What do you think?
Rate this book
The Ice Age and the Flood Does Science Really Show Million of Years? by Jake Hebert Ph.D.
Most people are familiar with the concept of an ice age, a time when glaciers covered much of the earth's land surface. Secular scientists believe there were at least five major ice ages in Earth history that happened over millions of years, based on their interpretations of evidence from such things as ice cores and seafloor sediments.But a straightforward reading of the Bible indicates a young age for the earth-about 6,000 years. How should Christians respond to claims that Ice Age evidence proves an old earth? Do the scientific data really support multiple ice ages over long time periods? And how does this fit into biblical history?Join Dr. Jake Hebert as he sifts the evidence and demonstrates that while secular science fails to explain the Ice Age, the events recorded in Genesis provide real answers. In science, as in life, the Bible holds the key.
Mass Market Paperback
First published July 1, 2014
5 people are currently reading
7 people want to read
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
May 31, 2024
A CREATIONIST INTERPRETATION OF ICE AGES BASED ON THE GENESIS FLOOD
Author Jake Hebert wrote in the Introduction to this 2014 book, “In North America, glaciers once covered nearly all of Canada and even extended as far south as Kansas. Mysterious creatures, such as Neanderthals and the now-extinct wooly mammoths, lived at this time. What could cause an ice age? Was there more than one? And how does this fit into biblical history?... secular discussions of ice ages are closely connected to the idea of … a very old earth. This belief… is based on claims such as: *Hundreds of thousands of yearly layers have supposedly been identified within ice cores… *Seafloor sediments were slowly deposited over many millions of years. *Chemical clues … record information about climate in Earth’s ‘prehistoric’ past and tell consistent stories about how Earth’s climate has varied … However, a straightforward reading of the Bible indicates a young age for the earth---about 6,000 years… many Christians have felt intense pressure to re-interpret Genesis to allow for these supposed millions of years. How should Christians respond to these claims?... This booklet summarizes the key points regarding creation explanations for the Ice Age, particularly as they relate to the timing of the age and the dating of the deep ice cores.”
He states, “Creation and secular scientists make dramatically different assumptions about the past. Secular scientists start by assuming that the Bible’s account of Earth history is not true, and they interpret the data according to this premise... Creation scientists, on the other hand, start from the premise that the Bible is God’s inerrant Word and use that to interpret the scientific and historical data. There are two important points to remember about the Ice Age: 1. Secular (uniformitarian) theories cannot explain an ice age. 2. The Bible, on the other hand, provides an extremely convincing explanation.” (Pg. 7-8)
He suggests, “seafloor sediments … are necessary for understanding the long ages assigned to ice cores. At today’s slow rates, a thousand years of deposition are needed to deposit a few centimeters of sediment… Of course. One would expect sedimentation rates to be much higher during and shortly after the Genesis Flood…” (Pg. 9)
He argues, “One of the most serious problems with the astronomical theory is that the mechanism it proposes simply cannot, by itself, cause an ice age. However, there are other major problems: *Because the tilt of the earth has such a strong effect on our seasons… ice-age glacial-interglacial cycles should occur at 41,000-year intervals… Secular scientists claim that this was indeed the case between 2.6 million and 800,000 years ago. But after that, the length of the cycles somehow changed to about 100,000 years. Why would this happen? *… of the astronomical cycles we have discussed, changes in eccentricity should have the WEAKEST effect on climate. Why then would ice ages occur at 100,000-year cycles for the last 800,000 years?” (Pg. 18)
He notes, “Both creation and uniformitarian scientists generally agree that Earth’s magnetic field has reversed multiple times in the past… Creation scientists believe that these magnetic reversals occurred very rapidly during the Flood cataclysm… Of course, the magnetic patterns do not themselves tell how long ago these magnetic reversals occurred. Uniformitarian scientists have relied on radioisotope dating methods… to assign ages to these magnetic reversals… Creation scientists have shown that there are serious problems with radioisotope dating… Furthermore, the different dating methods are not truly independent of one another.” (Pg. 21-22)
He observes, “secular scientists… believe that that fossils within these layers provide a ‘snapshot’ of life on Earth at a particular time in the past… Of course, the Genesis Flood completely invalidates the fossil-events method. Since most fossil organisms were buried during this year-long global cataclysm, their locations within the sedimentary rocks tell us absolutely NOTHING about an alleged ‘prehistory’ of millions of years.” (Pg. 22-23) He continues, “Note the circular reasoning involved … Secular scientists use one radioisotope method to calibrate another method. Then then use the radioisotope dating methods to assist them as they use the astronomical theory to date the seafloor sediments… the different dating methods are not independent of one another. They generally agree with one another because they are being MADE to agree.” (Pg. 24-25)
