Information about Flood Geology
)
Flood geology (also creation geology or diluvial geology) is a prominent subset of beliefs under the umbrella of creationism that assumes the literal truth of a global flood as described in the Genesis account of Noah's Ark. For adherents, the global flood and its aftermath are believed to be the origin of most of the Earth's geological features, including sedimentary strata, fossilization, fossil fuels, submarine canyons, salt domes, and frozen mammoths. Young Earth creationists regard Genesis as providing a historically and scientifically accurate record for the geological history of the Earth and believe that there exists evidence that can back up the historicity of the flood.
However, creationist presentations of what they believe is evidence have routinely been evaluated, refuted and dismissed unequivocally by the scientific community and as such flood geology is considered pseudoscience. Flood geology directly contradicts the current consensus (and much of the evidence underlying it) in scientific disciplines such as geology, evolutionary biology and paleontology.
History of flood geology
The great flood in the history of geology
The modern science of geology was founded in Europe in the 18th century. Its practitioners sought to understand the history and shaping of the Earth through the physical evidence laid down in rocks and minerals. As many early geologists were clergymen, they naturally sought to link the geological history of the world with that set out in the Bible. The ancient theory that fossils were the result of "plastic forces" within the Earth's crust had by this time been abandoned, with the recognition that they represented the remains of once-living creatures. This, though, raised a major problem: how did fossils of sea creatures end up on land, or on the tops of mountains?As early as the 2nd century AD, Christian thinkers had proposed that fossils represented organisms that were killed and buried during the brief duration of the Flood. This idea became commonly held, aided by the geological peculiarity that much of northern Europe is covered by layers of loam and gravel as well as erratic boulders deposited hundreds of miles from their original sources. This was interpreted as being the result of massive flooding, though it is now known that they are the product of ice age glaciations (an unknown phenomenon at that time). Prevailing notions of the time held that the global flood was associated with massive geographical upheavals, with old continents sinking and new ones rising, thus transforming ancient seabeds into mountain tops.
During the Age of Enlightenment, there were significant attempts made to provide natural causes for the miracles recounted in the Bible. Natural philosophy explanations for a global flood can be found in such works as An Essay Toward a Natural History of the Earth (1695) by John Woodward and New Theory of the Earth (1696) by Woodward’s student William Whiston.[1]
By the early 19th century, however, this view had fallen into disrepute. It was already thought that the Earth's lifespan was far longer than that suggested by literal readings of the Bible (an age of 75,000 years had been suggested as early as 1779, as against the 6,000 years proposed by Archbishop James Ussher's famous chronology). Charles Lyell's promotion of James Hutton's ideas of uniformitarianism advocated the principle that geological changes that occurred in the past may be understood by studying present-day phenomena. In common with Newton, Hutton assumed that the world-system had been in a steady state since the day of creation, but unlike Newton he included in this vision not only the motion of celestial bodies and processes like chemical change on earth, but also processes of geological change. Christopher Kaiser writes:
- In other words, in comparison with Newton's, Hutton's was a higher order concept of the system of nature which included not only the present structure of the world, but the process (or natural history) by which the present structure had come into existence and was maintained. As with Newton, and in contrast to materialists like Buffon and neomechanists like Laplace, the origins of the system were beyond the scope of science for Hutton: in nature itself he found 'no vestige of a beginning - no prospect of an end'. But Hutton came about as close to being a neomechanist as one possibly could without changing the Newtonian framework of God and nature. Only the Newtonian stipulation that God had personally designed the present system of nature stood between natural theology and the retirement of God from science altogether... Like Derham and Cotes, Hutton believed that God had implanted active principles in nature at creation sufficient to account for all its natural functions.[2]
The idea that all geological strata were produced by a single flood was rejected in 1837 by the Reverend William Buckland, the first professor of geology at Oxford University, who wrote:
- Some have attempted to ascribe the formation of all the stratified rocks to the effects of the Mosaic Deluge; an opinion which is irreconcilable with the enormous thickness and almost infinite subdivisions of these strata, and with the numerous and regular successions which they contain of the remains of animals and vegetables, differing more and more widely from existing species, as the strata in which we find them are placed at greater depths. The fact that a large proportion of these remains belong to extinct genera, and almost all of them to extinct species, that lived and multiplied and died on or near the spots where they are now found, shows that the strata in which they occur were deposited slowly and gradually, during long periods of time, and at widely distant intervals.[3]
Although Buckland continued for a while to insist that some geological layers related to the Great Flood, he was forced to abandon this idea as the evidence increasingly indicated multiple inundations which occurred well before humans existed. He was convinced by the Swiss geologist Louis Agassiz that much of the evidence on which he relied was in fact the product of ancient ice ages, and became one of the foremost champions of Agassiz's theory of glaciations. Mainstream science gave up on the idea of flood geology, which required major deviations from known physical processes.
