Flood Geology - Revision history

RobSmith: Reverted edits by NotAKiller (talk) to last revision by DavidB4-bot

2021-09-20T01:30:56Z

Reverted edits by NotAKiller (talk) to last revision by DavidB4-bot

NotAKiller at 01:17, September 20, 2021

2021-09-20T01:17:55Z

DavidB4-bot: HTTP --> HTTPS #3, replaced: http://www.icr.org → https://www.icr.org (7), http://creation.com → https://creation.com

2019-04-09T13:53:15Z

HTTP --> HTTPS #3, replaced: http://www.icr.org → https://www.icr.org (7), http://creation.com → https://creation.com

DavidB4-bot: Spelling/Grammar Check, typos fixed: millenia → millennia, world wide → worldwide, newly- → newly

2016-07-18T16:54:40Z

Spelling/Grammar Check, typos fixed: millenia → millennia, world wide → worldwide, newly- → newly

DavidB4-bot: clean up & uniformity

2016-07-13T13:01:53Z

clean up & uniformity

Dataclarifier: added "See also" section, with Literalist Bible chronology listing

2014-11-14T02:26:38Z

added "See also" section, with Literalist Bible chronology listing

Randall7: /* Explanation of Geological Strata */

2012-09-07T23:48:50Z

Explanation of Geological Strata

Brenden: Undo revision 1003200 by Karajou (talk) well they are valid points

2012-09-07T23:28:23Z

Undo revision 1003200 by Karajou (talk) well they are valid points

Karajou: Reverted edits by Etait (talk) to last revision by AriannaK

2012-09-01T21:30:43Z

Reverted edits by Etait (talk) to last revision by AriannaK

Etait: well why not?

2012-09-01T18:47:00Z

well why not?

← Older revision		Revision as of 01:30, September 20, 2021
Line 1:		Line 1:
−	'''Flood geology''' is the study of the Earth's geology from the ~~[[pseudoscience\|pseudoscientific]]~~ point of view that the Earth's geology was radically redefined by a [[Great Flood\|global flood]] in the relatively recent past, as recorded in [[Genesis]], as well as the scores of flood stories in other cultures throughout the world.<ref>https://www.icr.org/article/570/</ref>	+	'''Flood geology''' is the study of the Earth's geology from the point of view that the Earth's geology was radically redefined by a [[Great Flood\|global flood]] in the relatively recent past, as recorded in [[Genesis]], as well as the scores of flood stories in other cultures throughout the world.<ref>https://www.icr.org/article/570/</ref>

	== Genesis Flood account ==		== Genesis Flood account ==

← Older revision		Revision as of 01:17, September 20, 2021
Line 1:		Line 1:
−	'''Flood geology''' is the study of the Earth's geology from the point of view that the Earth's geology was radically redefined by a [[Great Flood\|global flood]] in the relatively recent past, as recorded in [[Genesis]], as well as the scores of flood stories in other cultures throughout the world.<ref>https://www.icr.org/article/570/</ref>	+	'''Flood geology''' is the study of the Earth's geology from the [[pseudoscience\|pseudoscientific]] point of view that the Earth's geology was radically redefined by a [[Great Flood\|global flood]] in the relatively recent past, as recorded in [[Genesis]], as well as the scores of flood stories in other cultures throughout the world.<ref>https://www.icr.org/article/570/</ref>

