This paper is not a complete summary of Flood Geology. It is rather an answer to some of the more common criticisms offered by such geological writers as Dr. J. R. van de Fliert of the Netherlands, and others. Dr. van de Fliert has written a critique of Flood Geology in the September, 1969 issue of the Journal of the American Scientific Affiliation, under the title, "Fundamentalism and the Fundamentals of Geology." This present paper is written to show that imagined differences between Uniformitarian Geology and Flood Geology are based more on semantics than on actual evidence. The chasm of separation was greater a century ago when Lyell was taken too seriously. Now Uniformitarian geologists admit past periods of catastrophism, and while Flood geologists have always recognized cataclysmic tectonic events in the crust of the earth, including the Flood of Noah; they also recognize that the major portion of geologic time was not so much different from the present. However, Flood geologists contend that burial of fossil life required catastrophism. Although biologists look to geology for evidence for organic evolution, according to the law of superposition, some Flood geologists reason in a circle; for when exceptions to the evolutionnary order of fossils in the rocks do occur, they are inclined to doubt the physical evidence, rather than to trim the hypothesis to fit the facts. Attempts to age-date the moon contend with the same difficulties that are encountered in radiometry with rocks from the crust of the earth.