From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

SAT words[edit]

The concept of "SAT words" came up elsewhere, recently. This probably deserves an article in itself, but since it's been thirty years since I've had to worry about such things, I don't know them. Is there a List of SAT words or some such thing? -- Smerdis of Tlön 03:56, 20 Nov 2003 (UTC)

Antediluvian population?[edit]

"The Earth contained many more people than the Earth contains today? Whiston calculated that as many as 500 million humans may have been born in the antediluvian period"

The current world population is over 6 billion people (6 thousand million), or more than 12 X 500 million.

Am I missing something here?

Whiston published in 1696, at which time the world's population was probably less than 500 million. --Saforrest 21:01, 21 December 2005 (UTC)


It seems rather off to me to describe Whiston and Morris as equivalent without any qualifications. Clearly both believed in the existence of the Flood, but equating the two would be like equating Ptolemy with a modern proponent of geocentrism. The fact that Morris explicitly chose to renounce the scientific consensus of his day is significant difference. --Saforrest 21:01, 21 December 2005 (UTC)


Should this article not say somethig like '.. but science has found no evidence of 900 year old humans during this period'? I know the phrase 'creationists believe...' explains a lot but I still think the article comes across as lacking that bit of reason. -- Andrewmabbott 22:17, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

Well, firstly, one could argue that the statement "science has found no..." is a weasal word. What do you mean by "science"... some sort of anthropromorphised entity that is the embodyment of science? Plus your statement is rather rhetorical. Of course there have been no discoveries of human remains that could be judged to be 900 years old at any period of known archaeological record. Most educated people know this. Its rather like you arguing that we should insert a statement in the Harry Potter entries that "science has found no evidence that saying 'avada kadavra' can kill someone." As for reason, this article is reporting, quite objectively, an entry on human religious faith. By reason, I assume you want to keep people from actually believing it. I think *that* should be left up to the individual reader as to whether revealed religions are valid or not. In this case, reporting the facts and what 'antediluvian' means, Wiki has done its job. Yanqui9 03:32, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

You can't even spell 'weasel.' No, the word science is NOT a 'weasel word'. It means knowledge gained through testing of hypotheses. Try reading a little about 'science' before bashing it. You just might find something there.

Also, you are wrong to think that many people in the USA don't believe such claims.Ryoung122 05:09, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

To question if something is or is not science is a valid concern, however moving an article under the sub category of mythology is a statement that caries bias by association. The discussion is circumvented, and the thought that the notion is unscientific (mythology) is implied to such a degree that it can be argued that extreme intellectually dishonesty has been used to avoid the discussion.