He explains, “glaciologists also use other methods to date the ice cores. These other methods include visual counting of what are assumed to be annual patterns within the ice cores… At first glance, it might seem reasonable to think that these methods can prove that the ice sheets in Greenland and Antarctica have been in existence for extremely long periods of time. But in actual practice things are more complicated. For instance, how can one be certain that a particular layer is annual rather than sub-annual?... Likewise, layer-counting methods can be subject to large errors… the dating of these cores is especially dependent upon theoretical ice-flow models.” (Pg. 29-30)
He points out, “It has been claimed that the GISP2 ice core is the ‘ultimate proof’ that Noah’s Flood could not have happened as described in the Bible. This is because secular scientists claim to have counted 110,000 annual layers within the ice down to a depth of 2,800 meters… If Genesis is true, the Greenland ice sheet has only had about 4,500 years to form. How then can it contain more than 100,000 annual layers?... the dating of much of the GISP2 core relied heavily on visual identification of layers… thick ice sheets simply do not need vast amounts of time to form… Thus, it is reasonable for both the Greenland and Antarctic ice sheets to have also formed rapidly… Also, layer-counting methods are subject to the weaknesses we have already noted, and bias plays a large role in whether or no a layer will be considered annual.” (Pg. 32-33)
He adds, “After two scientists re-counted dust peaks … they averaged their two counts… This subjectivity is highlighted still further by the fact that one of the scientists consistently counted 20% more dust layers than did the other… even ‘simple’ counting of layers is not really independent of one’s beliefs about the past… At a given depth in the ice, what length of the ice core corresponds to a year? Well, that depends upon how thin one believes an annual layer at that depth will be… because dust levels are never perfectly constant, there will always be variations in dust content, no matter how closely spaced your measurements are.” (Pg. 34-35)
He explains, “Cold summers and much more snowfall are needed for an ice age, and these conditions must continue for many years so that snow and ice can accumulate. Today, it is very difficult to meet both these conditions for any extended period of time… Past conditions must have been radically different in order to produce an ice age… The worldwide Genesis Flood in the days of Noah, however, would have provided these conditions.” (Pg. 37)
He continues, “the Bible says that the Flood catastrophe began when ‘all the fountains of the great deep were broken up’ (Gen 7:11). These fountains, which could have included the pre-Flood oceans as well as large amounts of water located below the earth’s crust, which could have been the source for most, if not all, of the waters of the Flood. This implies large-scale volcanic and tectonic activity, demonstrating that the Genesis Flood was a violent, catastrophic event. Creation scientists believe there was a complete turnover of the seafloor during the Flood, creating an entirely new ocean crust composed of freshly extruded lava.” (Pg. 39)
He goes on, “Could such glaciers form within the biblical timeframe? … significantly warmer ocean temperatures could result in dramatic increases in snowfall, perhaps four to eight times greater than what occurs today… glaciers more than a kilometer thick could easily have developed in just a few hundred years after the Genesis Flood… the volcanic eruptions of the past were vastly larger than today’s eruptions… The large amounts of volcanic activity during and after the Flood would have provided the cooling needed to keep winter snow from melting during the summer months. In following winters, still more snow would accumulate, and the snow would be transformed into ice.” (Pg. 40-41)
He asks, “Although this cooling mechanism may seem plausible, there is a potential problem with it… aerosols fall out of the atmosphere within a few years. This cooling effect will therefore be fairly short-lived, even after extremely large volcanic eruptions. Yet these cooler summers must persist for MANY years if the ice sheets are to grow. Is this a problem for the biblical ice ae model? No, it is not. After the Flood, tectonic and volcanic activity did not come to an abrupt halt… In the creation model, much of this mountain building and volcanic activity would have continued intermittently after the Flood, with the intensity of these eruptions gradually decreasing with time. Today’s relatively small volcanic eruptions are a faint ‘echo’ of the enormous volcanic activity that occurred during and after the Flood. These continuing volcanic eruptions would have replenished the atmospheric aerosols, ensuring cool summers for many years.” (Pg. 41-42)
This booklet will be of great interest to those wanting to understand “young-earth” creationist interpretations of the ice ages.