	== Genesis Flood account ==		== Genesis Flood account ==

@@ Line 1: / Line 1: @@
-'''Flood geology''' is the study of the Earth's geology from the point of view that the Earth's geology was radically redefined by a [[Great Flood|global flood]] in the relatively recent past, as recorded in [[Genesis]], as well as the scores of flood stories in other cultures throughout the world.<ref>http://www.icr.org/article/570/</ref>
+'''Flood geology''' is the study of the Earth's geology from the point of view that the Earth's geology was radically redefined by a [[Great Flood|global flood]] in the relatively recent past, as recorded in [[Genesis]], as well as the scores of flood stories in other cultures throughout the world.<ref>https://www.icr.org/article/570/</ref>
 == Genesis Flood account ==
@@ Line 57: / Line 57: @@
 They argue that archaeological dates which purport to show civilisations and artifacts being older than the Flood (see Criticisms) are incorrect because they are based on the presumption that none of these methods would be altered by the effects of a global flood in such a way as to render conclusions drawn from them invalid.<ref>One example is Carbon Dating which is calibrated according to known background levels of C14 in the atmosphere, but this calibration does not account for likely altered levels due to extensive volcanism during the Flood.  See [http://www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/5026/ Carbon dating into the future] (Creation Ministries International).</ref>  [[Christian apologetics|Christian apologetists]] state that the biblical flood would have occurred before the Egyptian pyramids were built and that the commonly cited Egyptian chronology is errant and built upon poor foundations.<ref>http://www.apologeticspress.org/articles/2503</ref>  Also, Christian apologists argue that ancient Sumerian history supports the flood account given in the Bible.<ref>http://www.christiananswers.net/q-abr/abr-a009.html</ref>  In addition, ancient Sumerian literature speaks of a worldwide flood.<ref>http://home.comcast.net/~chris.s/sumer-faq.html#A1.6</ref>
-[[Creationism|Creationist]] scientists also state that the chronology used to dispute a worldwide flood based on tree rings is invalid.<ref>http://www.icr.org/index.php?module=articles&action=view&ID=381</ref><ref>http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/faq/docs/tree_ring.asp</ref><ref>http://www.biblicalchronologist.org/answers/c14_treerings.php</ref><ref>http://www.grisda.org/origins/21066.htm</ref><ref>http://www.creationresearch.org/crsq/articles/26/26_1a.html</ref><ref>http://www.creationresearch.org/crsq/abstracts/sum29_4.html</ref>
+[[Creationism|Creationist]] scientists also state that the chronology used to dispute a worldwide flood based on tree rings is invalid.<ref>https://www.icr.org/index.php?module=articles&action=view&ID=381</ref><ref>http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/faq/docs/tree_ring.asp</ref><ref>http://www.biblicalchronologist.org/answers/c14_treerings.php</ref><ref>http://www.grisda.org/origins/21066.htm</ref><ref>http://www.creationresearch.org/crsq/articles/26/26_1a.html</ref><ref>http://www.creationresearch.org/crsq/abstracts/sum29_4.html</ref>
 ==Counterevidence==
@@ Line 63: / Line 63: @@
 ===Explanation of Geological Strata===
-Advocates of flood geology generally use the flood as an explanation for the existence of the geologic column, and indeed any geological phenomena or feature. It proposes that the age of the Earth as shown by rock strata is only apparently old, an illusion caused by looking at it through a secular worldview. Thus, while a scientist may spend years developing and testing theories through evidence, a flood geologist manufactures evidence to fit his theory.<ref>The following article explains how Christian geologists create explanations for the flood based on the Biblical account, instead of creating theories based on observed evidence like secular scientists do: http://creation.com/flood-geological-maps</ref>
+Advocates of flood geology generally use the flood as an explanation for the existence of the geologic column, and indeed any geological phenomena or feature. It proposes that the age of the Earth as shown by rock strata is only apparently old, an illusion caused by looking at it through a secular worldview. Thus, while a scientist may spend years developing and testing theories through evidence, a flood geologist manufactures evidence to fit his theory.<ref>The following article explains how Christian geologists create explanations for the flood based on the Biblical account, instead of creating theories based on observed evidence like secular scientists do: https://creation.com/flood-geological-maps</ref>
 ===Fossils===
@@ Line 87: / Line 87: @@
 Until the rise of uniformitarian [[geology]] in the early 19th century, most geologists accepted the Noahic deluge as part of geology. But [[James Hutton]] proposed in 1795 that geology ought to be based on the processes that we see happening now, thereby automatically ruling the Flood out of consideration. During the 19th century a number of "[[scriptural geologist]]s" held out against the rising acceptance of Hutton's principles, but they fought a losing battle and interest in flood geology virtually died out by the end of the 19th century.
-However, in the second half of the 20th century, interest was revived amongst people keen to show that the biblical account was correct, and a small but growing number of geologists are now studying this field again, although the vast majority of geologists still reject the idea of a global flood on Earth.  At the same time, there has been a recent resurgence of [[catastrophism]] in geological interpretation.<ref>http://www.icr.org/index.php?module=articles&action=print&ID=84</ref><ref>http://www.grisda.org/georpts/gr11.htm</ref>
+However, in the second half of the 20th century, interest was revived amongst people keen to show that the biblical account was correct, and a small but growing number of geologists are now studying this field again, although the vast majority of geologists still reject the idea of a global flood on Earth.  At the same time, there has been a recent resurgence of [[catastrophism]] in geological interpretation.<ref>https://www.icr.org/index.php?module=articles&action=print&ID=84</ref><ref>http://www.grisda.org/georpts/gr11.htm</ref>
-Interest in Flood Geology was stimulated by the 1961 publication of ''[[The Genesis Flood]]'', by [[Henry Morris]] and [[John Whitcomb]]. Dr. Henry Morris had a number of arguments for geology supporting a worldwide flood.<ref>http://www.icr.org/index.php?module=articles&action=view&ID=54</ref><ref>http://www.icr.org/index.php?module=articles&action=print&ID=84</ref><ref>http://www.icr.org/article/842/</ref>
+Interest in Flood Geology was stimulated by the 1961 publication of ''[[The Genesis Flood]]'', by [[Henry Morris]] and [[John Whitcomb]]. Dr. Henry Morris had a number of arguments for geology supporting a worldwide flood.<ref>https://www.icr.org/index.php?module=articles&action=view&ID=54</ref><ref>https://www.icr.org/index.php?module=articles&action=print&ID=84</ref><ref>https://www.icr.org/article/842/</ref>
 {{Creation vs. evolution}}
@@ Line 96: / Line 96: @@
 == External links ==
-*[http://www.icr.org/index.php?module=articles&action=view&ID=54 Geology and the Flood] by [[Henry Morris]], Ph.D.
+*[https://www.icr.org/index.php?module=articles&action=view&ID=54 Geology and the Flood] by [[Henry Morris]], Ph.D.
 *[http://www.creationism.org/symposium/symp3no2.htm Stratigraphic Evidence of the Flood] by Stuart E. Nevins.
 * [http://www.answersingenesis.org/tj/v14/i1/flood_models.asp Flood models: the need for an integrated approach] by A.C. McIntosh, T. Edmondson & S. Taylor.

