Part of a series on

The Creation of Adam

History of creationism

Types of creationism

Day-Age Creationism
Gap Creationism
Old Earth Creationism
Progressive creationism
Theistic Evolution
Young Earth Creationism

Other religious views

Hindu * Islamic * Jewish
Deist * Pandeist

Creation theology

Creation in Genesis
Genesis as an allegory
Framework interpretation
Omphalos hypothesis

Creation science

Flood geology
Intelligent design


Creation-evolution controversy
Public education
Teach the Controversy
Associated articles


Flood geology (also creation geology or diluvial geology) is the attempt to demonstrate that a global flood was the origin of most of the Earth's geological features, including sedimentary strata, fossilization, fossil fuels, and salt domes. The geological history of the Earth, in turn, is held to validate the historicity of a global flood.

Flood geology is associated with Young Earth creationists, who regard the biblical flood narrative in Genesis 6-9 as a historically accurate record. The evidence they have presented has been evaluated, refuted and unequivocally dismissed by the scientific community, which considers the subject to be pseudoscience. Flood geology contradicts scientific consensus in disciplines such as geology, physics, chemistry, molecular genetics, evolutionary biology, archaeology, and paleontology.[1][2][3][4]

History of flood geology

The great flood in the history of geology

That fossils were from organisms that were killed and buried during the brief duration of the Flood was once believed by many Christians (including Tertullian, Chrysostom and Augustine).[5] Acceptance of the idea was furthered by the geological peculiarity in northern Europe where much 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 the result of massive flooding, though it is now known that these features are the product of ice age glaciations.[6] It was once 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.[7][8]

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.[9]

The modern science of geology was founded in Europe in the 18th century.[10] 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?

By the early 19th century 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. (Benoît de Maillet had estimated an age of 2.4 billion years by 1732[11][12] as against the 6,000 years proposed by Archbishop James Ussher's famous chronology). In 1823 the Reverend William Buckland, the first professor of geology at Oxford University, interpreted geological phenomena as Reliquiae Diluvianae; relics of the flood Attesting the Action of an Universal Deluge. His views were supported by other English clergymen naturalists at the time including the influential Adam Sedgwick, but these ideas were disputed by continental geologists and by 1830 Sedgwick was convinced by his own findings that the evidence only showed local floods.[13]

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.[14]

The idea that all geological strata were produced by a single flood was rejected in 1837 by Buckland 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.[15]

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.[16] Mainstream science gave up on the idea of flood geology, which required major deviations from known physical processes.

Reemergence of flood geology

Flood geology was developed as a creationist endeavor in the 20th century by George McCready Price, a Seventh-day Adventist and armchair[17] geologist who wrote a book in 1923 to provide a Traditional Adventist perspective on geology.[18][19] Price's work was subsequently adapted and updated by Henry M. Morris and John C. Whitcomb, Jr. in their book The Genesis Flood in 1961. Whitcomb was motivated after reading the book, The Christian View of Science and Scripture (1954) by theologian Bernard Ramm. Ramm supported the view that scientists who are Christians could come to alternative interpretations to the strict six day creation, as promoted by Price, that are both Biblical and concordant with current scientific evidence.[20][21] 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 .[22] 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!"[23]

Ramm's book was supportive of religious and scientific dissent from flood geology.[20] J. Laurence Kulp, a geologist in fellowship with the Plymouth Brethren, joined with other Christian geologists, archaeologists, anthropologists, and biologists whose work related to radiocarbon dating, to persuade the Christian organization, American Scientific Affiliation (ASA), not to officially support or endorse flood geology but to allow members to follow the scientific evidence rather than a too literalist interpretation of the Bible.[20] Kulp also wrote a detailed critique of Flood Geology, titled Deluge Geology, which was published in the Journal of the American Scientific Affiliation in 1950.[24] When the ASA refused to align itself with flood geology, a new generation of Young Earth creationists was founded, many of whom organized themselves around Morris's Institute for Creation Research. Subsequent research by the Creation Research Society has observed and analyzed geological formations, within a flood geology framework, including the La Brea Tar Pits,[25] the Tavrick Formation (Tauric Formation, Russian: "Tavricheskaya formatsiya") in the Crimean Peninsula[26] and Stone Mountain, Georgia.[27] In each case, the creationists claimed that the flood geology interpretation had greater explanatory power than the uniformitarian explanation. The Creation Research Society claims that "uniformitarianism is wishful thinking".[28]

