Flood geology 543667 225682889 2008-07-14T21:51:08Z Rjwilmsi 203434 gen fixes + link/fix date fields in cite templates (explanation [[User:Rjwilmsi#My_correction_of_dates_in_templates|here]]) using [[Project:AutoWikiBrowser|AWB]] {{creationism2}} '''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 [[Deluge (mythology)|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 [[stratum|sedimentary strata]], [[fossil]]ization, [[fossil fuels]], [[submarine canyon]]s, and [[salt dome]]s. [[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 (Bible Studies)|historicity]] of the flood. However, creationist presentations of what they believe is [[observation|evidence]] have routinely been evaluated, refuted and dismissed unequivocally by the [[scientific community]], which considers such flood geology to be [[pseudoscience]]. Flood geology directly contradicts the current consensus (and much of the evidence underlying it) in [[science|scientific]] disciplines such as [[geology]], [[evolutionary biology]] and [[paleontology]]. 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.<ref>{{cite journal|author=Bretz, JH|date=1923|title=The Channeled Scabland of the Columbia Plateau|journal=Journal of Geology|volume=31|pages=617–649}}</ref><ref>{{cite journal|author=Bretz, JH|date=1925|title=The Spokane flood beyond the Channeled Scablands|journal=Journal of Geology|volume=33|pages=97–115 & 236–259}}</ref><ref>{{cite journal|author=Bretz, JH|date=1942|title=Vadose and phreatic features of limestone caverns|journal=Journal of Geology|volume=50|issue=6|pages=675–811}}</ref> 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 [[uniformitarianism|uniformitarian]] principles at work in geologic history as well. ==History of flood geology== ===The great flood in the history of geology=== The modern science of [[history of geology|geology]] was founded in [[Europe]] in the 18th century.<ref>The world's oldest professional geological society is the [http://www.geolsoc.org.uk/gsl/society/bicentenary Geological Society of London], founded in 1807; the term "geology" itself was popularised through its use in the''Encyclopedie'' of 1751.]].</ref> 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 [[fossil]]s 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.{{Fact|date=August 2007}} 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 [[Glacial erratic|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 [[miracle]]s 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 (naturalist)|John Woodward]] and ''New Theory of the Earth'' (1696) by Woodward’s student [[William Whiston]].<ref>{{cite book|last=Porter|first=R|coauthors=Lindberg, DC & Numbers, RL|date=2003|title=The Cambridge History of Science: Volume 4, Eighteenth-Century Science|publisher=Cambridge University Press|isbn=0-521-57243-6}}</ref> 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 [[Ussher chronology|famous chronology]]). [[Charles Lyell]]'s promotion of [[James Hutton]]'s ideas of [[uniformitarianism (science)|uniformitarianism]] advocated the principle that geological changes that occurred in the past may be understood by studying present-day phenomena. In common with [[Isaac Newton|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 [[Georges-Louis Leclerc, Comte de Buffon|Buffon]] and neomechanists like [[Pierre-Simon Laplace|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 [[William Derham|Derham]] and [[Roger Cotes|Cotes]], Hutton believed that God had implanted active principles in nature at creation sufficient to account for all its natural functions.''<ref>{{cite book|last=Kaiser|first=CB|date=1997|title=Creational Theology and the History of Physical Science: The Creationist Tradition from Basil to Bohr|publisher=Brill Academic Publishers|isbn=90-04-10669-3|pages=290-291}}</ref> 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 [[Moses|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.''<ref>{{cite book|title=Geology and Mineralogy Considered With Reference to Natural Theology (History of Paleontology)|last=Buckland|first=W|publisher=Ayer Company Publishing|date=1980|isbn=978-0405127069}}</ref> 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 [[Switzerland|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 Church|Seventh-day Adventist]] and amateur geologist who wrote a book in 1923 to provide an explicitly [[Fundamentalist Christianity|Christian fundamentalist]] perspective on geology.