@@ Line 2: / Line 2: @@
 == Genesis Flood account ==
-Genesis provides the most detailed account of the global deluge, including specific dates, measurements, and even some key geological events during the flood.  Consequently, flood geologists use it as a starting point for understanding the events of the deluge.  Based on the Genesis account, flood geologists argue that the flood resulted from subterranean water erupting to the surface ("the springs of the great deep burst forth" <ref>Genesis 7:11, NIV</ref>), combined with 40 days and nights of rain. Although the rain stopped after 40 days, the flood waters continued to rise for 150 days, and lasted just over a year before Noah and the others on the boat were able to leave. During the flood, there was massive tectonic activity, including some land rising up and other land dropping, such that the waters ended up in newly-deepened oceans. All the animals and birds (except those on the ark), and large numbers of sea creatures perished, and many of them were buried so quickly that they became fossils, accounting for the vast majority of fossils existing today.
+Genesis provides the most detailed account of the global deluge, including specific dates, measurements, and even some key geological events during the flood.  Consequently, flood geologists use it as a starting point for understanding the events of the deluge.  Based on the Genesis account, flood geologists argue that the flood resulted from subterranean water erupting to the surface ("the springs of the great deep burst forth" <ref>Genesis 7:11, NIV</ref>), combined with 40 days and nights of rain. Although the rain stopped after 40 days, the flood waters continued to rise for 150 days, and lasted just over a year before Noah and the others on the boat were able to leave. During the flood, there was massive tectonic activity, including some land rising up and other land dropping, such that the waters ended up in newly deepened oceans. All the animals and birds (except those on the ark), and large numbers of sea creatures perished, and many of them were buried so quickly that they became fossils, accounting for the vast majority of fossils existing today.
 == Evidence ==
@@ Line 25: / Line 25: @@
 === Pure sedimentary layers ===
-If sedimentary layers were laid down over millenia, they would have experienced mixing.  However, many rock strata are pure—for example, the [[St. Peter Sandstone]], covering 500,000 sq miles of the United States, is 99.94% pure silica.  While uniformitarian scientists state that it was deposited by the shore of a sea, they cannot explain how it remained so pure if it was laid out over a long period of time.  However, the sorting processes of [[liquefaction]], consistent with a global flood, can make such an explanation.
+If sedimentary layers were laid down over millennia, they would have experienced mixing.  However, many rock strata are pure—for example, the [[St. Peter Sandstone]], covering 500,000 sq miles of the United States, is 99.94% pure silica.  While uniformitarian scientists state that it was deposited by the shore of a sea, they cannot explain how it remained so pure if it was laid out over a long period of time.  However, the sorting processes of [[liquefaction]], consistent with a global flood, can make such an explanation.
 === Submarine canyons ===
@@ Line 55: / Line 55: @@
 Flood geologists date the flood to around 2350 B.C., based on [[biblical chronology]].
-They argue that archaeological dates which purport to show civilisations and artifacts being older than the Flood (see Criticisms) are incorrect because they are based on the presumption that none of these methods would be altered by the effects of a global flood in such a way as to render conclusions drawn from them invalid.<ref>One example is Carbon Dating which is calibrated according to known background levels of C14 in the atmosphere, but this calibration does not account for likely altered levels due to extensive volcanism during the Flood.  See [http://www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/5026/ Carbon dating into the future] (Creation Ministries International).</ref>  [[Christian apologetics|Christian apologetists]] state that the biblical flood would have occurred before the Egyptian pyramids were built and that the commonly cited Egyptian chronology is errant and built upon poor foundations.<ref>http://www.apologeticspress.org/articles/2503</ref>  Also, Christian apologists argue that ancient Sumerian history supports the flood account given in the Bible.<ref>http://www.christiananswers.net/q-abr/abr-a009.html</ref>  In addition, ancient Sumerian literature speaks of a world wide flood.<ref>http://home.comcast.net/~chris.s/sumer-faq.html#A1.6</ref>
+They argue that archaeological dates which purport to show civilisations and artifacts being older than the Flood (see Criticisms) are incorrect because they are based on the presumption that none of these methods would be altered by the effects of a global flood in such a way as to render conclusions drawn from them invalid.<ref>One example is Carbon Dating which is calibrated according to known background levels of C14 in the atmosphere, but this calibration does not account for likely altered levels due to extensive volcanism during the Flood.  See [http://www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/5026/ Carbon dating into the future] (Creation Ministries International).</ref>  [[Christian apologetics|Christian apologetists]] state that the biblical flood would have occurred before the Egyptian pyramids were built and that the commonly cited Egyptian chronology is errant and built upon poor foundations.<ref>http://www.apologeticspress.org/articles/2503</ref>  Also, Christian apologists argue that ancient Sumerian history supports the flood account given in the Bible.<ref>http://www.christiananswers.net/q-abr/abr-a009.html</ref>  In addition, ancient Sumerian literature speaks of a worldwide flood.<ref>http://home.comcast.net/~chris.s/sumer-faq.html#A1.6</ref>
 [[Creationism|Creationist]] scientists also state that the chronology used to dispute a worldwide flood based on tree rings is invalid.<ref>http://www.icr.org/index.php?module=articles&action=view&ID=381</ref><ref>http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/faq/docs/tree_ring.asp</ref><ref>http://www.biblicalchronologist.org/answers/c14_treerings.php</ref><ref>http://www.grisda.org/origins/21066.htm</ref><ref>http://www.creationresearch.org/crsq/articles/26/26_1a.html</ref><ref>http://www.creationresearch.org/crsq/abstracts/sum29_4.html</ref>

