This article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Creationism: Young Earth creationism Top‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Creationism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Creationism on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.CreationismWikipedia:WikiProject CreationismTemplate:WikiProject CreationismCreationism Top This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale. This article is supported by the Young Earth creationism task force (assessed as Top-importance). Skepticism High‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Skepticism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of science, pseudoscience, pseudohistory, conspiracy theories, and skepticism related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.SkepticismWikipedia:WikiProject SkepticismTemplate:WikiProject SkepticismSkepticism High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale. Alternative views Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Alternative views, a collaborative effort to improve Wikipedia's coverage of significant alternative views in every field, from the sciences to the humanities. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion.Alternative viewsWikipedia:WikiProject Alternative viewsTemplate:WikiProject Alternative viewsAlternative views Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. Religion Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Religion, a project to improve Wikipedia's articles on Religion-related subjects. Please participate by editing the article, and help us assess and improve articles to good and 1.0 standards, or visit the wikiproject page for more details.ReligionWikipedia:WikiProject ReligionTemplate:WikiProject ReligionReligion Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. Christianity Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Christianity, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Christianity on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ChristianityWikipedia:WikiProject ChristianityTemplate:WikiProject ChristianityChristianity Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. Palaeontology Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Palaeontology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of palaeontology-related topics and create a standardized, informative, comprehensive and easy-to-use resource on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PalaeontologyWikipedia:WikiProject PalaeontologyTemplate:WikiProject PalaeontologyPalaeontology Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. Geology High‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Geology, an attempt at creating a standardized, informative, comprehensive and easy-to-use geology resource. If you would like to participate, you can choose to edit this article, or visit the project page for more information.GeologyWikipedia:WikiProject GeologyTemplate:WikiProject GeologyGeology High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale. History of Science Mid‑importance This article is part of the History of Science WikiProject, an attempt to improve and organize the history of science content on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion. You can also help with the History of Science Collaboration of the Month.History of ScienceWikipedia:WikiProject History of ScienceTemplate:WikiProject History of Sciencehistory of science Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Archives

Archive 1 (August 2004–May 2005) Archive 2 (May 2005–August 2007) Archive 3 (July–October 2007) Archive 4 (Nov 2007–Oct 2008) Archive 5 (Dec 2008–Oct 2009) Archive 6 (January 2010–)

This page has archives. Topics inactive for 30 days are automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III if there are more than 3.

There are three short-footnote references whose source information is missing in the article: Snelling 2006, Wilson 2001 and Mathews 2009. If any editors with more familiarity with the subject area than me can track the sources down, please add them in the "References" section at the end of the article. Thanks, Wham2001 (talk) 17:43, 25 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Done. tgeorgescu (talk) 23:26, 25 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Excellent – thank-you! Wham2001 (talk) 16:24, 26 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The labelling as pseudoscience is not supported by the cited article, which does not provide an actual or multiple examples of the use of pseudoscience. Furthermore the cited article mixes up two examples for the use of pseudoscience. The article cited is not suitable to support the claim. 83.150.41.5 (talk) 14:03, 10 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Which "cited article" do you mean? We have several sources for this ignorant claptrap being pseudoscience. --Hob Gadling (talk) 14:27, 10 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I also noticed the dismissive label "pseudoscience" and wanted to see the source. Could you link one of these "several sources" that you have @Hob Gadling? RedpilledRedneck (talk) 08:04, 19 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

the source is clearly there... namely https://www.nature.com/articles/490480a Theroadislong (talk) 09:04, 19 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It might help to move the reference from the last line of the lead to the first line. -- Elphion (talk) 14:39, 19 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

They are all literally right there in the article. There's many more over at Creationism. You're on an encyclopedia right now. Maybe try using it instead of just complaining about it. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 22:56, 19 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that pseudoscience is a poor label. If it were then all scientific hypotheses may be labelled pseudoscience until they have been rigorously examined, tested and not passed any of the tests proposed to falsify them. Indeed, it is only by falsification of previously, perhaps dearly held, hypotheses that science makes progress. Do we not 'know' that Newton was wrong? Did not Einstein provide a better hypothesis? But even his does not explain everything. Do we call their hypotheses pseudoscience? We do not. No more should we call any hypotheses on the basis of a global flood which seeks to, for example, explain the sedimentary rocks pseudoscience. The correct response is the one of science, to shew from the evidence that the hypothesis is invalid. Given the forensic nature of this particular aspect of our science however that is not such an easy matter as the demonstration that Newton's Laws fail. We cannot use a just-so story as evidence. It is just-so stories that are themselves pseudoscience. Stuartm — Preceding undated comment added 19:22, 16 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Well stated. Indeed Evolution too is not falsifiable, Netwon was a creationist. Einstein's statements remained untested until the end of the 20th century. yet no one would consider Einstein a pseudo-scientist. If flood geologists make statements unsupported by observable, repeatable evidence, that is not for an encyclopedia article to judge. Dudshan (talk) 01:23, 16 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Newton being a creationist doesn't prove or disprove anything. He lived over a century before the theory of evolution had fully been developed, in a very different world and context in terms of scientific knowledge from what we have now. Harryhenry1 (talk) 04:29, 16 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Evolution too is not falsifiable Wikipedia is based on reliable sources, not on your baseless claims. --Hob Gadling (talk) 13:32, 23 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