<ref>{{cite book|author=Price, GM|date=1984|title=Evolutionary Geology & the New Catastrophism|publisher=Sourcebook Project|isbn=978-0915554133}}</ref><ref name="isbn0-674-02339-0">{{cite book |author=Numbers, Ronald L. |title=The Creationists: From Scientific Creationism to Intelligent Design, Expanded Edition |publisher=Harvard University Press |location=Cambridge |year= |pages= |isbn=0-674-02339-0 |oclc= |doi=}}</ref> In the 1950s Price's work came under severe criticism and in particular by [[Bernard Ramm]] in his book “The Christian View of Science and Scripture”. Together with [[J. Laurence Kulp]]<ref>[http://www.asa3.org/aSA/PSCF/1950/JASA3-50Kulp.html Science in Christian Perspective<!-- Bot generated title -->]</ref>, a geologist and member of the [[Plymouth Brethren]], and other scientists<ref>[http://www.asa3.org/ASA/PSCF/1993/PSCF12-93Yang.html Radiocarbon Dating and American Evangelical Christians<!-- Bot generated title -->]</ref>, Ramm influenced Christian organisations such as the [[American Scientific Affiliation]] (ASA) in not supporting flood geology. 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. 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.<ref> This is the same model that Buckland had rejected 130 years earlier.</ref> 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!"<ref>{{cite book|title=The Genesis Flood: The Biblical Record and Its Scientific Implications|author=Whitcomb, JC|date=1960|publisher=P&R Publishing|isbn=978-0875523385}}</ref> This became the foundation of a new generation of Young Earth creationist thinkers, many of whom organized themselves around Morris's [[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]],<ref>{{cite journal|url=http://www.creationresearch.org/crsq/articles/40/40_1/LaBrea3.htm|last=Weston|first=W|title=La Brea Tar Pits: Evidence of a Catastrophic Flood|journal=Creation Research Society Quarterly Journal|volume=40|issue=1|date=2003|pages=25–33|accessdate=2007-03-29}}</ref> the Tavrick Formation ([[Tauric]] Formation, Russian: "Tavricheskaya formatsiya") in the [[Crimean Peninsula]]<ref>{{cite journal|url=http://www.creationresearch.org/crsq/articles/38/38_3/Crimean.htm|title=Flood Geology of the Crimean Peninsula Part I: Tavrick Formation|last=Lalomov|first=AV|date=2001|journal=Creation Research Society Quarterly Journal|volume=38|issue=3|pages=118–124|accessdate=2007-03-29}}</ref> and [[Stone Mountain]], [[Georgia (U.S. state)|Georgia]].<ref>{{cite journal|url=http://www.creationresearch.org/crsq/articles/31/31_4b.html|title=Stone Mountain Georgia: A Creation Geologist's Perspective|last=Froede|first=CR|date=1995|journal=Creation Research Society Quarterly Journal|volume=31|issue=4|pages=214|accessdate=2007-03-29}}</ref> 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".<ref>{{cite journal|url=http://www.creationresearch.org/crsq/notes/39/39_1/Note0206.htm|title=Surface and Subsurface Errors in Anti-Creationist Geology|date=2002|first=JK|last=Reed|coauthors=Woodmorappe, J|journal=Creation Research Society Quarterly Journal|volume=39|issue=1|accessdate=2007-03-29}}</ref> The impact on creationism and fundamentalist Christianity of these ideas is considerable. Morris's 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 science|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 creationist]]s &ndash; a position held by the majority of proponents of flood geology &ndash; 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 [http://ccat.sas.upenn.edu/rs/2/Judaism/jp-flood.html], 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|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 [[School of Antioch|Antiochian school]], which preferred a more literal interpretation of Scripture, was always numerically superior.<ref>{{cite web |url=http://www.law.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/scopes/gen1st.htm |title=The History of Genesis and the Creation Stories |author=Linder, Doug |year=2004 |work=Famous Trials: Tennessee vs. John Scopes, The "Monkey Trial" |publisher=University of Missouri&mdash;Kansas City School of Law}}</ref> 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.<ref>{{cite book|last=Gilkey|first=L|date=2001|title=Blue Twilight: Nature, Creationism, and American Religion|publisher=Augsburg Fortress Publishers|isbn=0-8006-3294-X}}</ref><ref>{{cite book|last=Pleins|first=JD|date=2003|title=When the Great Abyss Opened: Classic and Contemporary Readings of Noah's Flood|publisher=Oxford University Press|isbn= 0-19-515608-0}}</ref> Others regard flood geology as both unscientific and an impediment to [[evangelism]].