Author Jake Hebert wrote in the Introduction to this 2014 book, “In North America, glaciers once covered nearly all of Canada and even extended as far south as Kansas. Mysterious creatures, such as Neanderthals and the now-extinct wooly mammoths, lived at this time. What could cause an ice age? Was there more than one? And how does this fit into biblical history?... secular discussions of ice ages are closely connected to the idea of … a very old earth. This belief… is based on claims such as: *Hundreds of thousands of yearly layers have supposedly been identified within ice cores… *Seafloor sediments were slowly deposited over many millions of years. *Chemical clues … record information about climate in Earth’s ‘prehistoric’ past and tell consistent stories about how Earth’s climate has varied … However, a straightforward reading of the Bible indicates a young age for the earth---about 6,000 years… many Christians have felt intense pressure to re-interpret Genesis to allow for these supposed millions of years. How should Christians respond to these claims?... This booklet summarizes the key points regarding creation explanations for the Ice Age, particularly as they relate to the timing of the age and the dating of the deep ice cores.”
He states, “Creation and secular scientists make dramatically different assumptions about the past. Secular scientists start by assuming that the Bible’s account of Earth history is not true, and they interpret the data according to this premise... Creation scientists, on the other hand, start from the premise that the Bible is God’s inerrant Word and use that to interpret the scientific and historical data. There are two important points to remember about the Ice Age: 1. Secular (uniformitarian) theories cannot explain an ice age. 2. The Bible, on the other hand, provides an extremely convincing explanation.” (Pg. 7-8)
He suggests, “seafloor sediments … are necessary for understanding the long ages assigned to ice cores. At today’s slow rates, a thousand years of deposition are needed to deposit a few centimeters of sediment… Of course. One would expect sedimentation rates to be much higher during and shortly after the Genesis Flood…” (Pg. 9)
He argues, “One of the most serious problems with the astronomical theory is that the mechanism it proposes simply cannot, by itself, cause an ice age. However, there are other major problems: *Because the tilt of the earth has such a strong effect on our seasons… ice-age glacial-interglacial cycles should occur at 41,000-year intervals… Secular scientists claim that this was indeed the case between 2.6 million and 800,000 years ago. But after that, the length of the cycles somehow changed to about 100,000 years. Why would this happen? *… of the astronomical cycles we have discussed, changes in eccentricity should have the WEAKEST effect on climate. Why then would ice ages occur at 100,000-year cycles for the last 800,000 years?” (Pg. 18)
He notes, “Both creation and uniformitarian scientists generally agree that Earth’s magnetic field has reversed multiple times in the past… Creation scientists believe that these magnetic reversals occurred very rapidly during the Flood cataclysm… Of course, the magnetic patterns do not themselves tell how long ago these magnetic reversals occurred. Uniformitarian scientists have relied on radioisotope dating methods… to assign ages to these magnetic reversals… Creation scientists have shown that there are serious problems with radioisotope dating… Furthermore, the different dating methods are not truly independent of one another.” (Pg. 21-22)
He observes, “secular scientists… believe that that fossils within these layers provide a ‘snapshot’ of life on Earth at a particular time in the past… Of course, the Genesis Flood completely invalidates the fossil-events method. Since most fossil organisms were buried during this year-long global cataclysm, their locations within the sedimentary rocks tell us absolutely NOTHING about an alleged ‘prehistory’ of millions of years.” (Pg. 22-23) He continues, “Note the circular reasoning involved … Secular scientists use one radioisotope method to calibrate another method. Then then use the radioisotope dating methods to assist them as they use the astronomical theory to date the seafloor sediments… the different dating methods are not independent of one another. They generally agree with one another because they are being MADE to agree.” (Pg. 24-25)
He explains, “glaciologists also use other methods to date the ice cores. These other methods include visual counting of what are assumed to be annual patterns within the ice cores… At first glance, it might seem reasonable to think that these methods can prove that the ice sheets in Greenland and Antarctica have been in existence for extremely long periods of time. But in actual practice things are more complicated. For instance, how can one be certain that a particular layer is annual rather than sub-annual?... Likewise, layer-counting methods can be subject to large errors… the dating of these cores is especially dependent upon theoretical ice-flow models.” (Pg. 29-30)