Also, the argument that the lack of physical evidence that 900 year old humans existed prior to a global flood that would have wiped out such evidence is likewise a deceptive argument. There is no physical evidence for the missing link, however it is widely accepted that the current theories of the rise of man (which include evolution from ape to human), are based upon science. Simply put, you can’t have it both ways. --Lounsbury (talk) 19:58, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Categorizing extant religion as mythology is disingenuous. Many religions of the world incorporate either the Noachian flood or a parallel story. Also, contrary to popular misconceptions, there is substantial evidence for extensive and widespread floods (although I wouldn't go as far as to say global) to include the deluges of what are today the English Channel and the Bering Sea. Strata-penetrating artifacts have never been better explained, in my opinion, than by the idea of quickly changing hyper-turbidity laying down differentiable sedimentary layers over very short periods of time. In my lifetime we observed such rapidly forming layers (including strata crossing trees) with the lahars and the floods at Mount St. Helens in 1980. It is unscientific to either reject or embrace past events for which substantial and corroborative evidence is lacking; however, the global prevalence of flood stories indicates that one or more extensive floods has substantially shaped human consciousness. What if a Noachian flood actually happened (more-or-less as it's described) due to a large, deep, oceanic asteroid impact? I mean consider the first the tsunami in 2004, and then transpose the event at Tanguska into an oceanic setting to yield a global deluge killing entire societies yet leaving little physical evidence. More importantly, it's unlikely that anyone can either prove or disprove such a hypothesis! A combination of sedimentation and erosion would have long since erased observable artifacts at the point-of-impact. In fact, such an impact could have happen just 1000 years ago and we'd have only local and anecdotal evidence at best. The danger is in treating beliefs (whether they are faiths or weakly supported hypotheses) as fundamental science--it misinforms and undermines future inquiry. The Wikipedia entry for Theory quotes Karl Popper who held that "A theory which is not refutable by any conceivable event is non-scientific. Irrefutability is not a virtue of a theory (as people often think) but a vice." Human nature as expressed in both Science (capitalized to indicate an academically entrenched and politicized belief system) and Religion (capitalized for the same reasons) longs for explanations to the great mysteries in our universe. We tend to latch on to things superstitiously when reason fails us. Clearly our psyches are far better adapted to unconscious overgeneralization (i.e. "simplification") and autonomously managing fear and pleasure, than for intentional, dispassionate analysis. If it were otherwise, mental illnesses would be cured by simply choosing. It is this need to explain that which is not scientifically explainable that has caused many unsupported notions (like a flat world, ontogeny recapitulating phyolgeny, a hypothetical electromagnetic ether filling the univesrse, bleeding and all sorts of harmful medical treatments, astrology and phrenology) to be included into the body of science. In fact, a very sound argument can be made that the pervasive inclusion of poorly supported evolution within all fields of science is merely academia's reaction to a long-standing battle with religious believers to include their own unscientific notions within the body of science. Science MUST first proceed from and explain facts, then it MUST seek out exceptions and counterexamples. Before we throw away historically interesting conceptions in favor of silly 21st century lables, we must have SOUND reasons! The greatest mockery of real science is that most scientists can't grasp the idea that Ockham's razor cuts both ways; sometimes the simplest explanations (and, in fact all existing explanations for given things) are WRONG! No matter how much we WANT a Higgs boson, a biofuel that can solve all our problems (without creating any new ones), immortality, a unified theory of everything, to defy any natural limits on computing, an HIV vaccine, a room-temperature superconductor, the ability to synthesize any molecule we can conceive, proof of the existence/nothingness of all things spiritual, a universal, permanent, self-sutatining energy solution (fusion, photovotaic, etc.), a generalizable answer to NP-complete problems, a solution to human suffering in Africa, a perfect theory of botany explaining growth, stress tolerance and immune function, a concise definition of a species, or even a quantum birthday cake that can be simultaneously both totally consumed and visually appreciated, the bottom line is this..."You can't always get what you want" -M. Jagger, 1969. In case this wasn't clear, I'm against removing antediluvian at this time.Saseigel (talk) 11:03, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

The term has relevant in science history as well as in religion. This article should remain, and statements should be sourced properly. Petter Bøckman (talk) 11:44, 24 March 2010 (UTC)


This may indicate my ignorance about the period, but there is no indication as to which years this period occupied.. is there no estimation anywhere at all? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by (talk) 00:13, 26 February 2007 (UTC).

Well, one of the few guys from the Judeo-Christian background who tried to put dates on things, Bishop Ussher, placed creation at 4004 BCE and the flood at 2348 BCE. A period of 1648 years. As we now know from fossil record, astronomical studies, and carbon dating, the world has been around alot longer than that, the dates are mearly a curiosity. Albeight Ussher's date was taken very seriously by fundamentalists for many years and maybe still is in some quarters. Yanqui9 03:43, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

'merely' 'albeit'

I thought it was between 4,004 B.C and 3,000 B.C.

