What do you think?
Rate this book
The Frozen Record: Examining the Ice Core History of the Greenland and Antarctic Ice Sheets
An outstanding case for the earth's one Ice Age. Greenland ice cores generally show only one Ice Age. Data indicates little or no movement of the ice sheets. Broadening of volcanic and beryllium spikes with depth gives evidence for a Creation-Flood model. From the author of Frozen in Time comes a technical monograph on ice core dating dealing with the origin and development of the Greenland and Antarctic ice sheets and the differences between the creation-flood and evolutionary-uniformitarian models for dating. Were there many cycling ice ages or just one Ice Age? Are there serious errors with annual layer counting, glaciological flow models, reference horizons and the Milankovitch mechanism? Is ice core dating often skewed because old age is often assumed and automatically built into the equation? A thought-provoking and informative technical study for every scientist.
199 pages, Hardcover
First published January 1, 2005
4 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 - 2 of 2 reviews
May 30, 2024
A “YOUNG EARTH” CREATIONIST SUGGESTS A CREATION-FLOOD ORIGIN OF THE ICE AGE
Author Michael J. Oard wrote in the Preface to this 2005 book, “Are the Greenland Ice Sheets showcases for uniformitarian geology and glaciology? Do the ice cores surely prove an old earth?... Many Christian intellectuals and lay people… simply believe the interpretations of uniformitarian geology and evolutionary biology. While holding fast to God’s sacred Scripture, we need to examine such claims---in depth, and carefully. This monograph examines the Greenland and Antarctica Ice Sheets and their ice cores in depth. It focuses in on both specific and general aspects by scrutinizing whether 110,000 annual layers exist … and by analyzing the claim that ice cores on Antarctica have reached down to ice that is from 400,000 to over 700,000 years old. The issue of why many data sets and chronological measurements seem to fit together and support the uniformitarian story of slow gradual processes over millions of years is also addressed. Finally, the monograph presents an alternative model and interpretation of the data… that is more supportive of the Creation-Flood ice core model.”
He states in the first chapter, “one cannot but be struck by the large landmasses of the earth that are almost totally covered by ice. These are the Greenland and Antarctic Ice Sheets… This ice is so extensive and thick that the question naturally arises as to how all this ice can accumulate in such a short time based on the Scriptural timescale. This timescale is derived from the straightforward genealogies of Genesis 5, 10 and 11. Genesis 1-11 reads like straightforward history… It does not make sense to claim that Genesis 1-11 are poetic, mythical, or that Christians need to force evolution and millions of years into these chapters… It has always mystified me why anyone would deny the clear teaching of the Bible in favor of the speculations of sinful men about the unobservable, unscientific prehistoric past.” (Pg. 1)
He states, “Since these pre-Cenozoic ‘tillites’ are part of the great accumulation of sedimentary rocks land down by the Genesis Flood, mass flow during the Flood is the explanation. The Flood was a time of rapid sedimentation. It is reasonable that some of this sediment would become unstable after deposition and begin sliding because of tectonics or giant earthquakes during the Flood. The mass would eventually stop on a flat bottom or a gentle slope. These mass movements… can account for the huge size of some of these supposed ice age deposits. Since the Genesis Flood can account for these unique rocks in this way, the many millions of years suggested by pre-Cenozoic ‘ice ages’ disappear. This indicates that the addition of another variable or a new mechanism can change the entire chronological picture.” (Pg. 37)
He explains, “creationists have a viable mechanism. The Ice Age represents a transition climate from the Flood catastrophe to the present climate… The Flood involved unprecedented, widespread volcanic and tectonic activity. After the continents and mountains rose out of the floodwaters and/or the water subsided, a shroud of volcanic dust and aerosols remained in the atmosphere, obscuring part of the sun. This would cause the land to cool dramatically…. These volcanic spikes represent a huge amount of volcanism when telescoped into the short Creation-Flood Ice Age timescale…. This justifies the assumption of enormous post-Flood volcanism to cool the land in summer during the Ice Age... Moisture for snow would come from an ocean that had been warmed by volcanism, meteorite impacts, lave flows, the friction of tectonics, and possibly water from the crust during the eruption of the ‘fountains of the great deep.’ … Such a warm ocean would allow huge amounts of moisture to evaporate at mid- and high latitudes… This powerful evaporation would continue for hundreds of years until the oceans cooled. Once the oceans cooled, the Ice Age would end because of reduced moisture.” (Pg. 41)