The impact on creationism and fundamentalist Christianity of these ideas is considerable. Morris' theories of flood geology are widely promoted around the world, 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.

Biblical basis

Flood geology is based on a literal interpretation of the flood narrative in the Book of Genesis (Genesis 6–9). The narrative begins with God's decision to bring a deluge which will wipe out all life on earth except for those to be saved on Noah's Ark. In the 600th year of Noah's life God opens the "fountains of the deep" and the "windows of Heaven" and causes rain to fall on the earth for 40 days and nights. The flood increases for 150 days and covers "all the high mountains under heaven," at which point the Ark grounds on the mountains. The waters then retreat for 150 days, the earth dries, and Noah and his family and the animals and birds emerge to re-establish life on earth.[29] (The authors of Genesis, like all peoples of the ancient Near East, conceived the earth as a flat, circular disk, floating like a bubble in a limitless expanse of water, with a solid sky (the firmament) separating the dry land inhabited by man from the surrounding waters; when God opens the "windows of heaven" and the "fountains of the Deep", it is these waters which enter and flood the world).[30]

Genesis also contains a chronology which places the Flood in the year 1656 after Creation in the standard Hebrew text (the Masoretic text - other texts have slightly different chronologies). Correlating this with a date in the modern calendar has proven contentious - there have been over two hundred attempts, with outcomes varying from 3483 to 6934 years BC[31] — but modern flood geology accordingly attempts to fit geological time within the framework of a "young" Earth.

The scholarly consensus is that the flood story was written around 550–450 BC as a reworking of the ancient Mesopotamian myth of the flood-hero Utnapishtim. For the ancient author or authors, the purpose of the story was theological, elevating Hebrew monotheism against Babylonian polytheism. Within the overall narrative of the Genesis, the Flood mirrors, but in reverse, God's creation of "the heavens and the earth" in Genesis 1. That story tells how God creates an Earth which is good, but which becomes corrupted with violence, until in Genesis 6 he decides to destroy all life. He does this by opening the "windows of the firmament" and the "fountains of the Deep" and allowing the waters of the cosmos in. The chronology of the Flood replicates the chronology of the seven days of Creation: it begins in the second month, equivalent to the second day of Creation, the day on which the firmament was created; the waters then rise for 150 days (five months of 30 days each), until at the end of six months (equivalent to the six days of creative work in Genesis 1) the ark grounds on the highest mountain peak. (To underline the point, Noah's name means "rest" in Hebrew). After a month of rest (the equivalent of the seventh day of the Creation story), the waters recede for 150 days/five months as the world is "re-created": in the sixth month Noah waits, and in the seventh he and the animals exit the ark and give thanks to God.[32]

Belief in a global Flood and a six thousand year history for the Earth had been largely abandoned by the mid-19th century. Their revival and rapid growth in the United States can be dated to the early 20th century; the reasons behind this phenomenon are complex, but the theological rationale has been stated by many literalists, including, in a contemporary form, by Answers in Genesis:

The debate about the age of the earth is ultimately a question of whose word we are going to trust: the all-knowing truthful Creator who has given us His inerrant book (the Bible) or finite, sinful creatures who give us their books that contain errors and therefore are frequently revised. If you firmly trust and carefully read the Bible and become informed on creationist interpretations of the geological record, you can easily see how the rocks of the earth powerfully confirm the Bible’s teaching, both about Noah’s Flood and a young earth.[33]

