iou – Currently (Monday, August 25) this page is a mess, but late this week I'll do a little cleaning-up, and eventually will do more.  The basic idea is "extra ideas" to supplement the first section in my page about Young-Earth Science.  This page describes how CreationWiki was unusually honest for awhile (with huge admissions during early 2008, and then big admissions continuing thru 2010) before they evidently realized "we're saying too much" so they have decided to "say less" from 2011 to the present.  I've documented the changes — with page-captures (from The Wayback Machine) in 2007, 2008, 2008, 2010, and 2011 — plus changes in their "history of page-captures" page.

Similarly in 2007-2010 (but not 2011 onward)* CreationWiki's page on Flood Geology admitted that young-earth science begins by assuming the global flood, because "Genesis is read as a historically accurate record from which a geologic history of the earth can be derived. ... The concept of the global flood is the assumption within which flood geologists work.  It is taken as an established historical fact, not as a hypothesis to be tested by science" and they continue with the honest admission that "Therefore, the flood cannot be falsified by any scientific data.  Pseudoscience is the development of supposed scientific hypotheses that cannot be falsified or the continued advocacy of falsified hypotheses.  However, since the global flood is held as a historical fact and not as a scientific hypothesis, Flood catastrophists dismiss out of hand the charge of pseudoscience by anti-creationists.  Creationary cataclysmists do, however, develop flood model hypotheses based upon the historicity of the flood.  These models, which are falsifiable, attempt to explain the geologic record within the fact of a global cataclysm.  Although models may be falsified, such falsification does not [when they say "may be falsified" and "does not" instead of "would not," are they admitting that their models have been falsified?] affect the reality of the global cataclysm."

2007-03-12, "Flood geologists seek both to show that Earth's geologic features are best explained with reference to the Flood, and also to understand the specific events surrounding the flood."

https://web.archive.org/web/20071212192745/http://creationwiki.org:80/Flood_geology

."  But in evidence-based science the sequence is different:  first we logically evaluate the evidence, then we reach a conclusion.   {more about the “conclusion first” process of Creation Science}

* Beginning in 2011, CreationWiki says "creation geologists develop models based upon the historicity of the global flood, which are testable and falsifiable," stating that they "develop models based upon [their non-scientific conclusion about] the historicity of the global flood, so their science is “conclusion first, then evidence-and-logic.”   /   btw, the Wayback Machine (run by Internet Archive) lets websites restrict what is available and the WB has records of this page in 2007 and from 2011 onward but not from 2007-2011, during the period when they were more transparently honest about their "scientific method" of ignoring evidence when it's convenient for them.