<ref>{{cite book|last=Goff|last=Harvey|first=P|date=2004|title=Themes in Religion and American Culture|publisher=University of North Carolina Press|isbn=0-8078-5559-6}}</ref> == Evidence cited to support a global flood == === Fossils === Generally, the [[geologic timescale|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]].<ref>{{cite journal|url=http://www.trueorigin.org/geocolumn.asp|title=The Geologic Column: Does it Exist?|last=Woodmorappe|first=J|date=1999|journal=Creation Ex Nihilo Technical Journal|volume=13|issue=2|pages=77–82|accessdate=2007-03-29}}</ref> 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.<ref>{{cite web |url=http://www.icr.org/research/index/researchp_as_platetectonicsl/ |title=CATASTROPHIC PLATE TECTONICS: A GLOBAL FLOOD MODEL OF EARTH HISTORY - Institute for Creation Research |accessdate=2007-07-25 |format= |work=}}</ref><ref>{{cite web |url=http://www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/5016/ |title=The pre-Flood/Flood boundary at the base of the earth's transition zone |accessdate=2007-07-24 |format= |work=}}</ref> They claim that [[fossil]]s 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.<ref>{{cite web |url=http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CC/CC363.html |title=CC363: Requirements for fossilization |accessdate=2007-09-29 |format= |work=}}</ref> 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 era]]s. 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.{{Fact|date=July 2007}} Some creationists believe that [[Petroleum|oil]] deposits are the result of the flood's accumulation and subsequent subsurface compression of dead plant matter.{{Fact|date=July 2007}} [[creationism|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 footprint evidence has been debunked by scientists<ref>{{cite journal|url=http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/cre-error.html|last=Shadewald|first=Robert|date=1986|title=Scientific Creationism and Error|journal=Creation/Evolution|volume=6|issue=1|pages=1–9|accessdate=2007-03-29}}</ref> and some have been shown to be fakes.<ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/paluxy/wilker5.html|title=The "Burdick Print"|first=GJ|last=Kuban|date=1996|publisher=[http://www.talkorigins.org/ The TalkOrigins Archive]|accessdate=2007-03-29}}</ref> === Liquefaction === [[Soil liquefaction|Liquefaction]] is a process by which sediments saturated with water can, under certain conditions, acquire properties that are more like those of a heavy liquid than those of a loose solid. Some proponents of flood geology contend that this process can explain a number of observations in a way that is consistent with a global flood. In particular, they propose that the observed sorting of fossils into globally ordered layers can be explained by the influence of the size, density, and hydrodynamic properties of the creatures on their movement within the liquid-like state. They further argue that the liquefaction predicted by the flood can explain phenomena such as relatively uniform strata over wide areas, transported blocks, sand plumes, [[coal]] and [[limestone]] deposits, and [[aquifer]]s.{{Fact|date=July 2007}} 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. And 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.{{Fact|date=October 2007}} === Submarine canyon formation === A [[submarine canyon]] is a steep-sided valley on the sea floor of the continental slope. Many submarine canyons are found as extensions to large rivers; however there are many that have no such association. Proponents of Flood Geology argue that they were formed as the floodwaters receded from the continents,{{Fact|date=July 2007}} claiming that the steep, often vertical sides show little erosion and are thus more consistent with rapid formation. The major mechanism of canyon erosion is now thought in the scientific consensus to be [[turbidity current]]s and underwater landslides. === 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, 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.<ref>{{cite web|url=http://nwcreation.net/noahlegends.html|title=Flood Legends from Around the World|publisher=[http://nwcreation.net/ Northwest Creation Network]|accessdate=2007-06-27}}</ref> 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.<ref>{{cite journal|first=Patrick D|last=Nunn|title=On the convergence of myth and reality: examples from the Pacific Islands|journal=The Geography Journal|year=2001|issue=2|volume=167|pages=125–138|doi=10.1111/1475-4959.00012}}</ref> Geologists [[William Ryan]] and [[Walter C. Pitman, III]] 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.<ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.nationalgeographic.com/blacksea/ax/frame.html|publisher=[[National Geographic]]|title=Balard and the Black Sea: the search for Noah's flood|year=1999|accessdate=2007-06-27}}</ref> == Proposed mechanisms of the flood == Although most proponents of a global flood believe that it was at some level the result of divine intervention, some have also attempted to find a mechanism by which a flood could have occurred within the framework of natural laws. The main difficulty is where the enormous amount of water required to cover "all the high mountains" came from or where it went to. Some flood geology supporters propose that the mountains were much smaller before the flood, so that not thousands of meters but only tens of meters of water were required. Whether this interpretation is consistent with the Biblical account is questionable, but even tens of meters of water is on the order of a thousand times larger than the several centimeters of water normally suspended in the atmosphere.{{Fact|date=November 2007}} At various times, subterranean sources ("hydroplates"), atmospheric sources (a "vapor canopy"), and extraterrestrial sources (a comet strike or orbiting ice) have been proposed as the source of the flood waters. The source currently most often discussed is that the ocean basins were closed by some form of rapid tectonics, spreading the water over the whole Earth. Most flood geology proponents envision the ocean basins opening up after the flood, whether for the first time or reopening, providing a place for the flood waters to drain to. This would require tectonic motion millions of times faster than that observed today. === Hydroplates === One of the proposed mechanisms relying on a subterranean source of water is the hydroplate hypothesis, put forward by [[Walt Brown (creationist)|Walt Brown]]. In this picture, the Earth was originally created with a great deal of subterranean water, and the Flood was brought on when the crust of the Earth was cracked, allowing this water to escape violently to the surface.<ref name="Brown">{{cite book|author=Brown, W|date=2001|title=In the Beginning: Compelling Evidence for Creation and the Flood|publisher=Center for Scientific Creation|page=105|isbn=1-878026-08-9}}</ref> The pieces of the surface, referred to as "hydroplates", are supposed to have rapidly divided during and after the flood. Brown states that the water later drained into the basins that had been formed by the division of the plates becoming the oceans. Many creationist organizations such as [[Answers in Genesis]] and the [[Institute for Creation Research]] consider the hydroplate notion to be unworkable.{{Fact|date=April 2008}} The Hydroplates hypothesis has been criticised as being faulty for a number of reasons:<ref>[http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CH/CH420.html Creationist claim CH420], [[TalkOrigins Archive]]</ref><ref>Bram, Kurt et al. 1995. The KTB borehole -- Germany's superdeep telescope into the earth's crust. Oilfield Review 7(1): 4-22.</ref> *that the rock that makes up the earth's crust does not float, so that the water would have been forced to the surface long before the [[Genesis flood]]. *that even two miles deep (far above the hypothesised depth), the earth is boiling hot (260 to 270 degrees C at 5.656 miles in one borehole; Bram et al. 1995), resulting in a superheated reservoir of water and temperatures that would not have been survivable. *that the waters would have eroded the sides of the fissures through which they were escaping, producing poorly sorted basaltic erosional deposits. These would be concentrated mainly near the fissures, but some would be shot thousands of miles along with the water. Such deposits would be quite noticeable but have never been seen. === Vapor canopy === The "vapor canopy" is the idea that the waters for the flood came from a "canopy" of water vapor surrounding the Earth. Related proposals have been made with the water in the form of a liquid or ice. The earliest water canopy proposal was that of Isaac Vail in 1874, but the idea came to prominence in 1961 with the publication of the book ''[[The Genesis Flood]]'' by [[Henry M. Morris]] and [[John Whitcomb]]. The concept of the water canopy seems to come from {{bibleverse||Genesis|1:7|KJV}} with the phrase "the waters above the [[firmament]]." Other biblical statements that point to this possible interpretation include: * "the Lord God had not caused it to rain upon the earth... but there went up a mist from the earth" ({{bibleverse||Genesis|2:5-6|KJV}}) - interpreted to mean that there was no rain prior to the great Flood, but only a vapor mist which watered