Evidence cited to support a global flood


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. Young Earth Creationists such as Morris and Whitcomb in their 1961 book, The Genesis Flood, deny that the fossil record in the geologic column represents the evolution of life on earth over millions of years. The age of the fossils depend on the amount of time credited to the geologic column, which they ascribe to be about 1 year. Some flood geologists dispute geology's assembled global geologic column since index fossils are used to link geographically isolated strata to other strata across the map. Fossils are often dated by their proximity to strata containing index fossils whose age has been determined by its location on the geologic column. Oard[34] and others claim that the identification of fossils as index fossils has been too error prone for index fossils to be used reliably to make those correlations, or to date local strata using the assembled geologic scale.

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. They cite the Cambrian explosion — the appearance of abundant fossils in the upper Ediacaran (Vendian) Period and lower Cambrian Period — as the pre-Flood/Flood boundary,[35] the presence in such sediments of fossils that do not occur later in the geological record as part of a pre–flood biota that perished[36] and the absence of fossilized organisms that appear later, such as angiosperms and mammals, as due to erosion of sediments deposited by the flood as waters receded off the land.[37] Some creationists claim that fossilization can only take place when the organism is buried quickly to protect the remains from destruction by scavengers or decomposition.[38] They claim that the fossil record is evidence of a single cataclysmic flood and not the record of a series of slow changes accumulating over millions of years.[39]

Flood geologists have proposed numerous hypotheses to reconcile the sequence of fossils evident in the fossil column with the literal account of Noah's flood in the Bible. Whitcomb and Morris proposed three possible factors. One is hydrological, wherein the relative buoyancies of the remains based on the organisms' shapes and densities determined the sequence in which their remains settled to the bottom of the flood waters. The second factor they proposed was ecological, suggesting organisms living at the ocean bottom succumbed first in the flood and those living at the highest altitudes last. The third factor was anatomical and behavioral, the ordered sequence in the fossil column resulting from the very different responses to the rising waters between different kinds of organisms due to their diverse mobilities and original habitats.[40] In a scenario put forth by Morris, the remains of marine life were the first to settle to the bottom, followed by the slower moving lowland reptiles, and culminating with mankind whose superior intelligence and ability to flee enabled them to reach higher elevations before they were overcome by the flood waters.[41]

Some creationists believe that oil and coal deposits formed rapidly in sedimentary layers as volcanoes or flood waters flattened forests and buried the debris. They believe the vegetation decomposed rapidly into oil or coal due to the heat of the subterranean waters as they were unleashed from the Earth during the flood or by the high temperatures created as the remains were compressed by water and sediment.[42][43]

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. Such footprint evidence has been debunked by scientists[44] and some have been shown to be fakes.[45]

Widespread flood stories

While it is not geological evidence, believers in Flood Geology also point out that flood stories can be found in many cultures, places, and religions; 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.[46]

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 [47]. Geologists William Ryan and Walter C. Pitman, III have suggested that the rapid filling of the Black Sea (c.7,000 BC) at the end of the last Ice Age may be responsible for the flood myths in the Near East.[48]

Proposed mechanisms of flood geology

Runaway subduction

In the last decade, most proposed flood mechanisms involve "runaway subduction" (the rapid movement of tectonic plates) in one form or another, at least in order to open up the ocean basins to allow the drainage of the water after the flood, but possibly also to close them before the flood in order to force the oceans onto the land.