He continues, “Within the Flood model there could be only one Ice Age. Most of the evidence for multiple ice ages during the late Cenozoic stems from multiple assumptions… It is essentially because of the acceptance of the astronomical theory of the ice age that many glacial/interglacial oscillations are postulated…. So, if the total duration of the Ice Age was about 700 years, there is a great disparity with the Evolutionary-Uniformitarian model’s assertion that, over the past million years, each ice age lasted an average of 100,000 years. The minimal erosion caused by ice sheets and the preservation of erosion surfaces in glaciated areas is further straightforward evidence for a rapid, post-Flood Ice Age… Evidence indicates that only one Ice Age elapsed, not many.” (Pg. 42)
He laments, “The reader must remember that mainstream glaciologists have had the time, and manpower to build their model. Obviously, they have collected the data, and thus have interpreted the data within their paradigm… On the other hand, the Creation-Flood model depends upon the data provided by the mainstream scientists. It could be that crucial data needed to verify some aspect of the Creation-Flood model may not have been collected and, if collected, may still not be published. So, the Creation-Flood model is operating at a disadvantage when it comes to explaining the origin of the Greenland and Antarctic Ice Sheets and being able to distinguish which model is better. Regardless, a Creation-Flood model has been developed to explain the data, and in some instances the models can be tested.” (Pg. 49-50)
He suggests, “I lean toward the idea that there probably is something wrong with the theory of isotropic diffusion, most likely that diffusion occurs faster than expected. Another possibility is that the measurements were coming up with unexpected results.” (Pg. 59)
He argues, “in the Creation-Flood model, the climate would be different… the snowfall rate was likely greater for a while after the Ice Age. So, it is likely that glaciologists could misinterpret a storm layer of a series of storm layers for annual layers… Or it is possible that depth hoar complexes could form between major storm periods. It is more likely that a depth hoar layer formed by storms or other weather oscillations could be counted as an annual signal, if the snowfall were significantly higher in the past, as in the Creation-Flood model. So, in the Creation-Flood model, many depth hoar layers could form with more frequent storms and heavier snowfall, especially for a while after the Ice Age. There would be subannual layers that would be interpreted as annual layers within the Evolutionary-Uniformitarian model. This tendency to multiply the number of annual layers would … occur… with other annual dating techniques as well… many dust bands can form in a year and be counted as many annual layers. This is especially true during the Ice Age.” (Pg. 73)
He acknowledges, “If the Creation-Flood Ice Age model assumptions replace the Evolutionary-Uniformitarian model assumptions, even more discrepancies in annual layer dating will occur, especially in the mid- or lower portions of the GISP2 and GRIP cores. I doubt whether the annual layer methods, alone or in combination, can overcome the main dating bias that encompasses ALL annual layers methods and constrains interpretation. This dating bias becomes apparent in the use of flow models as a first guess…” (Pg. 92)
He notes, “If the ice had been flowing for several hundred thousand to over a million years, the surface expression of the lakes at the bottom of the ice sheet should be offset hundreds of kilometers downstream, even in the slow moving interior of the ice sheets. The lack of such offset is strong evidence for little ice sheet flow and favors the short timescale of the Creation-Flood Ice Age and ice sheet model.” (Pg. 140)
This book will be of great interest to “Young Earth” creationists wanting more information and theories about these issues.
Author Michael J. Oard wrote in the Preface to this 2005 book, “Are the Greenland Ice Sheets showcases for uniformitarian geology and glaciology? Do the ice cores surely prove an old earth?... Many Christian intellectuals and lay people… simply believe the interpretations of uniformitarian geology and evolutionary biology. While holding fast to God’s sacred Scripture, we need to examine such claims---in depth, and carefully. This monograph examines the Greenland and Antarctica Ice Sheets and their ice cores in depth. It focuses in on both specific and general aspects by scrutinizing whether 110,000 annual layers exist … and by analyzing the claim that ice cores on Antarctica have reached down to ice that is from 400,000 to over 700,000 years old. The issue of why many data sets and chronological measurements seem to fit together and support the uniformitarian story of slow gradual processes over millions of years is also addressed. Finally, the monograph presents an alternative model and interpretation of the data… that is more supportive of the Creation-Flood ice core model.”