the earth * "the LORD God walking in the garden in the cool of the day" - interpreted to mean that sunset being the breezy part of every day * "I do set my bow in the cloud" ({{bibleverse||Genesis|9:13|KJV}}) - interpreted to mean that there were no [[rainbow]]s prior to the great Flood * "And God made two great lights; the greater light to rule the day" - the great luminary on the 4th day that becomes the sun after the Flood. * "the windows of heaven were opened" ({{bibleverse||Genesis|7:11|KJV}}) - understood to describe the collapse of the vapor canopy during the Flood. * “While the earth remains, seedtime and harvest, cold and heat, winter and summer, and day and night shall not cease.” ({{bibleverse||Genesis|8:22|KJV}}) - understood to mean that prior to the flood there were no seasons as the vapor canopy created a uniform climate. * Additionally, many creationist advocates of the vapor canopy model believe that the vapor canopy shielded human beings from cosmic rays, thus accounting for the long lifespans recorded prior to the flood. One major proponent of the vapor canopy is [[Kent Hovind]], who has made the model popular among the general population of creationists, but most creation scientists now reject the idea.{{Fact|date=November 2007}} For instance, Walt Brown's Center for Scientific Creation opposes it, and it has also fallen into disfavour at [[Answers in Genesis]].<ref>[http://www.answersingenesis.org/Home/Area/AnswersBook/flood12.asp Noah's Flood—what about all that water?], [[Answers in Genesis]]</ref> The scientific criticism of the vapor canopy focus on the required pressure and temperature of the atmosphere. For water vapor equivalent to one kilometer of liquid water, the pressure at the surface of the Earth would be 100 times greater than it is now. The [[critical pressure]] of water is only 217 atm, so it is difficult to distinguish between liquid and vapor under these conditions, but either the temperature would be high (hundreds or thousands of degrees) or the density of the vapor would be more like that of liquid water than our present atmosphere. Finally, to get this vapor to condense into rain, an enormous amount of heat would have to be extracted and disposed of. A canopy of liquid water or ice faces other difficulties. A stationary layer of water would, of course, not be [[Rayleigh–Taylor instability|stable]] and would immediately fall. An orbiting ring or shell of water or ice, even if it could be made stable for long periods and then suddenly fall, would be heated by conversion of gravitational energy during the fall, resulting in steam rather than rain. There have also been versions of the vapor canopy idea that interpret the frozen remains of woolly mammoths with grass in their mouths as evidence of a sudden freezing out of the water vapor as ice at the poles. Modern science does not see the frozen mammoths as something difficult to explain,{{Fact|date=November 2007}} and the difficulty of getting rid of the excess heat would be even more severe in this scenario than it already is just to produce rain. === 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]].<ref>{{cite web |url=http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/am/v2/n2/a-catastrophic-breakup |title=A Catastrophic Breakup - |accessdate=2007-10-01 |author=Andrew Snelling |authorlink= |coauthors= |date=[[2007-02-20]] |format= |work= |publisher=[[Answers in Genesis]] |pages= |language= |archiveurl= |archivedate= |quote=}}</ref> This holds the rapid plunge of former oceanic plates into the [[Mantle (geology)|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 more dense 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.<ref>{{cite conference|last=Baumgardner|first=JR|date=2003|url=http://www.globalflood.org/papers/2003ICCcpt.html|title=CATASTROPHIC PLATE TECTONICS: THE PHYSICS BEHIND THE GENESIS FLOOD|booktitle=Fifth International Conference on Creationism|accessdate=2007-03-29}}</ref> The hypothesis of catastrophic plate tectonics is considered pseudoscience and is rejected by the vast majority of geologists in favour 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.<ref name=Wise1998>{{cite journal | author = Wise, D.U. | year = 1998 | title = Creationism's Geologic Time Scale American Scientist 86 (1998) 160-173 | journal = American Scientist | volume = 86 | pages = 160–173 | url = http://www.searchforthechurch.org/Articles/Wise_Creationist_Geology.pdf | accessdate = 2007-10-01 | doi = 10.1511/1998.2.160 | format = {{dead link|date=June 2008}} &ndash; <sup>[http://scholar.google.co.uk/scholar?hl=en&lr=&q=author%3A+intitle%3ACreationism%27s+Geologic+Time+Scale+American+Scientist+86+%281998%29+160-173.