Emergence of flood geology
Flood geology was developed as a creationist endeavor in the 20th century by George McCready Price, a Seventh-day Adventist and amateur geologist who wrote a book in 1923 to provide an explicitly Christian fundamentalist perspective on geology.[4][5] His work was adapted and updated by Henry M. Morris and John C. Whitcomb, Jr. in their book The Genesis Flood in 1961. Morris and Whitcomb argued that the Earth was geologically recent, that the Fall of Man had triggered the second law of thermodynamics, and that the Great Flood had laid down most of the geological strata in the space of a single year.[6] Given this history, they argued, "the last refuge of the case for evolution immediately vanishes away, and the record of the rocks becomes a tremendous witness . . . to the holiness and justice and power of the living God of Creation!"[7]This became the foundation of a new generation of Young Earth creationist thinkers, who organized themselves around Morris' Institute for Creation Research. Subsequent research by the Creation Research Society has observed and analyzed, and interpreted geological formations, within a flood geology framework, including the La Brea Tar Pits,[8] the Tavrick Formation (Tauric Formation, Russian: "Tavricheskaya formatsiya") in the Crimean Peninsula[9] and Stone Mountain, Georgia.[10] In each case, the creationists claimed that the flood geology interpretation had superior explanatory power than the uniformitarian explanation. The Creation Research Society argues that "uniformitarianism is wishful thinking".[11]
The impact on creationism and fundamentalist Christianity of these ideas is considerable. Morris' theories of flood geology are widely promoted throughout the United States and overseas, with his books being translated into many other languages. Flood geology is still a major theme of modern creationism, though it is rejected by earth scientists.
Theological basis
Flood geology starts from the viewpoint that the Biblical Book of Genesis is an accurate and impartial description of actual historical events. Young Earth creationists – a position held by the majority of proponents of flood geology – believe that God created the universe between 6000 and 10,000 years ago, in the space of six days.Genesis states that God deliberately caused the flood, indicating that the cause of the flood was supernatural in origin. The account describes two events which resulted in the flood, the "fountains of the great deep were broken up" and the "windows of heaven were opened". The waters of the flood rose so high that "all the high mountains that were under the whole heaven were covered", drowning all land animals on Earth except the occupants of Noah's Ark. The Flood story is considered by most modern scholars to consist of two slightly different interwoven accounts [1], hence the apparent uncertainty regarding the duration of the flood (40 or 150 days) and the number of animals taken on board Noah's Ark (2 of each kind, or 7 pairs of some kinds). Eventually the waters subsided and the Ark came to rest on the mountains of Ararat (not necessarily Mount Ararat, but the mountains in that region).
The idea that Genesis is literally accurate is not universally held within Christianity, being associated principally with conservative evangelical and fundamentalist Protestant denominations in the United States. The Church of England and the Roman Catholic Church, for instance, both regard Genesis as being a non-literal description of the Earth's creation. Indeed, the literalness of Genesis had been rejected in Jewish thought as early as the 1st century by Philo of Alexandria, and in Christian thought in the 3rd century by Origen. Although Origen was followed by the Alexandrian school and such Church Fathers as Augustine of Hippo, the Antiochian school, which preferred a more literal interpretation of Scripture, was always numerically superior.[12]
Opponents of flood geology within the church such as Landon Gilkey argue that it and creation science, as well as philosophical naturalism err in reducing all truth to scientific truth. Gilkey’s key claim is that these endeavors confuse religion’s language of ultimate origins with scientific theories about proximate origins and as a result give the impression that independent domains of knowledge are competing exhaustive explanations of reality.[13][14] Others regard flood geology as both unscientific and an impediment to evangelism.[15]
Creationist interpretations of evidence
Fossils
Generally, the geologic column and the fossil record are used as major pieces of evidence in the modern scientific explanation of the development and evolution of life on Earth as well as a means to establish the age of the Earth. Some creationists deny the existence of these pieces of evidence. This is the approach taken by Morris and Whitcomb in their 1961 book, The Genesis Flood, and it is continued today by leading creationists such as Michael Oard and John Woodmorappe.[16]Other creationists accept the existence of the geological column and believe that it indicates a sequence of events that might have occurred during the global flood. This is the approach taken by Institute for Creation Research creationists such as Andrew Snelling, Steven A. Austin and Kurt Wise, as well as Creation Ministries International.[17][18] They claim that fossils are produced not by a process lasting millions of years, but by rapid burial of the remains of many of the Earth's lifeforms by sediments in the short period of the flood. Sometimes, creationists will claim that fossilization can only take place when the matter is buried quickly so that the matter does not decompose.[19]
The ordering of fossil layers is often used as evidence for the scientific explanation of geological features. Certain creationists believe that the separation between dinosaur fossils and hominid fossils is not due to the organisms living in different geological eras. Instead an unspecified and unmodeled "hydraulic sorting action" is claimed to be able to sort out fossils according to their shape, density, size, and the gases released from the body after death.
Some creationists believe that oil deposits are the result of the flood's accumulation and subsequent subsurface compression of dead plant matter.
Frozen mammoths
According to scientists, the giant mammoths went extinct about 11,000 years ago, although remnant populations are believed to have persisted on Wrangel Island off the coast of Siberia based on fossil remains dated to about 2000 BC.[20]Some proponents of Flood Geology have claimed that this extinction is evidence of catastrophism because certain mammoths have been found with grass in their mouths. Proponents of the vapor canopy flood model claim it can explain these mammoth remains. They argue mammoths were suddenly frozen solid when large quantities of water vapour in the atmosphere were deposited as ice at the poles.
Scientists do not view the few instances of grass in the mouths of frozen mammoth carcasses as sufficient evidence for a global catastrophe. Moreover, the extraordinary temperatures needed to quick-freeze a mammoth are way below any temperature ever measured on earth and the idea of a canopy itself is considered so extreme as to cause the surface of the Earth to have the conditions of a pressure boiler before the flood.
However, there are so many problems with this that even the Young Earth Creationist ministry Answers in Genesis states that it is an argument that should not be used.[21] Rather, they claim that mammoths and the surrounding circumstances are best explained by radical climate change in a supposed ice-age following the flood, although that answer is not to be found in Genesis. Other creationists counter that there is no evidence for an Ice Age before 10,000 years ago. Scientists, however, recognise a large number of earlier Ice Ages, with the earliest so far identified occurring 2.3 billion years ago.