One specific form of runaway subduction is called Catastrophic plate tectonics, proposed by geophysicist John Baumgardner and supported by the Institute for Creation Research and Answers in Genesis.[49] This holds the rapid plunge of former oceanic plates into the mantle caused by an unknown trigger mechanism which increased local mantle pressures to the point that its viscosity dropped several magnitudes according to known properties of mantle silicates. Once initiated, sinking plates caused the spread of low viscosity throughout the mantle resulting in runaway mantle convection and catastrophic tectonic motion as continents were dragged across the surface of the earth. Once the former ocean plates, which are known to be denser than the mantle, reached the bottom of the mantle an equilibrium was reached. Pressures dropped, viscosity increased, runaway mantle convection stopped, leaving the surface of the earth rearranged. 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.[50]

The hypothesis of catastrophic plate tectonics is considered pseudoscience and is rejected by the vast majority of geologists in favor of the conventional geological theory of plate tectonics. It has been argued that the tremendous release of energy necessitated by such an event would boil off the Earth's oceans, making a global flood impossible.[51] Not only does catastrophic plate tectonics lack any plausible geophysical mechanism by which its changes might occur, it also is contradicted by considerable geological evidence (which is in turn consistent with conventional plate tectonics), including:[52]

  • The fact that a number of volcanic oceanic island chains, such as the Hawaiian islands, yield evidence of the ocean floor having moved over volcanic hot spots. These islands have widely ranging ages (determined via both radiometric dating and relative erosion) that contradict the catastrophic tectonic hypothesis of rapid development and thus a similar age.
  • Radiometric dating and sedimentation rates on the ocean floor likewise contradict the hypothesis that it all came into existence nearly contemporaneously.
  • Catastrophic tectonics does not allow sufficient time for guyots to have their peak eroded away (leaving these seamounts' characteristic flat tops).
  • Runaway subduction does not explain the kind of continental collision illustrated by that of the Indian and Eurasian Plates. (For further information see Orogeny.)

Conventional plate tectonics accounts for the geological evidence already, including innumerable details that catastrophic plate tectonics cannot, such as why there is gold in California, silver in Nevada, salt flats in Utah, and coal in Pennsylvania, without requiring any extraordinary mechanisms to do so.[52][53]

Vapor/water canopy

Isaac Vail (1840-1912), a Quaker schoolteacher, in his 1912 work The Earth's Annular System, extrapolated from the nebular hypothesis what he called the annular system of earth history, with the earth being originally surrounded by rings resembling those of Saturn, or canopies of water vapor. These were hypothesised to have, one by one, collapsed on the earth, resulting in a "succession of stupendous cataclysms, separated by unknown periods of time" burying fossils. The Genesis flood was thought to have been caused by "the last remnant" of this vapor. Although this final flood was geologically significant, it was hypothesized to account for far less of the fossil record than George McCready Price attributed to it.[54]

This hypothesis gained a following among Jehovah's Witnesses[54] and from Seventh Day Adventist physicist Robert W. Woods,[55] before being given prominent and repeated mention in The Genesis Flood in 1961.[56]

Scientific evidence against a global flood

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 tenets 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).[57][58] 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.[59]

Historical records

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.



The Rocky Mountains; The Rockies do not share erosion traits consistent with a great flood—erosion would be expected equal to the Appalachian Mountains.


The Appalachian Mountains show an immense level of erosion. If a flood had occurred, similar erosion should be found in the Rocky Mountains.

The flood, had it occurred, should also have produced large-scale effects spread throughout the entire world. Erosion should be evenly distributed, yet the levels of erosion in, for example, the Appalachians and the Rocky Mountains differ significantly.[59]


Geochronology is the science of determining the absolute age of rocks, fossils, and sediments by a variety of techniques. These methods indicate that the Earth as a whole is at least 4.5 billion years old, and that the strata that, according to flood geology, were laid down during the Flood 6000 years ago, were actually deposited gradually over many millions of years.


This Jurassic carbonate hardground with its generations of oysters and extensive bioerosion could not have formed during the conditions postulated for the Flood.


