From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject Geology (Rated Start-class, Low-importance)
WikiProject icon Neptunism is part 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.
Start-Class article Start  This article has been rated as Start-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Low  This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

The last thing that I want to do is to start the flood geology thing all over again in a new place. However, some of them apparently see themselves as heirs to the old theory, since they agree that everything that we now see was essentially the result of water, precipitation of chemicals out of water into rocks in the case of Neptunism, all shaped into its current form by the action of water in "flood geology". Rlquall 17:11, 10 Dec 2004 (UTC)

As a creationist, I have never heard of flood geology being likened to Neptunism, nor of flood geology arguing for precipitation of chemicals out of water into rocks. However, what you may be confusing things with, is the idea that the earth was created as a ball of water (certainly the Bible talks about it being totally covered with water when first created), and then some of this being converted to rock ('and God caused the dry land to appear', to paraphrase). But even with that, I haven't heard a creationist argue for any particular method such as what you describe for Neptunism. Philip J. Rayment 11:43, 11 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Additions to article[edit]

This addition by User: lacks sources and needed drastic formatting, so I've taken the article back to an earlier version with modifications. Vsmith had reverted it as at copyvio from but as that "is in the public domain and may be used without charge and without permission, released May 2000" there should be no problem given proper attribution, and rewording where appropriate. ... dave souza, talk 09:20, 13 May 2007 (UTC)


Did this ever reach the level of "scientific theory" or should it be correctly referred to as an early hypothesis? GDallimore (Talk) 09:05, 1 February 2014 (UTC)

It's linked at the top to Superseded scientific theories which seems about right, though it dates to a period when science was still some way from its modern formulation. See Neptunist-Plutonist/Vulcanist Controversy for the developing context of the time. . . dave souza, talk 09:38, 2 February 2014 (UTC)