@@ Line 11: / Line 11: @@
 === Sufficient water ===
-There is enough water on Earth today to cover the entire surface to a depth of 2.7 kilometres (1.7 miles), if the surface was levelled out.<ref>[http://www.creationontheweb.com/images/pdfs/cabook/chapter12.pdf Noah’s Flood&mdash;what about all that water?], Chapter 4 of the ''Creation Answers Book'', Dr. Don Batten (Ed.)</ref>  Continents emerge because the average ocean depth is 3.7 km.<ref>http://www.mos.org/oceans/planet/features.html</ref>.  Flood geologists argue that geological activity during and after the flood lowered the ocean basins, causing water to flow from the continents into the basins, and leaving dry land.<ref>{{Bible ref|Psalms|104|6-9|version=NASB}} "You covered it with the deep as with a garment; The waters were standing above the mountains. At Your rebuke they fled, At the sound of Your thunder they hurried away. '''The mountains rose; the valleys sank down''' To the place which You established for them. You set a boundary that they may not pass over, So that they will not return to cover the earth."</ref>
+There is enough water on Earth today to cover the entire surface to a depth of 2.7 kilometres (1.7 miles), if the surface was levelled out.<ref>[http://www.creationontheweb.com/images/pdfs/cabook/chapter12.pdf Noah’s Flood&mdash;what about all that water?], Chapter 4 of the ''Creation Answers Book'', Dr. Don Batten (Ed.)</ref>  Continents emerge because the average ocean depth is 3.7&nbsp;km.<ref>http://www.mos.org/oceans/planet/features.html</ref>  Flood geologists argue that geological activity during and after the flood lowered the ocean basins, causing water to flow from the continents into the basins, and leaving dry land.<ref>{{Bible ref|Psalms|104|6-9|version=NASB}} "You covered it with the deep as with a garment; The waters were standing above the mountains. At Your rebuke they fled, At the sound of Your thunder they hurried away. '''The mountains rose; the valleys sank down''' To the place which You established for them. You set a boundary that they may not pass over, So that they will not return to cover the earth."</ref>
 === Fossils ===
@@ Line 25: / Line 25: @@
 === Pure sedimentary layers ===
-If sedimentary layers were laid down over millenia, they would have experienced mixing.  However, many rock strata are pure -- for example, the [[St. Peter Sandstone]], covering 500,000 sq miles of the United States, is 99.94% pure silica.  While uniformitarian scientists state that it was deposited by the shore of a sea, they cannot explain how it remained so pure if it was laid out over a long period of time.  However, the sorting processes of [[liquefaction]], consistent with a global flood, can make such an explanation.
+If sedimentary layers were laid down over millenia, they would have experienced mixing.  However, many rock strata are pure—for example, the [[St. Peter Sandstone]], covering 500,000 sq miles of the United States, is 99.94% pure silica.  While uniformitarian scientists state that it was deposited by the shore of a sea, they cannot explain how it remained so pure if it was laid out over a long period of time.  However, the sorting processes of [[liquefaction]], consistent with a global flood, can make such an explanation.
 === Submarine canyons ===
@@ Line 31: / Line 31: @@
 === Land canyons ===
-As explanation for great land canyons such as the [[Grand Canyon]], flood geologists point to canyon formation events such as the catastrophic hot mud slides observed during the eruption of Mt. St. Helens. One particular hot mud slide at Mt. St. Helens carved a canyon 140 ft. deep and 17 miles long in a single day. Only a thin creek remains at the bottom of the canyon today, which would likely be interpreted as having carved the canyon "over millions of years," if it were not known first-hand that the canyon was carved in a single day.
+As explanation for great land canyons such as the [[Grand Canyon]], flood geologists point to canyon formation events such as the catastrophic hot mud slides observed during the eruption of Mt. St. Helens. One particular hot mud slide at Mt. St. Helens carved a canyon 140&nbsp;ft. deep and 17 miles long in a single day. Only a thin creek remains at the bottom of the canyon today, which would likely be interpreted as having carved the canyon "over millions of years," if it were not known first-hand that the canyon was carved in a single day.
 === Ancient accounts of a navigable Atlantic ===
@@ Line 55: / Line 55: @@
 Flood geologists date the flood to around 2350 B.C., based on [[biblical chronology]].
-They argue that archaeological dates which purport to show civilisations and artifacts being older than the Flood (see Criticisms) are incorrect because they are based on the presumption that none of these methods would be altered by the effects of a global flood in such a way as to render conclusions drawn from them invalid.<ref>One example is Carbon Dating which is calibrated according to known background levels of C14 in the atmosphere, but this calibration does not account for likely altered levels due to extensive volcanism during the Flood.  See [http://www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/5026/ Carbon dating into the future] (Creation Ministries International).</ref>  [[Christian apologetics|Christian apologetists]] state that the biblical flood would have occurred before the Egyptian pyramids were built and that the commonly cited Egyptian chronology is errant and built upon poor foundations. <ref>http://www.apologeticspress.org/articles/2503</ref>  Also, Christian apologists argue that ancient Sumerian history supports the flood account given in the Bible. <ref>http://www.christiananswers.net/q-abr/abr-a009.html</ref>  In addition, ancient Sumerian literature speaks of a world wide flood. <ref>http://home.comcast.net/~chris.s/sumer-faq.html#A1.6</ref>
+They argue that archaeological dates which purport to show civilisations and artifacts being older than the Flood (see Criticisms) are incorrect because they are based on the presumption that none of these methods would be altered by the effects of a global flood in such a way as to render conclusions drawn from them invalid.<ref>One example is Carbon Dating which is calibrated according to known background levels of C14 in the atmosphere, but this calibration does not account for likely altered levels due to extensive volcanism during the Flood.  See [http://www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/5026/ Carbon dating into the future] (Creation Ministries International).</ref>  [[Christian apologetics|Christian apologetists]] state that the biblical flood would have occurred before the Egyptian pyramids were built and that the commonly cited Egyptian chronology is errant and built upon poor foundations.<ref>http://www.apologeticspress.org/articles/2503</ref>  Also, Christian apologists argue that ancient Sumerian history supports the flood account given in the Bible.<ref>http://www.christiananswers.net/q-abr/abr-a009.html</ref>  In addition, ancient Sumerian literature speaks of a world wide flood.<ref>http://home.comcast.net/~chris.s/sumer-faq.html#A1.6</ref>