Liquefaction
Proponents of flood geology believe that Liquefaction, a phenomenon commonly seen in quicksand and earthquakes, played a major role during the posited flood. Some have proposed that a global flood is the most reasonable explanation for the means by which sediment came to precipitate in such depth over so much of the Earth's surface. They further argue that the liquefaction predicted by the flood can explain phenomena such as transported blocks, sand plumes, coal and limestone deposits, and aquifers.They do not assert that all geological phenomena are a result of the flood. Flood geology supporters acknowledge many geological formations were formed by other processes. However, they believe that there are a large number of geological formations which can only be explained with reference to massive cataclysmic action involving enormous amounts of water and sediment which rapidly precipitated from solution, liquefied, and dried.
Radiometric dating
Much of flood geology is devoted to attacking the dating methods used in anthropology, geology, and planetary science that give ages in conflict with young Earth theories. In particular, creationists dispute the reliability of radiometric dating and isochron analysis, both of which are central to geological theories of the age of the Earth. They usually dispute these methods based on uncertainties concerning initial concentrations of individually considered species and the associated measurement uncertainties caused by diffusion of the parent and daughter isotopes. However, a full critique of the entire parameter-fitting analysis, which relies on dozens of radionuclei parent and daughter pairs, has not been done by creationists hoping to cast doubt on the technique.Submarine canyon formation
Proponents of Flood Geology argue that such submarine canyons were formed as the floodwaters receded from the continents. Such extensions are found in the Congo, Amazon, Ganges, and Hudson rivers, they are generally understood to be geological formations which have developed when sea levels were significantly lower than today.Creationists argue that uniformitarian explanations are inferior to flood explanations, because the submarine canyons are extremely long, deep, and the sides are steep and often vertical, and thus do not show evidence of the erosion predicted by long periods of time, and being much more consistent with a shorter time frame. This claim is unsupported by the planetary science description of erosion processes which allow for a wide variety of formations to occur over the (relatively) long timeframes seen in scientific descriptions of such formations.
Proposed mechanisms of the flood
- See also: Creation geophysics
Creationists have been proposed a number of the mechanism to explain how a global flood might have occurred.
Hydroplates
Hydroplates, as proposed by mechanical engineer Walt Brown, Director of the Center for Scientific Creation, are the concept that the Earth was originally created with a great deal of subterranean water, and that the flood was brought on when the crust of the Earth was cracked, allowing this water to escape violently to the surface, and broke the surface into "hydroplates" which rapidly divided during and after the flood.[22]Runaway subduction
"Runaway subduction" or Catastrophic plate tectonics, was proposed by geophysicist John Baumgardner, and supported by the Institute for Creation Research and Answers in Genesis. This holds that rapid plunge of the original continental plates into the mantle could have heated silicates to a temperature at which tectonic motion would have happened extremely quickly. Proponents point to subducted slabs in the mantle which are still relatively cool, which they regard as evidence that they have not been there for millions of years of temperature equilibration.[23]Vapor canopy
A vapor canopy was proposed by Henry Morris in his book The Genesis Flood in the 1960s. It holds that a canopy of water vapor existed over the atmosphere prior to the flood, and that the floodwaters were brought on when this vapor canopy collapsed. This model has been rejected by many creationists.[24]Scientific analysis of flood geology
Modern geology, and its sub-disciplines of earth science, geochemistry, geophysics, glaciology, paleoclimatology, paleontology and other scientific disciplines utilize the scientific method to analyze the geology of the earth. The key tenants of flood geology are refuted by scientific analysis and do not have any standing in the scientific community. Modern geology relies on a number of established principles, one of the most important of which is Charles Lyell's principle of uniformitarianism. In relation to geological forces it states that the shaping of the Earth has occurred by means of mostly slow-acting forces that can be seen in operation today. By applying this principle, geologists have determined that the Earth is approximately 4.5 billion years old. They study the lithosphere of the Earth to gain information on the history of the planet. Geologists divide Earth's history into eons, eras, periods, epochs, and faunal stages characterized by well-defined breaks in the fossil record (see Geologic time scale).[25][26] In general, there is a lack of any evidence for any of the above effects proposed by flood geologists and their claims of fossil layering are not taken seriously by scientists.[27]Physics
Many scientific objections have been raised concerning the physical mechanics of flood geology. In particular, the amount of water required to cover the Earth's entire surface is enormous enough that no observed mechanism can plausibly explain where it came from or where it went. The mechanisms proposed by creationists to account for the fossil record, lithospheric layering, and tectonic formations are also all firmly rejected by the scientific community.[25]If the flood were a global flood, a source of water would need to be found which could provide such a deluge. Flood geology supporters have proposed several sources at different times: (1) a vapor canopy in the upper atmosphere; (2) a comet strike; (3) the Earth's crust was much flatter, requiring less water in order to cover the face of the planet; and (4), subterranean water sources.[27] However, geological science indicates that none of these theories are viable.
