What do you think?
Rate this book
Ice Age Caused by the Genesis Flood
1990 INSTITUTE FOR CREATION SOFTCOVER
- GenresScience
243 pages, Paperback
First published December 1, 1990
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 4 of 4 reviews
February 12, 2025
WAS THE ICE AGE A SINGLE, POST-FLOOD EVENT?
Meteorologist Michael J. Oard is associated with Answers in Genesis (and previously, with the Institute for Creation Research).
R.H. Brown wrote in the Foreword to this 1990 book, “Biblical Creationism has been at a disadvantage in achieving credibility among individuals who are acquainted with the earth science. The 7th and 8th chapters of … Genesis specify a catastrophe that completely transformed the surface of planet Earth... [Biblical data] place this catastrophe somewhere between about 4,400 years ago (2300 B.C.) and 5,400 years ago (3400 B.C.)… [For] this book, it is adequate to place the Biblically specified reorganization of planet Earth’s surface 5000 [+ or - 500] years ago. Earth’s surface contains evidence of ice activity that is widely perceived as impossible to have been restricted to only 5000 years… The response of some creationists has been to abandon confidence in the validity of the quantitative historical data in the first 11 chapters of Genesis. Others have .. affirm[ed] that planet Earth has never experienced continental glaciation or an ice age; but the evidence for continental glaciation is too clear and too widespread to deny… it should be possible to find sound interpretations of His works that are fully consistent with … His Word. Up to the present, the creationist literature has been critically deficient with respect to such interpretation of the evidence for continental glaciation.”
Oard states, “Just for the sake of argument, let us suppose that some large atmospheric circulation anomaly, by chance, dropped enough snow to last an entire summer, in northeast Canada. Would this start an ice age? No, it wouldn’t even be close, because of many other variables that come into play: first, the snow cover and the cooler temperatures accompanying the snow cover very likely would generate less warm-season snow, due to the drier air. Therefore, by the time the next spring rolled around, the snow cover very likely would be below normal and would easily melt during the second summer.” (Pg. 11)
He asserts, “it is intellectually valid to use the foundational principles of Creation and the Genesis Flood, in combination with modern scientific observations, in an effort to reconstruct a more reasonable history and solve more mysteries of the past than can be achieved otherwise. It is the purpose of this book to construct a model of the ice age on the basis of what can be inferred from the Bible, combined with what evidence can be garnered from science. The Biblical considerations are the subject of this chapter.” (Pg. 24)
He outlines, “[After the Flood] It probably was a dark, depressing world. The oceans would be uniformly warm. The initial conditions would be established for a second, much-lesser catastrophe---a post-Flood transition to the present-day climate. This would be a post-Flood ice age.” (Pg. 31)
He asserts, “The requirements for an ice age are a combination of much cooler summers and greater snowfall than in today’s climate… these requirements are very difficult to meet with uniformitarian theories… But can these requirements be met by the climate after a worldwide Flood?... these requirements are indeed met in the post-Flood climate.” (Pg. 33)
He says, “a rapid initiation of a snow cover and a thin ice sheet was caused by the unique climate immediately following the Genesis Flood. But, for a full-blown ice age, cooler summers and much higher snowfall must be sustained.” (Pg. 67)
He acknowledges, “There is a large body of evidence for the existence of this land bridge [the Bering Strait] during the ice age… The area may or may not correspond to the land exposed during a post-Flood ice age, but is probably closely similar.” (Pg. 86)
He admits, “Glacial maximum occurred when the largest volume of ice and snow covered the land… At this time, some ice sheets would be melting, while others would be growing, but the net volume of ice would begin decreasing… The time to reach glacial maximum, in this post-Flood model, probably seems like mere speculation. It is speculation, in that the many variables for the post-Flood climate cannot be precisely known. But ice age maximum depends on two principal controlling variables---the coolness of the summers and the annual snowfall. When one, or both, of these conditions ameliorated, the ice sheet would have begun melting. An estimate of the length of time from the Flood to glacial maximum, is, basically, an estimate of how long the controlling conditions favored an increase in ice volume.” (Pg. 93)
He summarizes, “According to the model presented in this book, when the average ocean temperature cooled to 10⁰ C, less oceanic evaporation occurred, fewer clouds were present at higher latitudes, more radiation penetrated to the surface, and most ice sheets began to melt… Summers would become warmer but still cooler than at present… Drastic ecological changes would stress plants and animals… Some animals would become extinct, while others would be forced equatorward. At this time, the woolly mammoth most likely became trapped in Siberia and Alaska, where it was unable to survive.” (Pg. 109)
He continues, “What would cause the winters to cool during deglaciation?... the presence of the ice sheets would continue generating cold continental air... This air, spreading out over the higher latitude ocean, would cause further cooling of the deep ocean.” (Pg. 109) He asks, “Would the ice sheets melt during the big chill? The answer is a resounding yes; and the required time is surprisingly short.” (Pg. 114)