He points out, “It has been claimed that the GISP2 ice core is the ‘ultimate proof’ that Noah’s Flood could not have happened as described in the Bible. This is because secular scientists claim to have counted 110,000 annual layers within the ice down to a depth of 2,800 meters… If Genesis is true, the Greenland ice sheet has only had about 4,500 years to form. How then can it contain more than 100,000 annual layers?... the dating of much of the GISP2 core relied heavily on visual identification of layers… thick ice sheets simply do not need vast amounts of time to form… Thus, it is reasonable for both the Greenland and Antarctic ice sheets to have also formed rapidly… Also, layer-counting methods are subject to the weaknesses we have already noted, and bias plays a large role in whether or no a layer will be considered annual.” (Pg. 32-33)
He adds, “After two scientists re-counted dust peaks … they averaged their two counts… This subjectivity is highlighted still further by the fact that one of the scientists consistently counted 20% more dust layers than did the other… even ‘simple’ counting of layers is not really independent of one’s beliefs about the past… At a given depth in the ice, what length of the ice core corresponds to a year? Well, that depends upon how thin one believes an annual layer at that depth will be… because dust levels are never perfectly constant, there will always be variations in dust content, no matter how closely spaced your measurements are.” (Pg. 34-35)
He explains, “Cold summers and much more snowfall are needed for an ice age, and these conditions must continue for many years so that snow and ice can accumulate. Today, it is very difficult to meet both these conditions for any extended period of time… Past conditions must have been radically different in order to produce an ice age… The worldwide Genesis Flood in the days of Noah, however, would have provided these conditions.” (Pg. 37)
He continues, “the Bible says that the Flood catastrophe began when ‘all the fountains of the great deep were broken up’ (Gen 7:11). These fountains, which could have included the pre-Flood oceans as well as large amounts of water located below the earth’s crust, which could have been the source for most, if not all, of the waters of the Flood. This implies large-scale volcanic and tectonic activity, demonstrating that the Genesis Flood was a violent, catastrophic event. Creation scientists believe there was a complete turnover of the seafloor during the Flood, creating an entirely new ocean crust composed of freshly extruded lava.” (Pg. 39)
He goes on, “Could such glaciers form within the biblical timeframe? … significantly warmer ocean temperatures could result in dramatic increases in snowfall, perhaps four to eight times greater than what occurs today… glaciers more than a kilometer thick could easily have developed in just a few hundred years after the Genesis Flood… the volcanic eruptions of the past were vastly larger than today’s eruptions… The large amounts of volcanic activity during and after the Flood would have provided the cooling needed to keep winter snow from melting during the summer months. In following winters, still more snow would accumulate, and the snow would be transformed into ice.” (Pg. 40-41)
He asks, “Although this cooling mechanism may seem plausible, there is a potential problem with it… aerosols fall out of the atmosphere within a few years. This cooling effect will therefore be fairly short-lived, even after extremely large volcanic eruptions. Yet these cooler summers must persist for MANY years if the ice sheets are to grow. Is this a problem for the biblical ice ae model? No, it is not. After the Flood, tectonic and volcanic activity did not come to an abrupt halt… In the creation model, much of this mountain building and volcanic activity would have continued intermittently after the Flood, with the intensity of these eruptions gradually decreasing with time. Today’s relatively small volcanic eruptions are a faint ‘echo’ of the enormous volcanic activity that occurred during and after the Flood. These continuing volcanic eruptions would have replenished the atmospheric aerosols, ensuring cool summers for many years.” (Pg. 41-42)
This booklet will be of great interest to those wanting to understand “young-earth” creationist interpretations of the ice ages.
April 7, 2023
I picked this one up mostly for research for an upcoming book, but the information is fascinating. I'm a Biblical creationist, but I never bothered to think much about the ice age and where it fit in that timeline. After reading Graham Hancock's "Fingerprints of The Gods" I started to wonder about it, though, and found a YouTube video of Jake Hebert's explanation of how a creationist explains the Ice Age. What I understood of that video was compelling, but there were bits I didn't quite understand from the video, which is what led me to pick up this book.
In a nutshell, the book argues that secular scientists (who tend to be uniformitarians, or those who believe that history was very much like the present in terms of natural processes) don't really have a good explanation for the ice age, and those explanations they do have depend upon minor variations of the earth's orbit and tilt, which shouldn't have been expected to have such a catastrophic global effect over the duration of time they claim it did. The dating methods they use to argue that the Ice Ages occurred millions of years ago also rely upon circular reasoning, using one rather arbitrary set of dates, massaged to arrive at the conclusion they want, in order to inform another. (Heber also discusses and refutes several of the very old dating arguments for ice cores in Greenland and in the arctic.)