&as_publication=American+Scientist&as_ylo=1998&as_yhi=1998&btnG=Search Scholar search]</sup> }}</ref> Further, this hypothesis is contradicted by a considerable body of geological evidence:<ref name="CD750">[http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CD/CD750.html Claim CD750] [[TalkOrigins Archive]]</ref> * some volcanic island chains, such as the Hawaiian islands, present evidence that the ocean floor moved slowly over erupting "hot spots." Radiometric dating and erosion levels indicate that the older islands are very much older, not close to the same age as catastrophic tectonics would require. * Catastrophic plate tectonics requires that all ocean floor should be approximately the same age, but both radiometric dating and amounts of sedimentation indicate that the age changes gradually, from brand new to tens of millions of years old. * As sea-floor basalt cools, it becomes denser and sinks. The elevation of sea floors is consistent with cooling appropriate for its age according to conventional geology, assuming gradual spreading. * Guyots are flat-topped underwater mountains, whose tops were eroded flat over a long time at the ocean surface, and they sank with the sea floor. Catastrophic tectonics does not allow enough time for the sea mountain to form, erode, and sink. * This hypothesis does not account for continent-continent collisions, such as between India and the Eurasian plate. Catastrophic plate tectonics lacks a plausible mechanism. Particularly, the greatly lowered viscosity of the mantle, the rapid magnetic reversals, and the sudden cooling of the ocean floor afterwards cannot be explained under conventional physics.<ref name="CD750"/> 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.<ref name="CD750"/><ref>McPhee, John, 1998. ''Annals of the Former World''. New York: Farrar, Straus and Giroux.</ref> == Additional 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 (science)|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 [[Age of the Earth|4.5 billion years old]]. They study the [[lithosphere]] of the Earth to gain information on the history of the planet. Geologists divide [[History of Earth|Earth's history]] into [[Eon (geology)|eons]], [[Era (geology)|eras]], [[Period (geology)|periods]], [[Epoch (geology)|epochs]], and [[faunal stages]] characterized by well-defined breaks in the [[fossil record]] (see [[Geologic time scale]]).<ref name="Essentials">{{cite book|title=Essentials of Geology|author=Lutgens, FK, Tarbuck, EJ, Tasa, D|date=2005|publisher=Prentice Hall|isbn= 978-0131497498}}</ref><ref name="Earth Science">{{cite book|title=Earth Science|author=Tarbuck, EJ & Lutgens, FK|publisher=Pearson Prentice Hall|date=2006|isbn=978-0131258525}}</ref> 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.<ref name="Isaak">{{cite web|url=http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-noahs-ark.html|title=Problems with a Global Flood|last=Isaak|first=M|date=1998|publisher=[http://www.talkorigins.org The TalkOrigins Archive]|accessdate=2007-03-29}}</ref> ===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. ===Erosion=== [[Image:Rockymountainnps.jpg|thumb|left|The [[Rocky Mountains]]; The Rockies do not share erosion traits consistent with a great flood - erosion would be expected equal to the Appalachian Mountains.]] [[Image:RainySmokies.jpg|thumb|right|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.<ref name="Isaak"/> ===Geochronology=== [[Geochronology]] is the science of determining the [[absolute dating|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. [[Image:CarmelHdgd.jpg|thumb|left|This [[Jurassic]] carbonate hardground with its generations of [[oysters]] and extensive [[bioerosion]] could not have formed during the conditions postulated for the Flood.]] ===Paleontology=== 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 [[List of fossil sites|fossil sites]] found worldwide.<ref>Schadewald, R. (1982) [http://www.lhup.edu/~dsimanek/6flood.htm Six 'Flood' arguments Creationists can't answer]. ''Creation/Evolution'' '''9''', 12-17.</ref> In addition, carbonate hardgrounds and the fossils associated with them show that the so-called flood sediments include evidence of long hiatuses in deposition not consistent with flood dynamics or timing.<ref>Wilson, M. (2001) [http://www.answersingenesis.org/Home/area/feedback/negative13-mar-2001.asp Letter (with references) on hardgrounds and The Flood]. Answers In Genesis website.