The proposed vapor canopy suggested a layer of water vapor in the upper atmosphere which, triggered by a meteoroid, caused a giant rain shower and so contributed to the flood. However, such a volume of water held suspended in the atmosphere would give rise to an atmospheric pressure in the order of nine atmospheres. The atmospheric temperature would also have to be extremely high to prevent the saturated atmosphere from condensing. The vapor canopy model has lost favour and is no longer accepted by most creationist scientists.[27]
A canopy holding a column of more than 15 m of liquid water or its equivalent in vapor or ice would increase the atmospheric pressure to levels that would destroy life. In addition, the concentration of oxygen and nitrogen would become toxic. In addition, if the water from this column were to fall, enough to from a 15 m layer of water upon the earth, the heat of condensation would raise the atmospheric temperature by over 780 degrees C, which of course would cause more water to evaporate, and a permanent greenhouse effect would ensue. The planet Venus is an example of that effect.[28]
Flood geology should not be confused with episodic catastrophism as observed by geologists and earth scientists at many locations throughout the Earth's ~4.55 billion year natural history. Such confusion surrounded the observations of the geologist J. Harlen Bretz who discovered the Missoula Floods in the Pacific Northwest of the United States.[29][30][31] His observations and theories were rejected out of hand for many years by geologists and scientists on the basis that catastrophism was not science, but rather religion. Today, it is recognized by geologists that while periodic catastrophes may occur, there are uniformitarian principles at work in geologic history as well.
Creationists continue to search for evidence in the natural world that they consider to be consistent with the above description, such as evidence of rapid formation. For example, there have been claims of raindrop marks and water ripples at layer boundaries, sometimes associated with the claimed fossilized footprints of men and dinosaurs walking together. Most of this evidence has been debunked by scientists[32] and some have been shown to be fakes.[33] Creationists highlight unexplained phenomena in order to point out what they see as inconsistencies in the scientific view (see God of the gaps), and they often profess a general incredulity about geological mechanisms of mineral, rock, and fossil formation.
Archeology
Archaeology proves to be a potent source of evidence. Flood geology claims that the current sedimentary layers were produced by liquefaction, and that objects caught in the flood (including living creatures) were sorted by mass and location at the time when the flood engulfed them. However, archaeologists state that if this sorting actually took place, heavy, dense objects (such as human artifacts) would be expected to sink to the bottom. In actuality, man-made artifacts are very close to the top of the sedimentary layers.Furthermore, the dates of a number of ancient cultures (such as those of Egypt and Mesopotamia) have been established by the analysis of historical documents supported by carbon dating to be older than the alleged date of the Flood. Creationists dispute these dates.
Believers in Flood Geology also point out that flood stories can be found in many cultures, places and religions, not just in the Bible; this, they suggest, is evidence of an actual event in the historic past because local floods would not explain the similarities in the flood stories.[34] Anthropologists generally reject this view and highlight the fact that much of the human population lives near water sources such as rivers and coasts, where unusually severe floods can be expected to occur occasionally and will be recorded in tribal mythology.[35] Geologists William Ryan and Walter Pitman have suggested that a massive local flood in the Black Sea area, or possibly even the huge rise in sea levels at the end of the last Ice Age, may be responsible for the preponderance of the flood myths in the Near East and across the world.[36]
Geology
)
The Rocky Mountains; geologists do not believe the Rockies share erosion traits consistent with a great flood - erosion would be expected equal to the Appalachian Mountains, below
)
The Appalachian Mountains show an immense level of erosion. Geologists assert that if a flood had occurred, similar erosion should be found in the Rocky Mountains, above.
Radiometric dating analysis indicates that the Earth is at least 4.5 billion years old. Young Earth creationists reject these ages on the grounds of what they regard as being tenuous and untestable assumptions in the methodology. Apparently inconsistent radiometric dates are often quoted to cast doubt on the utility and accuracy of the method. Scientists who get involved in this debate point out that dating methods only rely on the assumptions that the physical laws governing radioactive decay have not been violated since the sample was formed (harking back to Lyell's doctrine of uniformitarianism). They also point out that the "problems" that creationists publicly mentioned can be shown to either not be problems at all, are issues with known contamination, or simply the result of incorrectly evaluating legitimate data.
Paleontology
If creatures were differentiated by body size and density, then massive dinosaurs such as Diplodocus and Brachiosaurus should be found near the top sediments, rather than in sediments containing all the other Jurassic dinosaurs.Additionally, paleontologists note that if all the fossilized animals were killed in the flood, and the flood is responsible for fossilization, then the average density of vertebrates was an abnormally high number, close to 2100 creatures per acre, judging from fossil sites found worldwide.[37]
Philosophical objections
The scientific community contends that Flood Geology, in contrast to conventional geology, is not able to plausibly explain the available observations. However, even if both hypotheses did an equally good job, many scientists would nevertheless reject Flood Geology on philosophical grounds, specifically Occam's Razor. Occam's razor is the principle of rejecting any unnecessary assumptions from scientific theories: "It is vain to do with more what can be done with less." Applied to geology, if one explanation requires only natural processes and the other requires a God in addition, then the explanation that only requires natural processes is to be preferred. See here for a more thorough discussion.Furthermore, Flood Geology supporters are accused of not approaching the subject with the objective, open mind which is the scientific ideal. Their purpose is to find evidence for a particular explanation, rather than to find the explanation that best fits the evidence. The history of geology supports this view by the recounting that geologists had looked at the evidence for a worldwide flood in the century before Darwin and found it lacking, dismissing it in favor of uniformitarian models.[27]
Notes and references
1. ^ Porter, R; Lindberg, DC & Numbers, RL (2003). The Cambridge History of Science: Volume 4, Eighteenth-Century Science. Cambridge University Press. ISBN 0-521-57243-6.
2. ^ Kaiser, CB (1997). Creational Theology and the History of Physical Science: The Creationist Tradition from Basil to Bohr. Brill Academic Publishers, 290-291. ISBN 90-04-10669-3.
3. ^ Buckland, W (1980). Geology and Mineralogy Considered With Reference to Natural Theology (History of Paleontology). Ayer Company Publishing. ISBN 978-0405127069.