-[[Creationism|Creationist]] scientists also state that the chronology used to dispute a worldwide flood based on tree rings is invalid.<ref>http://www.icr.org/index.php?module=articles&action=view&ID=381</ref> <ref>http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/faq/docs/tree_ring.asp</ref><ref>http://www.biblicalchronologist.org/answers/c14_treerings.php</ref><ref>http://www.grisda.org/origins/21066.htm</ref><ref>http://www.creationresearch.org/crsq/articles/26/26_1a.html</ref><ref>http://www.creationresearch.org/crsq/abstracts/sum29_4.html</ref>
+[[Creationism|Creationist]] scientists also state that the chronology used to dispute a worldwide flood based on tree rings is invalid.<ref>http://www.icr.org/index.php?module=articles&action=view&ID=381</ref><ref>http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/faq/docs/tree_ring.asp</ref><ref>http://www.biblicalchronologist.org/answers/c14_treerings.php</ref><ref>http://www.grisda.org/origins/21066.htm</ref><ref>http://www.creationresearch.org/crsq/articles/26/26_1a.html</ref><ref>http://www.creationresearch.org/crsq/abstracts/sum29_4.html</ref>
 ==Counterevidence==
@@ Line 77: / Line 77: @@
 ==Creationist Scientists Defense of Flood Geology ==
-Creationist scientists assert that there are multiple lines of evidence from the field of geology showing that flood geology is correct. <ref>http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/faq/geology.asp</ref><ref>http://www.creationism.org/topbar/geology.htm</ref><ref>http://www.grisda.org/georpts/gr11.htm</ref><ref>http://www.nwcreation.net/geologylinks.html</ref><ref>http://globalflood.org/</ref>  Creationist scientists also state that there was enough water to cause a worldwide flood and various other objections to a worldwide flood are invalid. <ref>http://www.answersingenesis.org/Home/Area/AnswersBook/flood12.asp</ref><ref>http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/faq/flood.asp</ref>
+Creationist scientists assert that there are multiple lines of evidence from the field of geology showing that flood geology is correct.<ref>http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/faq/geology.asp</ref><ref>http://www.creationism.org/topbar/geology.htm</ref><ref>http://www.grisda.org/georpts/gr11.htm</ref><ref>http://www.nwcreation.net/geologylinks.html</ref><ref>http://globalflood.org/</ref>  Creationist scientists also state that there was enough water to cause a worldwide flood and various other objections to a worldwide flood are invalid.<ref>http://www.answersingenesis.org/Home/Area/AnswersBook/flood12.asp</ref><ref>http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/faq/flood.asp</ref>
 == Common Criticisms ==
 Critics claim that there is not enough water on the Earth to actually cause a worldwide flood, or ever has been; in addition, many archaeological records (notably tree-ring records and the records of various early civilizations, including Egypt and Sumeria) stretch through the period of time most often given as that of the Great Flood, without any actual reference to such an event.<ref>For a summary of other criticisms, see http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-noahs-ark.html</ref>
@@ Line 87: / Line 87: @@
 Until the rise of uniformitarian [[geology]] in the early 19th century, most geologists accepted the Noahic deluge as part of geology. But [[James Hutton]] proposed in 1795 that geology ought to be based on the processes that we see happening now, thereby automatically ruling the Flood out of consideration. During the 19th century a number of "[[scriptural geologist]]s" held out against the rising acceptance of Hutton's principles, but they fought a losing battle and interest in flood geology virtually died out by the end of the 19th century.
-However, in the second half of the 20th century, interest was revived amongst people keen to show that the biblical account was correct, and a small but growing number of geologists are now studying this field again, although the vast majority of geologists still reject the idea of a global flood on Earth.  At the same time, there has been a recent resurgence of [[catastrophism]] in geological interpretation. <ref>http://www.icr.org/index.php?module=articles&action=print&ID=84</ref><ref>http://www.grisda.org/georpts/gr11.htm</ref>
+However, in the second half of the 20th century, interest was revived amongst people keen to show that the biblical account was correct, and a small but growing number of geologists are now studying this field again, although the vast majority of geologists still reject the idea of a global flood on Earth.  At the same time, there has been a recent resurgence of [[catastrophism]] in geological interpretation.<ref>http://www.icr.org/index.php?module=articles&action=print&ID=84</ref><ref>http://www.grisda.org/georpts/gr11.htm</ref>
-Interest in Flood Geology was stimulated by the 1961 publication of ''[[The Genesis Flood]]'', by [[Henry Morris]] and [[John Whitcomb]]. Dr. Henry Morris had a number of arguments for geology supporting a worldwide flood. <ref>http://www.icr.org/index.php?module=articles&action=view&ID=54</ref><ref>http://www.icr.org/index.php?module=articles&action=print&ID=84</ref><ref>http://www.icr.org/article/842/</ref>
+Interest in Flood Geology was stimulated by the 1961 publication of ''[[The Genesis Flood]]'', by [[Henry Morris]] and [[John Whitcomb]]. Dr. Henry Morris had a number of arguments for geology supporting a worldwide flood.<ref>http://www.icr.org/index.php?module=articles&action=view&ID=54</ref><ref>http://www.icr.org/index.php?module=articles&action=print&ID=84</ref><ref>http://www.icr.org/article/842/</ref>
 {{Creation vs. evolution}}
@@ Line 95: / Line 95: @@
 *[[Literalist Bible chronology]]
-== External Links ==
+== External links ==
 *[http://www.icr.org/index.php?module=articles&action=view&ID=54 Geology and the Flood] by [[Henry Morris]], Ph.D.
 *[http://www.creationism.org/symposium/symp3no2.htm Stratigraphic Evidence of the Flood] by Stuart E. Nevins.
@@ Line 104: / Line 104: @@
 ==References==
-<small><references/></small>
+{{Reflist}}
-[[Category: Young Earth Creationism]]
+[[Category:Young Earth Creationism]]
-[[Category: Geology]]
+[[Category:Geology]]