He states in the first chapter, “one cannot but be struck by the large landmasses of the earth that are almost totally covered by ice. These are the Greenland and Antarctic Ice Sheets… This ice is so extensive and thick that the question naturally arises as to how all this ice can accumulate in such a short time based on the Scriptural timescale. This timescale is derived from the straightforward genealogies of Genesis 5, 10 and 11. Genesis 1-11 reads like straightforward history… It does not make sense to claim that Genesis 1-11 are poetic, mythical, or that Christians need to force evolution and millions of years into these chapters… It has always mystified me why anyone would deny the clear teaching of the Bible in favor of the speculations of sinful men about the unobservable, unscientific prehistoric past.” (Pg. 1)
He states, “Since these pre-Cenozoic ‘tillites’ are part of the great accumulation of sedimentary rocks land down by the Genesis Flood, mass flow during the Flood is the explanation. The Flood was a time of rapid sedimentation. It is reasonable that some of this sediment would become unstable after deposition and begin sliding because of tectonics or giant earthquakes during the Flood. The mass would eventually stop on a flat bottom or a gentle slope. These mass movements… can account for the huge size of some of these supposed ice age deposits. Since the Genesis Flood can account for these unique rocks in this way, the many millions of years suggested by pre-Cenozoic ‘ice ages’ disappear. This indicates that the addition of another variable or a new mechanism can change the entire chronological picture.” (Pg. 37)
He explains, “creationists have a viable mechanism. The Ice Age represents a transition climate from the Flood catastrophe to the present climate… The Flood involved unprecedented, widespread volcanic and tectonic activity. After the continents and mountains rose out of the floodwaters and/or the water subsided, a shroud of volcanic dust and aerosols remained in the atmosphere, obscuring part of the sun. This would cause the land to cool dramatically…. These volcanic spikes represent a huge amount of volcanism when telescoped into the short Creation-Flood Ice Age timescale…. This justifies the assumption of enormous post-Flood volcanism to cool the land in summer during the Ice Age... Moisture for snow would come from an ocean that had been warmed by volcanism, meteorite impacts, lave flows, the friction of tectonics, and possibly water from the crust during the eruption of the ‘fountains of the great deep.’ … Such a warm ocean would allow huge amounts of moisture to evaporate at mid- and high latitudes… This powerful evaporation would continue for hundreds of years until the oceans cooled. Once the oceans cooled, the Ice Age would end because of reduced moisture.” (Pg. 41)
He continues, “Within the Flood model there could be only one Ice Age. Most of the evidence for multiple ice ages during the late Cenozoic stems from multiple assumptions… It is essentially because of the acceptance of the astronomical theory of the ice age that many glacial/interglacial oscillations are postulated…. So, if the total duration of the Ice Age was about 700 years, there is a great disparity with the Evolutionary-Uniformitarian model’s assertion that, over the past million years, each ice age lasted an average of 100,000 years. The minimal erosion caused by ice sheets and the preservation of erosion surfaces in glaciated areas is further straightforward evidence for a rapid, post-Flood Ice Age… Evidence indicates that only one Ice Age elapsed, not many.” (Pg. 42)
He laments, “The reader must remember that mainstream glaciologists have had the time, and manpower to build their model. Obviously, they have collected the data, and thus have interpreted the data within their paradigm… On the other hand, the Creation-Flood model depends upon the data provided by the mainstream scientists. It could be that crucial data needed to verify some aspect of the Creation-Flood model may not have been collected and, if collected, may still not be published. So, the Creation-Flood model is operating at a disadvantage when it comes to explaining the origin of the Greenland and Antarctic Ice Sheets and being able to distinguish which model is better. Regardless, a Creation-Flood model has been developed to explain the data, and in some instances the models can be tested.” (Pg. 49-50)
He suggests, “I lean toward the idea that there probably is something wrong with the theory of isotropic diffusion, most likely that diffusion occurs faster than expected. Another possibility is that the measurements were coming up with unexpected results.” (Pg. 59)
He argues, “in the Creation-Flood model, the climate would be different… the snowfall rate was likely greater for a while after the Ice Age. So, it is likely that glaciologists could misinterpret a storm layer of a series of storm layers for annual layers… Or it is possible that depth hoar complexes could form between major storm periods. It is more likely that a depth hoar layer formed by storms or other weather oscillations could be counted as an annual signal, if the snowfall were significantly higher in the past, as in the Creation-Flood model. So, in the Creation-Flood model, many depth hoar layers could form with more frequent storms and heavier snowfall, especially for a while after the Ice Age. There would be subannual layers that would be interpreted as annual layers within the Evolutionary-Uniformitarian model. This tendency to multiply the number of annual layers would … occur… with other annual dating techniques as well… many dust bands can form in a year and be counted as many annual layers. This is especially true during the Ice Age.” (Pg. 73)
He acknowledges, “If the Creation-Flood Ice Age model assumptions replace the Evolutionary-Uniformitarian model assumptions, even more discrepancies in annual layer dating will occur, especially in the mid- or lower portions of the GISP2 and GRIP cores. I doubt whether the annual layer methods, alone or in combination, can overcome the main dating bias that encompasses ALL annual layers methods and constrains interpretation. This dating bias becomes apparent in the use of flow models as a first guess…” (Pg. 92)
He notes, “If the ice had been flowing for several hundred thousand to over a million years, the surface expression of the lakes at the bottom of the ice sheet should be offset hundreds of kilometers downstream, even in the slow moving interior of the ice sheets. The lack of such offset is strong evidence for little ice sheet flow and favors the short timescale of the Creation-Flood Ice Age and ice sheet model.” (Pg. 140)
This book will be of great interest to “Young Earth” creationists wanting more information and theories about these issues.
June 20, 2020
I'll admit, I picked this book up based on the cover and title. I'm working on a BS in geology and am very interested in this area of research. After reading the first few pages, I discovered that it tries to use the polar ice cores to prove young earth creationism. It was an interesting read, but if you are looking for scientifically accurate information on the subject, look elsewhere.
Displaying 1 - 2 of 2 reviews