He argues, “Can a post-Flood ice age account for the extinction of many large mammals? The answer is yes. First, the animals thrived DURING the ice age because the climate was wetter, with milder winters, in contrast to uniformitarian expectations… As the ice sheets melted… the largest animals would be the most stressed, due to lack of food. Many could have migrated, but, if the change was relatively sudden over a large area, they would have starved to death, by the time they found a suitable habitat. Here is where man, the hunter, enters the picture to finish the job… man probably took part in the extinction of many large mammals.” (Pg. 127)
He asks, “Is there any evidence that would indicate whether the ice melted 8,000 to 18,000 years ago, or in a shorter time—for instance 3,000 to 5,000 years ago? There is evidence for a relatively recent melting of the ice, but this evidence is mostly qualitative. Unfortunately, our recreation of past phenomenon depends upon assumptions and on backward extrapolation… But approximate calculations are not straightforward. It is highly unlikely that the current rate of change can be extrapolated for all the past…” (Pg. 167)
He contends, “In view of the many problems in using microfossils to define geological periods in the oceans, it can be concluded that practically all the biogenic ocean sediments could have been laid down at the end of the Flood, and during the ice age.” (Pg. 186)
He concludes, “A post-Flood ice-age model is but one example of an explanation for a phenomenon of natural history using the Creation-Flood paradigm… Care must be exercised in using these [new] data, since data collection and/or presentation is often biased by theory. Much new, as well as old scientific data, need reinterpreting within a Creation-Flood paradigm. This cannot be accomplished quickly…. Creationists … must be careful not to jump to conclusions too quickly… But with time, and effort, many aspects of the Creation-Flood paradigm can be filled in, and will result in a far superior model of the prehistoric past.” (Pg. 196-197)
Oard bravely ventures into many areas and subjects that other creationists avoid. But his ideas are hardly likely to persuade anyone outside the ‘Young-Earth Creationist’ camp.
Meteorologist Michael J. Oard is associated with Answers in Genesis (and previously, with the Institute for Creation Research).
R.H. Brown wrote in the Foreword to this 1990 book, “Biblical Creationism has been at a disadvantage in achieving credibility among individuals who are acquainted with the earth science. The 7th and 8th chapters of … Genesis specify a catastrophe that completely transformed the surface of planet Earth... [Biblical data] place this catastrophe somewhere between about 4,400 years ago (2300 B.C.) and 5,400 years ago (3400 B.C.)… [For] this book, it is adequate to place the Biblically specified reorganization of planet Earth’s surface 5000 [+ or - 500] years ago. Earth’s surface contains evidence of ice activity that is widely perceived as impossible to have been restricted to only 5000 years… The response of some creationists has been to abandon confidence in the validity of the quantitative historical data in the first 11 chapters of Genesis. Others have .. affirm[ed] that planet Earth has never experienced continental glaciation or an ice age; but the evidence for continental glaciation is too clear and too widespread to deny… it should be possible to find sound interpretations of His works that are fully consistent with … His Word. Up to the present, the creationist literature has been critically deficient with respect to such interpretation of the evidence for continental glaciation.”
Oard states, “Just for the sake of argument, let us suppose that some large atmospheric circulation anomaly, by chance, dropped enough snow to last an entire summer, in northeast Canada. Would this start an ice age? No, it wouldn’t even be close, because of many other variables that come into play: first, the snow cover and the cooler temperatures accompanying the snow cover very likely would generate less warm-season snow, due to the drier air. Therefore, by the time the next spring rolled around, the snow cover very likely would be below normal and would easily melt during the second summer.” (Pg. 11)
He asserts, “it is intellectually valid to use the foundational principles of Creation and the Genesis Flood, in combination with modern scientific observations, in an effort to reconstruct a more reasonable history and solve more mysteries of the past than can be achieved otherwise. It is the purpose of this book to construct a model of the ice age on the basis of what can be inferred from the Bible, combined with what evidence can be garnered from science. The Biblical considerations are the subject of this chapter.” (Pg. 24)
He outlines, “[After the Flood] It probably was a dark, depressing world. The oceans would be uniformly warm. The initial conditions would be established for a second, much-lesser catastrophe---a post-Flood transition to the present-day climate. This would be a post-Flood ice age.” (Pg. 31)
He asserts, “The requirements for an ice age are a combination of much cooler summers and greater snowfall than in today’s climate… these requirements are very difficult to meet with uniformitarian theories… But can these requirements be met by the climate after a worldwide Flood?... these requirements are indeed met in the post-Flood climate.” (Pg. 33)
He says, “a rapid initiation of a snow cover and a thin ice sheet was caused by the unique climate immediately following the Genesis Flood. But, for a full-blown ice age, cooler summers and much higher snowfall must be sustained.” (Pg. 67)
He acknowledges, “There is a large body of evidence for the existence of this land bridge [the Bering Strait] during the ice age… The area may or may not correspond to the land exposed during a post-Flood ice age, but is probably closely similar.” (Pg. 86)