← Older revision		Revision as of 23:28, September 7, 2012
Line 58:		Line 58:

	[[Creationism\|Creationist]] scientists also state that the chronology used to dispute a worldwide flood based on tree rings is invalid.<ref>http://www.icr.org/index.php?module=articles&action=view&ID=381</ref> <ref>http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/faq/docs/tree_ring.asp</ref><ref>http://www.biblicalchronologist.org/answers/c14_treerings.php</ref><ref>http://www.grisda.org/origins/21066.htm</ref><ref>http://www.creationresearch.org/crsq/articles/26/26_1a.html</ref><ref>http://www.creationresearch.org/crsq/abstracts/sum29_4.html</ref>		[[Creationism\|Creationist]] scientists also state that the chronology used to dispute a worldwide flood based on tree rings is invalid.<ref>http://www.icr.org/index.php?module=articles&action=view&ID=381</ref> <ref>http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/faq/docs/tree_ring.asp</ref><ref>http://www.biblicalchronologist.org/answers/c14_treerings.php</ref><ref>http://www.grisda.org/origins/21066.htm</ref><ref>http://www.creationresearch.org/crsq/articles/26/26_1a.html</ref><ref>http://www.creationresearch.org/crsq/abstracts/sum29_4.html</ref>
		+
		+	==Counterevidence==
		+
		+	===Explanation of Geological Strata===
		+
		+	Advocates of flood geology generally use the flood as an explanation for the existence of the geologic column, and indeed any geological phenomena or feature. It proposes that the age of the Earth as shown by rock strata is only apparently old, an illusion caused by looking at it through a secular worldview. Thus, while a scientist may spend years developing and testing theories through evidence, a flood geologists simply needs to manufacture evidence to fit his theory.
		+
		+	===Fossils===
		+	Fossils follow a logical pattern. The old ones are near the bottom, the young ones near the top. This is cited as evidence that a catastrophic flood could not have occurred, due to the fact that a flood powerful enough to create canyons in 40 days would also disturb the fossils to a point that they are no longer possible to date. Instead, the fossils follow a pattern predicted by evolution, where the fossils follow the pattern of old to young. Similarly, mass extinction events such as the KT boundary provide very fine lines that cut off the fossil record - this is incompatible with the idea that all rock sediment was laid down only a few thousand years ago in a massive flood.
		+
		+	===Erosion===
		+
		+	Erosion is a slow process in conventional geology - unless the rock is soft and the weather particularly severe, but these cases are outlying exceptions. This is all due to the hardness of rock and the fact that we can observe the rate that it erodes under rain now. The flooddidit idea proposes that despite this, all erosion features can be explained by the flood. This applies equally to rock that is eroded to rock that isn't eroded - a proposition that flies in the face of both science and good sense. The high levels of erosion seen in hard rock formations is chalked up to the speed of the flood waters. Indeed, fast water can be quite powerful and water cutting jets can slice through objects with high efficiency. However, the Grand Canyon, for example, isn't a small board of MDF being hit by a precise sub-millimeter wide jet of water traveling at hundreds of miles per hour. Even in a flood of global proportions, the water could not travel fast enough (it can only work under gravity) and the rock is simply not soft enough for it to form in anything less than millions of years.
		+
		+	Secondly, erosion due to the flood is incompatible with rock sedimentation being explained by the flood. A global flood that would explain both sedimentation and massive erosion would cause both processes to occur simultaneously. There should be more sediment put down at a near equal rate to the erosion removing it - therefore features where erosion has revealed the sedimentation layers should not exist. Conventional geology is able to explain that sedimentation occurs first and erosion cuts in afterwards to expose the layers, and also explains more distorted features such as uncomformities - which flood geology is unable explain.
		+
		+