If the flood were responsible for fossilization, then all the animals now fossilized must have been living together on the Earth just before the flood. Based on estimates of the number of remains buried in the Karoo fossil formation in Africa, this would correspond to an abnormally high density of vertebrates worldwide, close to 2100 per acre.[60]

In addition, carbonate hardgrounds and the fossils associated with them show that the so-called flood sediments include evidence of long hiatuses in deposition that are not consistent with flood dynamics or timing.[61]


The alternation of calcite and aragonite seas through geologic time.[62]


Proponents of Flood Geology also have a difficult time explaining the alternation between calcite seas and aragonite seas through the Phanerozoic. The cyclical pattern of carbonate hardgrounds, calcitic and aragonitic ooids, and calcite-shelled fauna has apparently been controlled by seafloor spreading rates and the flushing of seawater through hydrothermal vents which changes its Mg/Ca ratio.[63]

See also


  1. Young, Davis A. (1995). The biblical Flood: a case study of the Church's response to extrabiblical evidence. Grand Rapids, Mich: Eerdmans. pp. 340. ISBN 0-8028-0719-4. Retrieved 2008-09-16. 
  2. Index to Creationist Claims: Geology, Mark Isaak (ed.), TalkOrigins Archive
  3. Such as the existence of the geologic column; see Glenn Morton, The Geologic Column and its Implications for the Flood, TalkOrigins Archive
  4. Isaak 2007 page 173, Creationist claim CD750: "Much geological evidence is incompatible with catastrophic plate tectonics."
  5. R.J. Berry. (2003). God's book of works: the nature and theology of nature. London: T & T Clark. pp. 5. ISBN 0-567-08876-6. 
  6. McCann, T. (Tom) (2008). The Geology of Central Europe: Mesozoic and Cenozoic. Bath: Geological Society. pp. 1288–1318. ISBN 1-86239-265-X. 
  7. Dana, James Dwight (1866). Manual of geology: treating of the principles of the science with special reference to American geological history, for the use of colleges, academies, and schools of science. Bliss. pp. 642, 659, 767, et al. 
  8. Shrock, Robert Rakes (1977). Geology at M. I. T., 1865-1965: a history of the first hundred years of geology at Massachusetts Institute of Technology. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press. pp. 30. ISBN 0-262-19211-X. 
  9. 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. 
  10. The world's oldest professional geological society is the Geological Society of London, founded in 1807; the term "geology" itself was popularized through its use in theEncyclopedie of 1751.
  11. G. Brent Dalrymple. (2004). Ancient Earth, ancient skies: the age of Earth and its cosmic surroundings. Stanford, Calif.: Stanford University Press. pp. 205. ISBN 0-8047-4933-7. 
  12. Van Till, Howard J.; Snow, Robert J.;Stek, John H.; Young, Davis A. (1990). Portraits of creation: biblical and scientific perspectives on the world's formation. Grand Rapids, Mich.: Wm. B. Eerdmans Pub. Co.. pp. 47. ISBN 0-8028-0485-3. 
  13. Herbert, Sandra (1991). "Charles Darwin as a prospective geological author". British Journal for the History of Science (24): pp. 171–174. Retrieved 2009-07-24. 
  14. Kaiser, CB (1997). Creational Theology and the History of Physical Science: The Creationist Tradition from Basil to Bohr. Brill Academic Publishers. pp. 290–291. ISBN 90-04-10669-3. 
  15. Buckland, W (1980). Geology and Mineralogy Considered With Reference to Natural Theology (History of Paleontology). Ayer Company Publishing. ISBN 978-0405127069. 
