“There are strong indications that there was only one ice age. As discussed previously,
the requirements for an ice age are very stringent. The problem grows to impossibility,
when more than one is considered”.
Michael Oard
Key ‘Creationist’ references on this subject appear to be (i) Michael Oard’s 1987 paper:
The Ice Age and the Genesis Flood
as well as (ii) his: “An Ice Age Caused by the Genesis Flood” (1990).
According to Creationist Anne Habermehl, in “Where in the World Is the Tower of Babel?”
https://answersingenesis.org/tower-of-babel/where-in-the-world-is-the-tower-of-babel/ Oard’s research on this particular subject constitutes “the current creationist model”.
She also writes in ANCIENT EGYPT, THE ICE AGE, AND BIBLICAL CHRONOLOGY (2013) that: “Our best-known creationist Ice Age model has now been around since 1990, when Oard published An Ice Age Caused by the Genesis Flood”.
Habermehl further wrote in her “Babel” article (2011), with reference to Oard:
….
In the period immediately after the worldwide Flood, when the waters had settled, the world ocean level was higher than it is today. But then a great Ice Age settled in, considered by creationists to be most likely caused by post-Flood conditions, and moisture from the warm oceans started to freeze on the continents.
During this ice-building time, so much water froze in very thick sheets that the ocean levels lowered drastically.7 When the Ice Age ended, a great deal of the ice melted, and the world ocean level rose back up to approximately its current level. The total time estimated for the overall Ice Age, including ice buildup and meltdown, is about 700 years, according to the current creationist model proposed by Oard (2006); advances and retreats of the ice at its edges is considered to account for the geological formations that make evolutionists believe that there were multiple separate ice ages. (For further information on the description and modeling of this ice age from the creationist point of view see Oard 1990, passim; Oard 2004, pp. 107–109; Snelling 2009, pp. 769–778; Vardiman 2001, pp. 81–91.) Secular geologists, who claim over two billion years for their entire series of ice ages and interglacials, obviously describe the Ice Age quite differently from creationists. (For further description of the standard secular ice ages, see for example Cattermole and Moore 1985, p. 197; Imbrie and Imbrie 1979, passim; Muller and MacDonald 2000, passim; Ray 1999.) ….
[End of quote]
Here, now, is a relevant section from M. Oard’s “The Ice Age and the Genesis Flood” (1987):
ONE ICE AGE
Earth scientists believe there were many ice ages—perhaps more than 30—in regular succession during the late Cenozoic based on oxygen isotope fluctuations in deep-sea cores. 15 However, the ocean results have many difficulties, and sharply conflict with the long-held four ice-age continental scheme. Before the early 20th century, the number of ice ages was much debated. Some scientists believed in only one ice age, but the sediments are complex and have evidence of anywhere from one to four, or possibly more till sheets, separated by non-glacial deposits. Four ice ages became established mainly from gravel terraces in the Alps, and reinforced by soil stratigraphy. Much has been learned about glacial behavior and sedimentation since then. The Alps terraces are now viewed as possibly ". . . a result of repeated tectonic uplift cycles—not widespread climatic changes per se." 16 Variously weathered "interglacial soils" between till sheets are complex, and practically always have the top organic horizon missing. It is difficult to know whether they are really soils. 17 Besides, the rate of modern soil formation is unknown, and depends upon many complex factors, like the amount of warmth, moisture, and time. 18 Therefore, the number of glaciations is still an open question.
There are strong indications that there was only one ice age. As discussed previously, the requirements for an ice age are very stringent. The problem grows to impossibility, when more than one is considered. Practically all the ice-age sediments are from the last, and these deposits are very thin over interior areas, and not overly thick at the periphery. Till can sometimes be laid down rapidly, especially in end moraines. Thus the main characteristics of the till favor one ice age. Pleistocene fossils are rare in glaciated areas, which is mysterious, if there were many interglacials.
Practically all the megafaunal extinctions were after the last—a difficult problem if there was more than one.
One dynamic ice age could explain the features of the till along the periphery by large fluctuations and surges, which would cause stacked till sheets. 19 Organic remains can be trapped by these oscillations. 20 Large fluctuations may be caused by variable continental cooling, depending upon volcanic activity. In addition, most of the snow and ice should accumulate at the periphery, closest to the main storm tracks.
Large surface slopes and warm basal temperatures at the edge are conducive to rapid glacial movement. 21
In summary, the mystery of the ice age can be best explained by one catastrophic ice age as a consequence of the Genesis Flood. ….
[End of quote]
In her article, ANCIENT EGYPT, THE ICE AGE, AND BIBLICAL CHRONOLOGY, Habermehl will discuss something that has so far been very much neglected, sadly, namely: the Ice Age in relation to the early chronology of ancient Egypt and Abraham.
Thus she commences:
ABSTRACT
The history, archaeology, geography, and geology of ancient Egypt are examined with respect to the post-Flood Ice Age. It is shown that the Ice Age must have ended before the formation of the Nile Delta, and therefore well before the beginnings of Egyptian civilization and Abraham’s visit to Egypt. It is shown that more time for events between the Flood and Abraham is needed than the Masoretic timeline allows; the longer chronology of the Septuagint is therefore most likely correct.
INTRODUCTION
Creationist historians and archaeologists have not generally considered the role of the Ice Age and related geology in developing their views of the past in the biblical lands of the Middle East. Conversely, creationist scientists have largely based their models of the post-Flood period and Ice Age on geological studies of North America without regard to the known history and archaeology of the Middle East. As a result, the two groups have gone their individual ways without much exchange of knowledge between them. This dichotomy is especially evident with respect to the early history of Egypt and the Ice Age.
Towards the end of this paper, Habermehl will suggest that “changes … are going to be needed” to the previously suggested models:
According to the Oard Ice Age model, the ice would still have been in place in the northern latitudes for most of Abraham’s life, with the meltdown starting only about 25 yrs. before his death (Abraham was born around 2000 BC, and died 175 yrs. later) (Jones, 2007, p. 47). However, as we have seen earlier in this paper, both formation of the Nile Delta and the earliest beginnings of pharaonic civilization took place only after the period of the ice meltdown; and Abraham’s visit to Egypt occurred subsequent to these events. We also note that Jacob and his family settled on the Nile Delta in Goshen when they entered Egypt in about 1700 BC (Jones,2007, p. 66); at that time, by Oard’s model, the Delta would still have been in the formation stage during the Ice Age meltdown. In fact, we know that the Delta was then the best pastureland in Egypt (Gen. 47:6). The obvious conclusion is that the currently accepted model of the Ice Age must be incorrect in its placement between 2350 BC and 1650 BC. This now leads to a major chronology problem. Between the Flood and Abraham’s visit to Egypt we count 425–35 yrs. (MT timeline), depending on how soon Abraham went to Egypt after arriving in Canaan. (Whether we calculate 215 or 430 yrs. for the Children of Israel in Egypt does not change the number of years between the Flood and Abraham). There simply isn’t enough time for a 700-yr. Ice Age, repopulation along the Nile (Neolithic era), and development of Predynastic society. This means that anyone who has been accepting the current model of the Ice Age as well as the standard MT timeline has been holding an untenable position. Changes of some sort are going to be needed, whether in the Ice Age model, the timeline, or both, to solve this chronological difficulty. ….
No comments:
Post a Comment