4. ^ Price, GM (1984). Evolutionary Geology & the New Catastrophism. Sourcebook Project. ISBN 978-0915554133.
5. ^ Numbers, Ronald L.. The Creationists: From Scientific Creationism to Intelligent Design, Expanded Edition. Cambridge: Harvard University Press. ISBN 0-674-02339-0.
6. ^ This is the same model that Buckland had rejected 130 years earlier.
7. ^ Whitcomb, JC (1960). The Genesis Flood: The Biblical Record and Its Scientific Implications. P&R Publishing. ISBN 978-0875523385.
8. ^ Weston, W (2003). "La Brea Tar Pits: Evidence of a Catastrophic Flood". Creation Research Society Quarterly Journal 40 (1): 25-33. Retrieved on 2007-03-29.
9. ^ Lalomov, AV (2001). "Flood Geology of the Crimean Peninsula Part I: Tavrick Formation". Creation Research Society Quarterly Journal 38 (3): 118-124. Retrieved on 2007-03-29.
10. ^ Froede, CR (1995). "Stone Mountain Georgia: A Creation Geologist's Perspective". Creation Research Society Quarterly Journal 31 (4): 214. Retrieved on 2007-03-29.
11. ^ Reed, JK; Woodmorappe, J (2002). "Surface and Subsurface Errors in Anti-Creationist Geology". Creation Research Society Quarterly Journal 39 (1). Retrieved on 2007-03-29.
12. ^ Linder, Doug (2004). The History of Genesis and the Creation Stories. Famous Trials: Tennessee vs. John Scopes, The "Monkey Trial". University of Missouri—Kansas City School of Law.
13. ^ Gilkey, L (2001). Blue Twilight: Nature, Creationism, and American Religion. Augsburg Fortress Publishers. ISBN 0-8006-3294-X.
14. ^ Pleins, JD (2003). When the Great Abyss Opened: Classic and Contemporary Readings of Noah's Flood. Oxford University Press. ISBN 0-19-515608-0.
15. ^ Goff, P (2004). Themes in Religion and American Culture. University of North Carolina Press. ISBN 0-8078-5559-6.
16. ^ Woodmorappe, J (1999). "The Geologic Column: Does it Exist?". Creation Ex Nihilo Technical Journal 13 (2): 77-82. Retrieved on 2007-03-29.
17. ^ CATASTROPHIC PLATE TECTONICS: A GLOBAL FLOOD MODEL OF EARTH HISTORY - Institute for Creation Research. Retrieved on 2007-07-25.
18. ^ The pre-Flood/Flood boundary at the base of the earth's transition zone. Retrieved on 2007-07-24.
19. ^ CC363: Requirements for fossilization. Retrieved on 2007-09-29.
20. ^ Vartanyan, SL (1995). "Radiocarbon Dating Evidence for Mammoths on Wrangel Island, Arctic Ocean, until 2000 BC". Radiocarbon 37 (1): 1-6. Retrieved on 2007-03-29.
21. ^ Arguments we think creationists should NOT use. Answers in Genesis (2007). Retrieved on 2007-03-29.
22. ^ Brown, W (2001). In the Beginning: Compelling Evidence for Creation and the Flood. Center for Scientific Creation. ISBN 1-878026-08-9.
23. ^ Baumgardner, JR (2003). "CATASTROPHIC PLATE TECTONICS: THE PHYSICS BEHIND THE GENESIS FLOOD". Fifth International Conference on Creationism. Retrieved on 2007-03-29.
24. ^ What arguments are doubtful, hence, inadvisable to use? Canopy theory. Answers in Genesis (2007). Retrieved on 2007-03-29.
25. ^ Lutgens, FK, Tarbuck, EJ, Tasa, D (2005). Essentials of Geology. Prentice Hall. ISBN 978-0131497498.
26. ^ Tarbuck, EJ & Lutgens, FK (2006). Earth Science. Pearson Prentice Hall. ISBN 978-0131258525.
27. ^ Isaak, M (1998). Problems with a Global Flood. The TalkOrigins Archive. Retrieved on 2007-03-29.
28. ^ Krug, W (2003). The Vapor Canopy Theory-Is it in trouble?. Lutheran Science Institute. Retrieved on 2007-07-24.
29. ^ Bretz, JH (1923). "The Channeled Scabland of the Columbia Plateau". Journal of Geology 31: 617-649.
30. ^ Bretz, JH (1925). "The Spokane flood beyond the Channeled Scablands". Journal of Geology 33: 97-115 & 236-259.
31. ^ Bretz, JH (1942). "Vadose and phreatic features of limestone caverns". Journal of Geology 50 (6): 675-811.
32. ^ Shadewald, Robert (1986). "Scientific Creationism and Error". Creation/Evolution 6 (1): 1-9. Retrieved on 2007-03-29.
33. ^ Kuban, GJ (1996). The "Burdick Print". The TalkOrigins Archive. Retrieved on 2007-03-29.
34. ^ Flood Legends from Around the World. Northwest Creation Network. Retrieved on 2007-06-27.
35. ^ Nunn, Patrick D (2001). "On the convergence of myth and reality: examples from the Pacific Islands". The Geography Journal 167 (2): 125-138.
36. ^ Balard and the Black Sea: the search for Noah's flood. National Geographic (1999). Retrieved on 2007-06-27.
37. ^ Schadewald, R. (1982) Six 'Flood' arguments Creationists can't answer. Creation/Evolution 9, 12-17.
2. ^ Kaiser, CB (1997). Creational Theology and the History of Physical Science: The Creationist Tradition from Basil to Bohr. Brill Academic Publishers, 290-291. ISBN 90-04-10669-3.
