics

Discover other topics to study!

References

Evans 2009 Its supporters were first known as flood geologists. Then, in about 1970, they renamed themselves "scientific creationists" or "young-earth creationists".

Isaak, Mark. The Counter-Creationism Handbook. Berkeley: University of California Press, 2007.

Rudwick 2008, p. 84, "But since William Henry Fitton and other geologists regarded [scriptural geology] as scientifically worthlessâ¦".

Isaak 2007, p. 173 Creationist claim CD750.

"Noahâs Flood â Where did the water come from?" Answers in Genesis, 2014. Retrieved 4 July 2014.

Insight into the Scriptures Volume 1 (1988) pp. 609â612: http://wol.jw.org/en/wol/d/r1/lp-e/1200001150

A full list of references for this article are available at the Flood geology Wikipedia page

Feedback & Support

To report an issue with this page, or to find out ways to support the mission, please click here.

Academic Disclaimer

Important Notice

This document was generated by an AI and is intended for informational and educational purposes only. The content is based on publicly available data and aims to present an academic overview of flood geology, contrasting it with mainstream scientific understanding.

This is not scientific advice. The information provided herein is not a substitute for rigorous scientific study, peer-reviewed research, or consultation with qualified geologists and scientists. The principles of flood geology are not supported by the scientific community. Always consult established scientific literature and experts for accurate geological information.

The creators of this page are not responsible for any interpretations or actions taken based on the information presented.

Earth's Stratified Past

Dive in with Flashcard Learning!

Introduction to Flood Geology

Defining the Concept

Historical Context

Scientific Consensus

Historical Development

Early Interpretations

The Rise of Modern Geology

Scriptural Geologists

Key Theoretical Frameworks

Diluvialism and Catastrophism

Creation Science

Flood Geology vs. Scientific Understanding

Geochronology and Dating

Paleontology and Fossil Record

Sedimentary Features and Physics

Proposed Mechanisms

Catastrophic Plate Tectonics (CPT)

Vapor Canopy Theory

Critiques and Refutations

Scientific Rejection

Methodological Concerns

Related Topics

Further Exploration

Teacher's Corner

Edit and Print this course in the Wiki2Web Teacher Studio

True or False?

Test Your Knowledge!

Gamer's Corner

Are you ready for the Wiki2Web Clarity Challenge?

Explore More Topics

Discover other topics to study!

References

References

Feedback & Support

To report an issue with this page, or to find out ways to support the mission, please click here.

Academic Disclaimer

Important Notice

Earth's Stratified Past

💡 Dive in with Flashcard Learning! 💡

Introduction to Flood Geology ℹ️

🔬 Defining the Concept

📜 Historical Context

⚠️ Scientific Consensus

Historical Development ⏳

🌍 Early Interpretations

🔬 The Rise of Modern Geology

🗣️ Scriptural Geologists

Key Theoretical Frameworks 🧠

🏛️ Diluvialism and Catastrophism

💡 Creation Science

Flood Geology vs. Scientific Understanding ⚖️

📊 Geochronology and Dating

fossil_record Paleontology and Fossil Record

🪨 Sedimentary Features and Physics

Proposed Mechanisms ⚙️

🌋 Catastrophic Plate Tectonics (CPT)

☁️ Vapor Canopy Theory

Critiques and Refutations ❌

🚫 Scientific Rejection

🧐 Methodological Concerns

Related Topics 🔗

📚 Further Exploration

Teacher's Corner 🧑‍🏫

Edit and Print this course in the Wiki2Web Teacher Studio

True or False? 🤔

❓ Test Your Knowledge! ❓

Gamer's Corner 🎮

Are you ready for the Wiki2Web Clarity Challenge?

Explore More Topics

📜 Discover other topics to study!

References

📜 References

Feedback & Support 👍

To report an issue with this page, or to find out ways to support the mission, please click here.

Academic Disclaimer ⚠️

📜 Important Notice

Dive in with Flashcard Learning!

Introduction to Flood Geology

Defining the Concept

Historical Context

Scientific Consensus

Historical Development

Early Interpretations

The Rise of Modern Geology

Scriptural Geologists

Key Theoretical Frameworks

Diluvialism and Catastrophism

Creation Science

Flood Geology vs. Scientific Understanding

Geochronology and Dating

Paleontology and Fossil Record

Sedimentary Features and Physics

Proposed Mechanisms

Catastrophic Plate Tectonics (CPT)

Vapor Canopy Theory

Critiques and Refutations

Scientific Rejection

Methodological Concerns

Related Topics

Further Exploration

Teacher's Corner

True or False?

Test Your Knowledge!

Gamer's Corner

Discover other topics to study!

References

Feedback & Support

Academic Disclaimer

Important Notice