	==Creationist Scientists Defense of Flood Geology ==		==Creationist Scientists Defense of Flood Geology ==

← Older revision		Revision as of 21:30, September 1, 2012
Line 58:		Line 58:

	[[Creationism\|Creationist]] scientists also state that the chronology used to dispute a worldwide flood based on tree rings is invalid.<ref>http://www.icr.org/index.php?module=articles&action=view&ID=381</ref> <ref>http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/faq/docs/tree_ring.asp</ref><ref>http://www.biblicalchronologist.org/answers/c14_treerings.php</ref><ref>http://www.grisda.org/origins/21066.htm</ref><ref>http://www.creationresearch.org/crsq/articles/26/26_1a.html</ref><ref>http://www.creationresearch.org/crsq/abstracts/sum29_4.html</ref>		[[Creationism\|Creationist]] scientists also state that the chronology used to dispute a worldwide flood based on tree rings is invalid.<ref>http://www.icr.org/index.php?module=articles&action=view&ID=381</ref> <ref>http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/faq/docs/tree_ring.asp</ref><ref>http://www.biblicalchronologist.org/answers/c14_treerings.php</ref><ref>http://www.grisda.org/origins/21066.htm</ref><ref>http://www.creationresearch.org/crsq/articles/26/26_1a.html</ref><ref>http://www.creationresearch.org/crsq/abstracts/sum29_4.html</ref>
−
−	~~==Counterevidence==~~
−
−	~~===Explanation of Geological Strata===~~
−
−	Advocates of flood geology generally use the flood as an explanation for the existence of the geologic column, and indeed any geological phenomena or feature. It proposes that the age of the Earth as shown by rock strata is only apparently old, an illusion caused by looking at it through a secular worldview. Thus, while a scientist may spend years developing and testing theories through evidence, a flood geologists simply needs to manufacture evidence to fit his theory.
−
−	~~===Fossils===~~
−	Fossils follow a logical pattern. The old ones are near the bottom, the young ones near the top. This is cited as evidence that a catastrophic flood could not have occurred, due to the fact that a flood powerful enough to create canyons in 40 days would also disturb the fossils to a point that they are no longer possible to date. Instead, the fossils follow a pattern predicted by evolution, where the fossils follow the pattern of old to young. Similarly, mass extinction events such as the KT boundary provide very fine lines that cut off the fossil record - this is incompatible with the idea that all rock sediment was laid down only a few thousand years ago in a massive flood.
−
−	~~===Erosion===~~
−
−	Erosion is a slow process in conventional geology - unless the rock is soft and the weather particularly severe, but these cases are outlying exceptions. This is all due to the hardness of rock and the fact that we can observe the rate that it erodes under rain now. The flooddidit idea proposes that despite this, all erosion features can be explained by the flood. This applies equally to rock that is eroded to rock that isn't eroded - a proposition that flies in the face of both science and good sense. The high levels of erosion seen in hard rock formations is chalked up to the speed of the flood waters. Indeed, fast water can be quite powerful and water cutting jets can slice through objects with high efficiency. However, the Grand Canyon, for example, isn't a small board of MDF being hit by a precise sub-millimeter wide jet of water traveling at hundreds of miles per hour. Even in a flood of global proportions, the water could not travel fast enough (it can only work under gravity) and the rock is simply not soft enough for it to form in anything less than millions of years.
−
−	Secondly, erosion due to the flood is incompatible with rock sedimentation being explained by the flood. A global flood that would explain both sedimentation and massive erosion would cause both processes to occur simultaneously. There should be more sediment put down at a near equal rate to the erosion removing it - therefore features where erosion has revealed the sedimentation layers should not exist. Conventional geology is able to explain that sedimentation occurs first and erosion cuts in afterwards to expose the layers, and also explains more distorted features such as uncomformities - which flood geology is unable explain.
−
−