Only the biblical creationist model can make use of the Noah's flood, which sets up a catastrophic cycle of events which could easily have resulted in the Ice Age. Genesis tells us that in the flood, water didn't just fall from the sky, but "the fountains of the deep" erupted, which would have released hot water warmed from the earth's crust into the oceans, and also would have caused plate tectonic shifts and subsequent volcanic eruptions. The relatively warm and uniform temperatures of the oceans would have evaporated into the atmosphere, causing very humid conditions and subsequent significant precipitation in the years following the flood, while the volcanic ash would have blocked the sun's rays from warming the earth as much as they usually do. Heber makes the point that this would have resulted in cooler summers, such that the snow which might fall from the high humidity in the winters wouldn't be able to melt in the summertime, allowing ice sheets to advance. (Uniformitarians also agree that there were many volcanic eruptions in earth's history, but their time scale requires that they would have occurred so far apart that they couldn't make use of them to explain the ice age.) His arguments certainly seem compelling to me.
In a nutshell, the book argues that secular scientists (who tend to be uniformitarians, or those who believe that history was very much like the present in terms of natural processes) don't really have a good explanation for the ice age, and those explanations they do have depend upon minor variations of the earth's orbit and tilt, which shouldn't have been expected to have such a catastrophic global effect over the duration of time they claim it did. The dating methods they use to argue that the Ice Ages occurred millions of years ago also rely upon circular reasoning, using one rather arbitrary set of dates, massaged to arrive at the conclusion they want, in order to inform another. (Heber also discusses and refutes several of the very old dating arguments for ice cores in Greenland and in the arctic.)
Only the biblical creationist model can make use of the Noah's flood, which sets up a catastrophic cycle of events which could easily have resulted in the Ice Age. Genesis tells us that in the flood, water didn't just fall from the sky, but "the fountains of the deep" erupted, which would have released hot water warmed from the earth's crust into the oceans, and also would have caused plate tectonic shifts and subsequent volcanic eruptions. The relatively warm and uniform temperatures of the oceans would have evaporated into the atmosphere, causing very humid conditions and subsequent significant precipitation in the years following the flood, while the volcanic ash would have blocked the sun's rays from warming the earth as much as they usually do. Heber makes the point that this would have resulted in cooler summers, such that the snow which might fall from the high humidity in the winters wouldn't be able to melt in the summertime, allowing ice sheets to advance. (Uniformitarians also agree that there were many volcanic eruptions in earth's history, but their time scale requires that they would have occurred so far apart that they couldn't make use of them to explain the ice age.) His arguments certainly seem compelling to me.
December 18, 2014
This short book touches on the Ice Age and the resulting opposing scientific views. The beginning is a bit technical but the majority is written for the layperson who wants to know the Truth. Due to its shortness, the reader may be left with answers to his questions but a desire for more information - the author nicely provides suggestions for further research.
While it is clear to many scientists that the world-wide flood caused the resulting Ice Age, some secular scientists refuse to accept evidence that disproves their evolutionary theory - going so far as to change procedures until they get their "correct" answer.
The end result is that once again the Ice Age data for the evolutionist has a whole set of problems/conflicts. While the creationist/world-wide flood individual is once again validated because "the Bible's short 6,000-year timescale, rather than being an impediment to scientific understanding, is actually one of the keys that enable us to explain the Ice Age."
While it is clear to many scientists that the world-wide flood caused the resulting Ice Age, some secular scientists refuse to accept evidence that disproves their evolutionary theory - going so far as to change procedures until they get their "correct" answer.
The end result is that once again the Ice Age data for the evolutionist has a whole set of problems/conflicts. While the creationist/world-wide flood individual is once again validated because "the Bible's short 6,000-year timescale, rather than being an impediment to scientific understanding, is actually one of the keys that enable us to explain the Ice Age."
June 24, 2024
3⭐s!
Very informational. Short and sweet, only took me 20-ish-min to finish. I definitely recommend if you are interested in this topic like me :)
Very informational. Short and sweet, only took me 20-ish-min to finish. I definitely recommend if you are interested in this topic like me :)
Displaying 1 - 4 of 4 reviews