3. ^ Buckland, W (1980). Geology and Mineralogy Considered With Reference to Natural Theology (History of Paleontology). Ayer Company Publishing. ISBN 978-0405127069.
4. ^ Price, GM (1984). Evolutionary Geology & the New Catastrophism. Sourcebook Project. ISBN 978-0915554133.
5. ^ Numbers, Ronald L.. The Creationists: From Scientific Creationism to Intelligent Design, Expanded Edition. Cambridge: Harvard University Press. ISBN 0-674-02339-0.
6. ^ This is the same model that Buckland had rejected 130 years earlier.
7. ^ Whitcomb, JC (1960). The Genesis Flood: The Biblical Record and Its Scientific Implications. P&R Publishing. ISBN 978-0875523385.
8. ^ Weston, W (2003). "La Brea Tar Pits: Evidence of a Catastrophic Flood". Creation Research Society Quarterly Journal 40 (1): 25-33. Retrieved on 2007-03-29.
9. ^ Lalomov, AV (2001). "Flood Geology of the Crimean Peninsula Part I: Tavrick Formation". Creation Research Society Quarterly Journal 38 (3): 118-124. Retrieved on 2007-03-29.
10. ^ Froede, CR (1995). "Stone Mountain Georgia: A Creation Geologist's Perspective". Creation Research Society Quarterly Journal 31 (4): 214. Retrieved on 2007-03-29.
11. ^ Reed, JK; Woodmorappe, J (2002). "Surface and Subsurface Errors in Anti-Creationist Geology". Creation Research Society Quarterly Journal 39 (1). Retrieved on 2007-03-29.
12. ^ Linder, Doug (2004). The History of Genesis and the Creation Stories. Famous Trials: Tennessee vs. John Scopes, The "Monkey Trial". University of Missouri—Kansas City School of Law.
13. ^ Gilkey, L (2001). Blue Twilight: Nature, Creationism, and American Religion. Augsburg Fortress Publishers. ISBN 0-8006-3294-X.
14. ^ Pleins, JD (2003). When the Great Abyss Opened: Classic and Contemporary Readings of Noah's Flood. Oxford University Press. ISBN 0-19-515608-0.
15. ^ Goff, P (2004). Themes in Religion and American Culture. University of North Carolina Press. ISBN 0-8078-5559-6.
16. ^ Woodmorappe, J (1999). "The Geologic Column: Does it Exist?". Creation Ex Nihilo Technical Journal 13 (2): 77-82. Retrieved on 2007-03-29.
17. ^ CATASTROPHIC PLATE TECTONICS: A GLOBAL FLOOD MODEL OF EARTH HISTORY - Institute for Creation Research. Retrieved on 2007-07-25.
18. ^ The pre-Flood/Flood boundary at the base of the earth's transition zone. Retrieved on 2007-07-24.
19. ^ CC363: Requirements for fossilization. Retrieved on 2007-09-29.
20. ^ Vartanyan, SL (1995). "Radiocarbon Dating Evidence for Mammoths on Wrangel Island, Arctic Ocean, until 2000 BC". Radiocarbon 37 (1): 1-6. Retrieved on 2007-03-29.
21. ^ Arguments we think creationists should NOT use. Answers in Genesis (2007). Retrieved on 2007-03-29.
22. ^ Brown, W (2001). In the Beginning: Compelling Evidence for Creation and the Flood. Center for Scientific Creation. ISBN 1-878026-08-9.
23. ^ Baumgardner, JR (2003). "CATASTROPHIC PLATE TECTONICS: THE PHYSICS BEHIND THE GENESIS FLOOD". Fifth International Conference on Creationism. Retrieved on 2007-03-29.
24. ^ What arguments are doubtful, hence, inadvisable to use? Canopy theory. Answers in Genesis (2007). Retrieved on 2007-03-29.
25. ^ Lutgens, FK, Tarbuck, EJ, Tasa, D (2005). Essentials of Geology. Prentice Hall. ISBN 978-0131497498.
26. ^ Tarbuck, EJ & Lutgens, FK (2006). Earth Science. Pearson Prentice Hall. ISBN 978-0131258525.
27. ^ Isaak, M (1998). Problems with a Global Flood. The TalkOrigins Archive. Retrieved on 2007-03-29.
28. ^ Krug, W (2003). The Vapor Canopy Theory-Is it in trouble?. Lutheran Science Institute. Retrieved on 2007-07-24.
29. ^ Bretz, JH (1923). "The Channeled Scabland of the Columbia Plateau". Journal of Geology 31: 617-649.
30. ^ Bretz, JH (1925). "The Spokane flood beyond the Channeled Scablands". Journal of Geology 33: 97-115 & 236-259.
31. ^ Bretz, JH (1942). "Vadose and phreatic features of limestone caverns". Journal of Geology 50 (6): 675-811.
32. ^ Shadewald, Robert (1986). "Scientific Creationism and Error". Creation/Evolution 6 (1): 1-9. Retrieved on 2007-03-29.
33. ^ Kuban, GJ (1996). The "Burdick Print". The TalkOrigins Archive. Retrieved on 2007-03-29.
34. ^ Flood Legends from Around the World. Northwest Creation Network. Retrieved on 2007-06-27.
35. ^ Nunn, Patrick D (2001). "On the convergence of myth and reality: examples from the Pacific Islands". The Geography Journal 167 (2): 125-138.
36. ^ Balard and the Black Sea: the search for Noah's flood. National Geographic (1999). Retrieved on 2007-06-27.