</ref> [[Image:CalciteAragonite.jpg|thumb|right|The alternation of calcite and aragonite seas through [[geologic time]].<ref>{{cite journal | author = Sandberg, P.A. | year = 1983 | title = An oscillating trend in Phanerozoic non-skeletal carbonate mineralogy | journal = Nature | volume = 305 | pages = 19–22 | doi = 10.1038/305019a0}}</ref>]] ===Geochemistry=== Proponents of Flood Geology also have a difficult time explaining the alternation between [[calcite sea]]s 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 vent]]s which changes its Mg/Ca ratio.<ref>{{cite journal | author = Stanley, S.M., Hardie, L.A. | year = 1999 | title = Hypercalcification; paleontology links plate tectonics and geochemistry to sedimentology | journal = GSA Today | volume = 9 | pages = 1–7}}</ref> ==Philosophical objections== {{seealso|Occam's Razor}} 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. 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 [[Geology#History|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.<ref name="Isaak"/> == Notes and references == {{reflist|2}} ==Further reading== * {{cite book|author=Brown, W|date=2001|title=In the Beginning: Compelling Evidence for Creation and the Flood|publisher=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&ndash;4, 74&ndash;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&ndash;131. * H. Neuville, “On the Extinction of the Mammoth,” Annual Report of the Smithsonian Institution, 1919. * {{cite book|author=Numbers, RL|date=1991|title=The Creationists: The Evolution of Scientific Creationism|publisher=University of California Press|isbn=978-0520083936}} * E. W. Pfizenmayer, ''Siberian Man and Mammoth'', translated from [[German language|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&ndash;13. == See also == *[[Baraminology]] *[[Creation biology]] *[[Creation science]] *[[Frank Lewis Marsh]] *[[Pre-Adamite]] *[[Pseudoscience]] *[[Polystrate fossil]] *[[Young Earth creationism]] ==External links== ===Flood geology sites=== * [http://www.globalflood.org Unveiling the Mechanism Behind the Genesis Flood] * [http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-6656496992483967620 Startling Evidence That Noah's Flood Really Happened] * [http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/faq/Geology.asp Answers in Genesis' Geology Questions and Answers Page] * [http://www.biblicalgeology.net/ Tas Walker's Biblical Geology] * [http://www.christiangeology.com/ Christian Geology] * [http://www.creation-science-prophecy.com/geology.htm Global Flood Geology from "Creation Science Prophecy"] * [http://www.creationscience.com/ Hydroplate Theory] * [http://www.grisda.org/origins/22058.htm 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 * [http://www.rae.org/revev2.html Revolution against Evolution geology page] * [http://www.earthhistory.org.uk/ Recolonisation Theory] * [http://www.newgeology.us 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 === * [http://www.answersincreation.org/floodlist.htm Answers In Creation] and [http://lordibelieve.org/page15.html Age of the Earth]. Old earth creationist websites explaining the problems of young earth flood geology. * [http://www.talkorigins.org/origins/faqs-flood.html talk.origins Flood Geology archive] * [http://www.awitness.org/bible_commentary/genesis/flood_geology_fossils.html Fossils, Flood Geology and Creation Science] * [http://www.edwardtbabinski.us/babinski/flood.html Creationist "Flood Geology" Versus Common Sense] * [http://members.shaw.ca/tfrisen/evolution/Creationism/flood.html Problems with a Global Flood] * [http://www.epicidiot.com/evo_cre/vr_st_helens.htm Mount St. Helens: Explosive Evidence for Catastrophe] *[http://www.bringyou.to/apologetics/p82.htm 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 * [http://geocities.com/evolvedthinking/flood.htm Why a Global Flood is impossible] * [http://home.entouch.net/dmd/dmd.htm#flo A Series of Articles written by a former YEC attacking Flood Geology] * [http://www.geocities.com/earthhistory/ A Collection of Essays Criticizing Creation Science, including Flood Geology] * [http://www.geocities.com/Athens/Thebes/7755/henke/krh-floodnonsense.html Critique of a YEC article defending Flood Geology] * [http://www.creationtheory.org/YoungEarth/Hartman-6.shtml Problems with Flood Geology] * [http://www.wooster.edu/geology/Geo350mw/Geo350mw.html An extended course syllabus from The College of Wooster] * [http://www.epicidiot.com/evo_cre/noahs_flood.htm Noah's Flood - What does the Evidence Say?] [[Category:Creation Science]] [[Category:Young Earth creationism]] [[nl:Zondvloedgeologie]] [[fi:Tulvageologia]]