“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