James Ussher calculated the flood at 2348 B.C by the following method: take the date of the fall of Jerusalem (588 B.C.) add the reins of the kings of Judah, add 480 and 430 (1 Kings 6:1 and Exodus 20:19) add Abraham's age when he entered Canaan (Gen. 16:3, 16, and 12:4) add the genealogy of Genesis 11, and viola! 2348 B.C.-- (talk) 17:37, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

I'm not sure if you learned individuals are aware, but in certain religious areas of thought, according to your definition of Ante-diluvian, there are two such occurrences. You have the one this article describes, and a previous occurrence [see Genesis 1:1-3,9 - notice the condition of the earth as being described as covered by water and the need for their gathering into once place]. In fact, most people (granted they are few) of the aforementioned area of thought consider this time prior to Gen 1:2 to be the Ante-diluvian period and the period from Gen 1:3 to the flood of Noah to be pre-flood. I am not sure if the body of scholarly thought addresses both of these or not and I am anxious to hear your thoughts.

Also, the statement that "the dates are merely a curiosity" because "the world has been around alot (sic) longer than that" are clarified by the 'first' Ante-diluvian occurrence. Meaning, the dates are not merely a curiosity as it appears that the Bible may indeed agree that the world is much older than many have assumed the Bible espouses.

I visited this page as I hoped that there would be more here on this topic. Is this generally all that the world wiki body has for this subject or is more time needed for input of the information?

Thank you. (talk) 05:59, 15 December 2009 (UTC) John

Double heading[edit]

Why are there two different headings which read "The antediluvian period"? (talk) 21:15, 26 April 2008 (UTC)


would somebody but this older word here too, like this Antediluvian - Prediluvian. There wold be huge information lost if these words doesent find / meet each other at future prediluvian is more common in old books. They mean end of iceage, before that climate was different, more warmer, no clothes needed and food was plenty etc, modern homo sapiens was shaping it living here and concurring world from middle east and africa and floods came from icebergs. so called new world was born after ice bergs were melted, if u look that from the eyes of stone-age -neolithic human. It is almost certain that stories are much more older than written language. writing has been modeled it-those around world more or less.

Antediluvian NOT Period Between Creation & Noah[edit]

We beg to differ with Wikipedia...the Antediluvian period referred to in the Bible (ex: II Peter 3:5 and others)indicates the period before the time of Genesis 1:1 and the creation of modern man. Commonly referred to as "Lucifer's Flood," the world before the creation of modern man was destroyed by flooding so devastation as to have decimated all creation from that ancient world. Thus, today we find sedimentary rock formations and fossil records which are not entirely explainable by any other reason or rationale. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gigi ga (talkcontribs) 12:22, 26 June 2014 (UTC)

only a small area was flooded[edit]

hey folks, it's not new news, that biblical flood was around the black sea and really horrible for those who lived there, btw the black sea was more or less in the middle of all bible stories, the flood never reached the atlantic-, pacific- or even indian ocean. it was a "in-land-flood". and it also never harmed atlantis because atlantis was more of a boat then an isle, it was NOT fixed to the ground. -- (talk) 12:09, 19 May 2015 (UTC)

Cleanup of Biblical Flood wording[edit]

The section entitled "The Biblical Flood" begins with the sentence "In religious texts such as the Christian Bible and the Hebrew Torah, the Antediluvian period begins with the Creation according to Genesis and ends with the destruction of all life on the earth except those saved with Noah in the ark." While some scholars argue that this account is derived from other similar creation/flood accounts, none of these other stories "begins with the Creation according to Genesis and ends with the destruction of all life on the earth except those saved with Noah in the ark" and none of them would logically fall under a section heading of "The Biblical Flood". So the wording "In religious texts such as" seems both inaccurate and incompatible with the section header and my suggestion is that we delete them. --Bermicourt (talk) 17:28, 1 May 2016 (UTC)

I made a change that I think addresses your concern. Note that this section of the article is, specifically, about the Genesis/Bible accounts. Thanks, Isambard Kingdom (talk) 18:36, 1 May 2016 (UTC)
And I apologize for reverting your previous edit, which was, I now recognize, perfectly acceptable. Isambard Kingdom (talk) 18:38, 1 May 2016 (UTC)
No worries! --Bermicourt (talk) 19:11, 1 May 2016 (UTC)