If it were then all scientific hypotheses may be labelled pseudoscience until they have been rigorously examined, tested and not passed any of the tests proposed to falsify them Nonsense. Flood geology is partly falsified, partly unfalsifiable. Both parts make up 100% of it. It's pseudoscience, and reliable sources agree on that. Wikipedia is based on reliable sources. Your opinion does not come into it. --Hob Gadling (talk) 13:32, 23 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

The 1980 eruption of Mount Saint Helens caused many prominent geological events which unfolded just as Creation science and catastrophism says they would. This is documented on YouTube by several different respectable sources. AAEexecutive (talk) 23:37, 31 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Geological catastrophes happen, mainstream science does not deny it. However, creation science is pseudoscience. tgeorgescu (talk) 00:06, 1 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed, where is analysis supporting the assertion that catastrophism and creation science "however" is pseudoscience, rather than merely an alternative interpretation of observations. There is certainly plenty in old-earth geology open to criticism too. Dudshan (talk) 01:26, 16 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

"There is certainly plenty in old-earth geology open to criticism too" But that doesn't make creation science or catastrophism somehow more legitimate. Harryhenry1 (talk) 04:41, 16 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

YouTube is not a reliable source. Dimadick (talk) 09:18, 1 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Okay. If you would like to get some reliable secondary sources that agree with the theory you set forth and add them to the article, you may. OverzealousAutocorrect (talk) 19:11, 2 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I do not know whether all religions that believe there was a flood believe it happened in the year 1615 from creation (so, 4,171 years ago at the time I'm writing this), but I think it would be good to be a little more specific on the value. 4,000 and 6,000 aren't very close at all, and I think getting the "other side"'s argument right is necessary to be in good faith. Haplodiploid75 (talk) 22:02, 13 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This relies on a lot of interpretation of primary sources. I would suggest rewording as ranging to as long as 6,000 years ago. 4,000 and 6,000 are quite close given the paucity of documentation, and in any event, the notion is that this is in contrast to the mainstream. For an introductory article it seems like this is pretty good overall. Dudshan (talk) 01:30, 16 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

The Geochronology section mentioned 6,000 years but we don't need to give a number, Ive changed it to "These methods indicate that the Earth as a whole is about 4.54 billion years old and that the strata that, according to creationist flood geology, were laid down during the biblical flood, were actually deposited gradually over many millions of years." Still needs a citation. . dave souza, talk 05:42, 16 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Use of the term Hebrew Bible is not inclusive. This reflects an Abrahamic religious worldview. Be aware, many other cultures have similar flood geology legends. I have found sources listing them but they are not authoritative so I won't add them to the article just yet. This article should remain focused on the creation-geology evidence or refutations, regardless of whether or not it has withstood the test of scientific inquiry so far. Dudshan (talk) 01:58, 16 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Creationist flood geology is Abrahamic theology presented as geology; there are other flood legends, but do proponents claim to be doing geology? . . . dave souza, talk 07:13, 16 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not saying that such pseudogeology (or perhaps even real geology) doesn't exist, but if it does, I've never heard of it. In any event, the article is clear that this is about the pseudoscience inspired by Abrahamic religion (specifically, the Hebrew Bible). The OPs complaint lacks merit, and without sources, there's nothing we can do to address it anyways.

@Dudshan:, if you can find reliable sources which cover non-Abrahamic flood geology efforts, you should probably start a draft and let us know here. Otherwise, there's nothing to be done. This article is explicitly about the Abrahamic religion-inspired flood geology, and has the name it does because, if you search for 'flood geology', the vast majority of sources will be about the subject of this article. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 14:04, 16 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you I agree. I do not think a draft is warranted: we already have a good start at flood myth. Dudshan (talk) 01:55, 19 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]