  16. Imbrie, John; Imbrie, Katherine Palmer (1986). Ice ages: solving the mystery. Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press. pp. 40. ISBN 0-674-44075-7. 
  17. Numbers 2006 p106
  18. Price, GM (1984). Evolutionary Geology & the New Catastrophism. Sourcebook Project. ISBN 978-0915554133. 
  19. Numbers 2006
  20. 20.0 20.1 20.2 Yang, Seung-Hun. "Radiocarbon Dating and American Evangelical Christians". Retrieved 2009-01-12. 
  21. Spradley, Joseph L.. "Changing Views of Science and Scripture: Bernard Ramm and the ASA". Retrieved 2009-01-12. 
  22. This is the same model that Buckland had rejected 130 years earlier.
  23. Whitcomb, JC (1960). The Genesis Flood: The Biblical Record and Its Scientific Implications. P&R Publishing. ISBN 978-0875523385. 
  24. Kulp, J. Laurence (1950). "Deluge Geology". Journal of the American Scientific Affiliation (American Scientific Affiliation) 2 (1): 1–15. 
  25. Weston, W (2003). "La Brea Tar Pits: Evidence of a Catastrophic Flood". Creation Research Society Quarterly Journal 40 (1): 25–33. Retrieved 2007-03-29. 
  26. Lalomov, AV (2001). "Flood Geology of the Crimean Peninsula Part I: Tavrick Formation". Creation Research Society Quarterly Journal 38 (3): 118–124. Retrieved 2007-03-29. 
  27. Froede, CR (1995). "Stone Mountain Georgia: A Creation Geologist's Perspective". Creation Research Society Quarterly Journal 31 (4): 214. Retrieved 2007-03-29. 
  28. Reed, JK; Woodmorappe, J (2002). "Surface and Subsurface Errors in Anti-Creationist Geology". Creation Research Society Quarterly Journal 39 (1). Retrieved 2007-03-29. 
  29. Genesis 6-9
  30. For a description of Near Eastern and other ancient cosmologies and hypothesized connections with the Biblical view of the Universe, see Paul H. Seeley, "The Firmament and the Water Above: The Meaning of Raqia in Genesis 1:6-8", Westminster Theological Journal 53 (1991), and "The Geographical Meaning of 'Earth' and 'Seas' in Genesis 1:10", Westminster Theological Journal 59 (1997).
  31. "Biblical Chronology", Catholic Encyclopedia (1913)
  32. See the discussion in Gordon Wenham, "Exploring the Old Testament: Vol.1, The Pentateuch" (SPCK, 2003), ch.2, esp. pp.9-188
  33. "The Key to the Age of the Earth", Answers in Genesis.
  34. Oard, Michael; J. K. Reed (2006). The Geological Column: Perspectives within Diluvial Geology. Chino Valley, AZ, USA: Creation Research Society Books. pp. 99. 
  35. Hunter, M.J. (2000). "The pre-Flood/Flood boundary at the base of the earth's transition zone". Journal of Creation 14: 60–74. Retrieved 2009-01-24. 
  36. Wise, K. (1995). "Towards a Creationist Understanding of "Transitional Forms"" (pdf). CEN Tech. J. 9: 216–222. Retrieved 2009-01-24. 
  37. Austin, Stephen A.; Baumgardner, J.R., Humphreys, R.D., Snelling, A.A., Valdiman, L. and Wise, K.P. (1994). "Catastrophic Plate Tectonics: A Global Flood Model of Earth History". Third International Conference on Creationism, Pittsburgh, PA, July 18–23, 1994: Institute for Creation Research. Retrieved 2009-01-24. 
  38. Whitcomb, J.C. Jr.; Morris, H.M. (1961). The Genesis Flood. Philadelphia, PA: Presbyterian and Reformed Publishing Co. pp. 128–129. 
  39. Brown, W. (2008). "Chapter 21: Rapid Burial". In the Beginning: Compelling Evidence for Creation and the Flood (8th ed.). Center for Scientific Creation. ISBN 9781878026095. 
  40. Gould, Stephen Jay (1984). Montagu, Ashley. ed. Science and Creationism. Oxford: Oxford University Press. pp. 416. , p 132