37. ^ Schadewald, R. (1982) Six 'Flood' arguments Creationists can't answer. Creation/Evolution 9, 12-17.
Further reading
- Brown, W (2001). In the Beginning: Compelling Evidence for Creation and the Flood. Center for Scientific Creation. ISBN 1-878026-08-9.
- Dubrovo, N. A. et al., “Upper Quaternary Deposits and Paleogeography of the Region Inhabited by the Young Kirgilyakh Mammoth,” International Geology Review, Vol. 24, No. 6, June 1982, p. 630.
- Hapgood, Charles H. The Path of the Pole (Philadelphia: Chilton Book Company, 1970), p. 267.
- Howorth, Henry H. The Mammoth and the Flood (London: Samson Low, Marston, Searle, and Rivington, 1887), pp. 2–4, 74–75.
- M. Huc, Recollections of a Journey through Tartary, Thibet [Tibet], and China, During the Years 1844, 1845, and 1846. Vol. 2 (New York: D. Appleton & Company, 1852), pp. 130–131.
- H. Neuville, “On the Extinction of the Mammoth,” Annual Report of the Smithsonian Institution, 1919.
- Numbers, RL (1991). The Creationists: The Evolution of Scientific Creationism. University of California Press. ISBN 978-0520083936.
- E. W. Pfizenmayer, Siberian Man and Mammoth, translated from German by Muriel D. Simpson (London: Black & Son Limited, 1939).
- Ukraintseva, Valentina V. Vegetation Cover and Environment of the “Mammoth Epoch” in Siberia (Hot Springs, South Dakota: The Mammoth Site of Hot Springs, 1993), pp. 12–13.
See also
- Baraminology
- Creation biology
- Creation science
- Frank Lewis Marsh
- Pre-Adamite
- Pseudoscience
- Polystrate fossil
External links
Flood geology sites
- Clues to Noah's Flood Found on Ocean Floor
- Noah's Flood - What does the Evidence Say?
- Unveiling the Mechanism Behind the Genesis Flood
- Startling Evidence That Noah's Flood Really Happened
- Answers in Genesis' Geology Questions and Answers Page
- Tas Walker's Biblical Geology
- Christian Geology
- Global Flood Geology from "Creation Science Prophecy"
- Hydroplate Theory
- Biblical Evidence for the Universality of the Genesis Flood - Richard M. Davidson - John Nevin Andrews Professor of Old Testament Interpretation - Old Testament Department - Andrews University, Berrien Springs, Michigan
- Revolution against Evolution geology page
- Recolonisation Theory
- Shock Dynamics geology theory - Evidence of a catastrophic meteorite impact causing continental drift in 26 hours instead of 200 million years
Sites critical of Flood Geology
- Answers In Creation and Age of the Earth. Old earth creationist websites explaining the problems of young earth flood geology.
- talk.origins Flood Geology archive
- Fossils, Flood Geology and Creation Science
- Creationist "Flood Geology" Versus Common Sense
- Problems with a Global Flood
- Mount St. Helens: Explosive Evidence for Catastrophe
- History of the Collapse of "Flood Geology" and a Young Earth, adapted from the book The Biblical Flood by Davis A. Young, ISBN 0-8028-0719-4
- Why a Global Flood is impossible
- A Series of Articles written by a former YEC attacking Flood Geology
- A Collection of Essays Criticizing Creation Science, including Flood Geology
- Critique of a YEC article defending Flood Geology
- Problems with Flood Geology
Creationism is a religious belief that humanity, life, the Earth, and the universe were created in their original form by a deity or deities (often the Abrahamic God of Judaism, Christianity and Islam), whose existence is presupposed.
..... Click the link for more information.
..... Click the link for more information.
The history of creationism is tied to the history of religions. The term creationism in its broad sense covers a wide range of beliefs and interpretations, and was not in common use before the late 19th century.
..... Click the link for more information.
..... Click the link for more information.
Neo-creationism is a movement whose goal is to restate creationism in terms more likely to be well received by the public, policy makers, educators, and the scientific community.
..... Click the link for more information.
..... Click the link for more information.
Day-Age Creationism, a type of Old Earth creationism, is an effort to reconcile the literal Genesis account of Creation with modern scientific theories on the age of the Universe, the Earth, life, and humans.
..... Click the link for more information.
..... Click the link for more information.
Gap creationism, also called Restitution creationism or Ruin-Reconstruction, are terms used to describe a particular set of Christian beliefs about the creation of the Universe and the origin of man.
..... Click the link for more information.
..... Click the link for more information.
Old Earth creationism is a variant of the creationist view of the origin of the universe and life on Earth. As a theory of origins it is typically more compatible with mainstream scientific thought on the issues of geology, cosmology
..... Click the link for more information.
..... Click the link for more information.
Progressive creationism is a form of Old Earth creationism that accepts mainstream geological and cosmological estimates for the age of the Earth, but posits that the new "kinds" of plants and animals that have appeared successively
..... Click the link for more information.
..... Click the link for more information.
Theistic evolution, less commonly known as evolutionary creationism, is the general opinion that some or all classical religious teachings about God and creation are compatible with some or all of the modern scientific
..... Click the link for more information.
..... Click the link for more information.
Young Earth creationism is a form of creationism that teaches that the Earth and life on Earth were created by a direct act of God dating between 6,000 and 10,000 years ago.
..... Click the link for more information.
..... Click the link for more information.
..... Click the link for more information.
The creator of this article, or someone who has substantially contributed to it, may have a conflict of interest regarding its subject matter.
It may require cleanup to comply with Wikipedia's content policies, particularly neutral point of view.
..... Click the link for more information.