	==Creationist Scientists Defense of Flood Geology ==		==Creationist Scientists Defense of Flood Geology ==

← Older revision		Revision as of 18:47, September 1, 2012
Line 58:		Line 58:

	[[Creationism\|Creationist]] scientists also state that the chronology used to dispute a worldwide flood based on tree rings is invalid.<ref>http://www.icr.org/index.php?module=articles&action=view&ID=381</ref> <ref>http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/faq/docs/tree_ring.asp</ref><ref>http://www.biblicalchronologist.org/answers/c14_treerings.php</ref><ref>http://www.grisda.org/origins/21066.htm</ref><ref>http://www.creationresearch.org/crsq/articles/26/26_1a.html</ref><ref>http://www.creationresearch.org/crsq/abstracts/sum29_4.html</ref>		[[Creationism\|Creationist]] scientists also state that the chronology used to dispute a worldwide flood based on tree rings is invalid.<ref>http://www.icr.org/index.php?module=articles&action=view&ID=381</ref> <ref>http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/faq/docs/tree_ring.asp</ref><ref>http://www.biblicalchronologist.org/answers/c14_treerings.php</ref><ref>http://www.grisda.org/origins/21066.htm</ref><ref>http://www.creationresearch.org/crsq/articles/26/26_1a.html</ref><ref>http://www.creationresearch.org/crsq/abstracts/sum29_4.html</ref>
		+
		+	==Counterevidence==
		+
		+	===Explanation of Geological Strata===
		+
		+	Advocates of flood geology generally use the flood as an explanation for the existence of the geologic column, and indeed any geological phenomena or feature. It proposes that the age of the Earth as shown by rock strata is only apparently old, an illusion caused by looking at it through a secular worldview. Thus, while a scientist may spend years developing and testing theories through evidence, a flood geologists simply needs to manufacture evidence to fit his theory.
		+
		+	===Fossils===
		+	Fossils follow a logical pattern. The old ones are near the bottom, the young ones near the top. This is cited as evidence that a catastrophic flood could not have occurred, due to the fact that a flood powerful enough to create canyons in 40 days would also disturb the fossils to a point that they are no longer possible to date. Instead, the fossils follow a pattern predicted by evolution, where the fossils follow the pattern of old to young. Similarly, mass extinction events such as the KT boundary provide very fine lines that cut off the fossil record - this is incompatible with the idea that all rock sediment was laid down only a few thousand years ago in a massive flood.
		+
		+	===Erosion===
		+
		+	Erosion is a slow process in conventional geology - unless the rock is soft and the weather particularly severe, but these cases are outlying exceptions. This is all due to the hardness of rock and the fact that we can observe the rate that it erodes under rain now. The flooddidit idea proposes that despite this, all erosion features can be explained by the flood. This applies equally to rock that is eroded to rock that isn't eroded - a proposition that flies in the face of both science and good sense. The high levels of erosion seen in hard rock formations is chalked up to the speed of the flood waters. Indeed, fast water can be quite powerful and water cutting jets can slice through objects with high efficiency. However, the Grand Canyon, for example, isn't a small board of MDF being hit by a precise sub-millimeter wide jet of water traveling at hundreds of miles per hour. Even in a flood of global proportions, the water could not travel fast enough (it can only work under gravity) and the rock is simply not soft enough for it to form in anything less than millions of years.
		+
		+	Secondly, erosion due to the flood is incompatible with rock sedimentation being explained by the flood. A global flood that would explain both sedimentation and massive erosion would cause both processes to occur simultaneously. There should be more sediment put down at a near equal rate to the erosion removing it - therefore features where erosion has revealed the sedimentation layers should not exist. Conventional geology is able to explain that sedimentation occurs first and erosion cuts in afterwards to expose the layers, and also explains more distorted features such as uncomformities - which flood geology is unable explain.
		+
		+

	==Creationist Scientists Defense of Flood Geology ==		==Creationist Scientists Defense of Flood Geology ==