  41. Schadewald, Robert J. (1982). "Six Flood Arguments Creationists Can't Answer". Creation/Evolution (National Center for Science Education). 
  42. Snelling, Andrew A.. "The Origin of Oil - Answers in Genesis". Retrieved 2008-09-16. 
  43. "Creation Worldview Ministries: The rapid formation of coal and oil". Retrieved 2008-09-16. 
  44. Shadewald, Robert (1986). "Scientific Creationism and Error". Creation/Evolution 6 (1): 1–9. Retrieved 2007-03-29. 
  45. Kuban, GJ (1996). "The "Burdick Print"". TalkOrigins Archive. Retrieved 2007-03-29. 
  46. "Flood Legends from Around the World". Northwest Creation Network. Retrieved 2007-06-27. 
  47. Nunn, Patrick D (2001). "On the convergence of myth and reality: examples from the Pacific Islands". The Geography Journal 167 (2): 125–138. doi:10.1111/1475-4959.00012. 
  48. "Balard and the Black Sea: the search for Noah's flood". National Geographic. 1999. Retrieved 2007-06-27. 
  49. Andrew Snelling (2007-02-20). "A Catastrophic Breakup -". Answers in Genesis. Retrieved 2007-10-01. 
  50. Baumgardner, JR (2003). "CATASTROPHIC PLATE TECTONICS: THE PHYSICS BEHIND THE GENESIS FLOOD". Fifth International Conference on Creationism. Retrieved 2007-03-29. 
  51. Wise, D.U. (1998). "Creationism's Geologic Time Scale American Scientist 86 (1998) 160-173" (abstract). American Scientist 86: 160–173. doi:10.1511/1998.2.160. Retrieved 2009-01-24. 
  52. 52.0 52.1 Isaak 2007 p 173 Creationist claim CD750
  53. McPhee, John, 1998. Annals of the Former World. New York: Farrar, Straus and Giroux.
  54. 54.0 54.1 Numbers(2006) pp347-348
  55. Numbers(2006) p501 (footnote 47)
  56. Numbers(2006) p229
  57. Lutgens, FK, Tarbuck, EJ, Tasa, D (2005). Essentials of Geology. Prentice Hall. ISBN 978-0131497498. 
  58. Tarbuck, EJ & Lutgens, FK (2006). Earth Science. Pearson Prentice Hall. ISBN 978-0131258525. 
  59. 59.0 59.1 Isaak, M (1998). "Problems with a Global Flood". TalkOrigins Archive. Retrieved 2007-03-29. 
  60. Schadewald, R. (1982) Six 'Flood' arguments Creationists can't answer Creation/Evolution 9, 12-17
  61. Wilson, M. (2001) Letter (with references) on hardgrounds and The Flood. Answers In Genesis website.
  62. Sandberg, P.A. (1983). "An oscillating trend in Phanerozoic non-skeletal carbonate mineralogy". Nature 305: 19–22. doi:10.1038/305019a0. 
  63. Stanley, S.M., Hardie, L.A. (1999). "Hypercalcification; paleontology links plate tectonics and geochemistry to sedimentology". GSA Today 9: 1–7. 


  • Isaak, Mark (2007). The Counter Creationism Handbook. Berkeley and Los Angeles, California: University of California Press. pp. 330. ISBN 139760520249264. 

Further reading

  • Brown, W (2001). In the Beginning: Compelling Evidence for Creation and the Flood. Center for Scientific Creation. ISBN 1-878026-08-9. 
  • Custance, Arthur C. Without Form and Void: A Study of the Meaning of Genesis 1.2 (Brockville, Ont., Canada: Doorway Publications, 1970, ISBN 0-919857-65-5). The Arthur Custance Centre for Science and Christianity</ref>
  • 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.
  • Patten, Donald W. The Biblical Flood and the Ice Epoch (Seattle: Pacific Meridian Publishing Company, 1966) [http;//]</ref>).
  • Patten, Donald W. Catastrophism and the Old Testament (Seattle: Pacific Meridian Publishing Company, 1988).
  • 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.

External links

Flood geology sites

Sites critical of flood geology