It may require cleanup to comply with Wikipedia's content policies, particularly neutral point of view.
..... Click the link for more information.
An editor has expressed concern that this article or section is .
Please help improve the article by adding information and sources on neglected viewpoints, or by summarizing and use of summary style if it is too long already.
Please see the discussion on the .
..... Click the link for more information.
Please help improve the article by adding information and sources on neglected viewpoints, or by summarizing and use of summary style if it is too long already.
Please see the discussion on the .
..... Click the link for more information.
God
General approaches
Agnosticism Atheism
Deism Dystheism
Henotheism Ignosticism
Monism Monotheism
Natural theology Nontheism
Pandeism Panentheism
Pantheism Polytheism
Theism Theology
Transtheism
Specific conceptions
..... Click the link for more information.
General approaches
Agnosticism Atheism
Deism Dystheism
Henotheism Ignosticism
Monism Monotheism
Natural theology Nontheism
Pandeism Panentheism
Pantheism Polytheism
Theism Theology
Transtheism
Specific conceptions
..... Click the link for more information.
God
General approaches
Agnosticism Atheism
Deism Dystheism
Henotheism Ignosticism
Monism Monotheism
Natural theology Nontheism
Pandeism Panentheism
Pantheism Polytheism
Theism Theology
Transtheism
Specific conceptions
..... Click the link for more information.
General approaches
Agnosticism Atheism
Deism Dystheism
Henotheism Ignosticism
Monism Monotheism
Natural theology Nontheism
Pandeism Panentheism
Pantheism Polytheism
Theism Theology
Transtheism
Specific conceptions
..... Click the link for more information.
This article or section may contain original research or unverified claims.
..... Click the link for more information.
Please help Wikipedia by adding references. See the for details.
This article has been tagged since September 2007.
This article has been tagged since September 2007.
..... Click the link for more information.
Creation according to Genesis refers to the creation of the heavens and the earth by the God of Israel as depicted in Genesis, the first book of the Pentateuch (as well as of the Hebrew and Christian Bible).
..... Click the link for more information.
..... Click the link for more information.
An allegorical interpretation of Genesis is a symbolic, rather than literal, reading of the biblical book of Genesis. An allegorical interpretation does not necessarily preclude a literal interpretation; interpreters such as
..... Click the link for more information.
framework interpretation (also known as the literary framework view, framework theory, or framework hypothesis) is an interpretation of the first chapter of the Book of Genesis which holds that the seven-day creation account found therein is not a literal or
..... Click the link for more information.
..... Click the link for more information.
The omphalos hypothesis was named after the title of an 1857 book, Creation (Omphalos) by Philip Henry Gosse, in which Gosse argued that in order for the world to be "functional", God must have created the Earth with mountains
..... Click the link for more information.
..... Click the link for more information.
Creation science is the attempt to find scientific evidence that would corroborate a literal interpretation of the Biblical account of creation. Some variants of creation science draw upon other religious texts.
..... Click the link for more information.
Baraminology, also referred to as typology, is a creationist system that classifies animals into created kinds according to the account of creation in the book of Genesis and other parts of the Bible.
..... Click the link for more information.
..... Click the link for more information.
Intelligent design is the assertion that "certain features of the universe and of living things are best explained by an intelligent cause, not an undirected process such as natural selection.
..... Click the link for more information.
..... Click the link for more information.
The creation-evolution controversy (also termed the creation vs. evolution debate or the origins debate) is a recurring political dispute about the origins of the Earth, humanity, life, and the universe,[1]
..... Click the link for more information.
..... Click the link for more information.
The politics of creationism concerns efforts to change public policy in favor of creationism, currently primarily focusing on what should be taught as science in schools.
..... Click the link for more information.
..... Click the link for more information.
worldwide view of the subject.
Please [ improve this article] or discuss the issue on the talk page.
Please [ improve this article] or discuss the issue on the talk page.
The legal status of creation and evolution in public education
..... Click the link for more information.
The creation-evolution controversy has a long history, beginning with challenges made by various naturalists to biblical accounts of creation.
..... Click the link for more information.
..... Click the link for more information.
Teach the Controversy is the name of a Discovery Institute intelligent design campaign to promote intelligent design, a variant of traditional creationism, while discrediting evolution in United States public high school
..... Click the link for more information.
Intelligent design
Concepts
Irreducible complexity
Specified complexity
Fine-tuned universe
Intelligent designer
Theistic realism
Intelligent design
movement
Timeline
Discovery Institute
Center for Science and Culture
..... Click the link for more information.
Concepts
Irreducible complexity
Specified complexity
Fine-tuned universe
Intelligent designer
Theistic realism
Intelligent design
movement
Timeline
Discovery Institute
Center for Science and Culture
..... Click the link for more information.
Creationism is a religious belief that humanity, life, the Earth, and the universe were created in their original form by a deity or deities (often the Abrahamic God of Judaism, Christianity and Islam), whose existence is presupposed.
..... Click the link for more information.
..... Click the link for more information.
Great Flood sent by a deity or deities to destroy civilization as an act of divine retribution is a widespread theme among many cultural myths. Though it is best known by the Biblical story of Noah, it is also well known in other versions, such as stories of Matsya in the Hindu
..... Click the link for more information.
..... Click the link for more information.
This article is copied from an article on Wikipedia.org - the free encyclopedia created and edited by online user community. The text was not checked or edited by anyone on our staff. Although the vast majority of the wikipedia encyclopedia articles provide accurate and timely information please do not assume the accuracy of any particular article. This article is distributed under the terms of GNU Free Documentation License.
Herod_Archelaus