He admits, “Glacial maximum occurred when the largest volume of ice and snow covered the land… At this time, some ice sheets would be melting, while others would be growing, but the net volume of ice would begin decreasing… The time to reach glacial maximum, in this post-Flood model, probably seems like mere speculation. It is speculation, in that the many variables for the post-Flood climate cannot be precisely known. But ice age maximum depends on two principal controlling variables---the coolness of the summers and the annual snowfall. When one, or both, of these conditions ameliorated, the ice sheet would have begun melting. An estimate of the length of time from the Flood to glacial maximum, is, basically, an estimate of how long the controlling conditions favored an increase in ice volume.” (Pg. 93)
He summarizes, “According to the model presented in this book, when the average ocean temperature cooled to 10⁰ C, less oceanic evaporation occurred, fewer clouds were present at higher latitudes, more radiation penetrated to the surface, and most ice sheets began to melt… Summers would become warmer but still cooler than at present… Drastic ecological changes would stress plants and animals… Some animals would become extinct, while others would be forced equatorward. At this time, the woolly mammoth most likely became trapped in Siberia and Alaska, where it was unable to survive.” (Pg. 109)
He continues, “What would cause the winters to cool during deglaciation?... the presence of the ice sheets would continue generating cold continental air... This air, spreading out over the higher latitude ocean, would cause further cooling of the deep ocean.” (Pg. 109) He asks, “Would the ice sheets melt during the big chill? The answer is a resounding yes; and the required time is surprisingly short.” (Pg. 114)
He argues, “Can a post-Flood ice age account for the extinction of many large mammals? The answer is yes. First, the animals thrived DURING the ice age because the climate was wetter, with milder winters, in contrast to uniformitarian expectations… As the ice sheets melted… the largest animals would be the most stressed, due to lack of food. Many could have migrated, but, if the change was relatively sudden over a large area, they would have starved to death, by the time they found a suitable habitat. Here is where man, the hunter, enters the picture to finish the job… man probably took part in the extinction of many large mammals.” (Pg. 127)
He asks, “Is there any evidence that would indicate whether the ice melted 8,000 to 18,000 years ago, or in a shorter time—for instance 3,000 to 5,000 years ago? There is evidence for a relatively recent melting of the ice, but this evidence is mostly qualitative. Unfortunately, our recreation of past phenomenon depends upon assumptions and on backward extrapolation… But approximate calculations are not straightforward. It is highly unlikely that the current rate of change can be extrapolated for all the past…” (Pg. 167)
He contends, “In view of the many problems in using microfossils to define geological periods in the oceans, it can be concluded that practically all the biogenic ocean sediments could have been laid down at the end of the Flood, and during the ice age.” (Pg. 186)
He concludes, “A post-Flood ice-age model is but one example of an explanation for a phenomenon of natural history using the Creation-Flood paradigm… Care must be exercised in using these [new] data, since data collection and/or presentation is often biased by theory. Much new, as well as old scientific data, need reinterpreting within a Creation-Flood paradigm. This cannot be accomplished quickly…. Creationists … must be careful not to jump to conclusions too quickly… But with time, and effort, many aspects of the Creation-Flood paradigm can be filled in, and will result in a far superior model of the prehistoric past.” (Pg. 196-197)
Oard bravely ventures into many areas and subjects that other creationists avoid. But his ideas are hardly likely to persuade anyone outside the ‘Young-Earth Creationist’ camp.
July 18, 2013
More technical than most readers will like, but packed with tons of info. Oard presents a new theory, to me anyway, about the cause of the ice age. This is perhaps one of the first somewhat comprehensive theories about the ice age that incorporates data into a Biblical framework.
The cheapest place i could find this was amazon where 1 guy was selling it for $55. After that it was $80 plus. I ended up interlibrary loaning this for $2. a great option for anyone as this book is out there, you just have to look for it.
The cheapest place i could find this was amazon where 1 guy was selling it for $55. After that it was $80 plus. I ended up interlibrary loaning this for $2. a great option for anyone as this book is out there, you just have to look for it.
October 16, 2014
Very straight-forward meteorological modelling. Oard first considers other climate models for the ice age and points out their insufficiencies. He then goes on to propose his own climate model simply derived from the observations made of glaciation.
Very interesting that other climate models predict glaciation in the "wrong" areas, meaning the models predict glaciation where the is no evidence / observation of glaciation. Oard's model prediction's match actual glaciation patterns.
Very interesting that other climate models predict glaciation in the "wrong" areas, meaning the models predict glaciation where the is no evidence / observation of glaciation. Oard's model prediction's match actual glaciation patterns.
February 4, 2021
Very understandable, clearly laid out and I really enjoyed the discussion about climate. Fascinating.
Displaying 1 - 4 of 4 reviews