Answers in Genesis - Sunday School - Fall: Lesson 13

But let's go ahead and pray. we're gonna be doing a lesson this morning that you guys have been asking for since last year. I know Joe wanted us to do it last year. We're hitting the ice age and, and then that'll be the end of this quarter.

We'll be moving on to God is in control and, and continuing on with the rest of Genesis. And so looking forward to the material. I'm actually only going to be doing a part of it this morning. We're going to be watching.

A, meteorologist named Michael Orard, quite a bit this morning, cause he's the expert. But let's go ahead and pray and we'll, we'll jump into things. Lord, we thank you so much for this, time for us to be together and to study your word together and also consider, how your word interacts with, the ice age. we ask Lord that you would help us to grow and see the importance of this topic and, And we pray that your spirit would be with us in Christ's name.

Amen. All right, I'm gonna show a little teaser and then we're gonna do some review and then we'll jump into things. So Brian, will this thing go automatically or does Brian have to hit play? Let me see, maybe if I Yeah, because he's got it all set up.

The ice on Greenland and Antarctica is in places miles deep and hundreds of miles wide. In the present, however, all but the edges of these ice sheets are cold deserts. Not enough snow and ice falls there to build up the depth of ice that we find today, even if long periods of time were available. The flood of the Bible may provide an answer.

First of all, flood rocks contain thick piles of lava and huge volumes of volcanic ash. Meteorologist Mike Ord has suggested that this might have led to the ice age. There's a lot of warm water added to the, the pre-flood oceans, from the crust and also a lot of lava flows and volcanism that heat the waters. Evidence in fossils suggests that the oceans were warmed up in the course of the flood.

The average temperature of the ocean is 39 °F. Well, after the flood, it could have been an average of about 86 °F, and you could have taken a swim in the Arctic Ocean right after the flood. It was so warm. But then it's going to start cooling down, and that cooling is mainly by evaporation, so, the key here is that for that warm water, you evaporate so much more water vapor in the air.

As the oceans cooled after the flood, heavy snow began to fall. Computer simulations that begin with warm oceans show snow falling far inland over cool continents. Ice sheets build up thousands of feet thick where we see evidence for such ice today. This ice built up in only a few centuries of time.

The whole process was sped up by volcanic ash, cooling the earth after the flood. Because of the instability of the Earth after the flood, there'd be a lot of volcanism. Aerosols are tiny particles about a micron in diameter, and they'll float up there in the stratosphere for several years, and they reflect sunlight back to space. So you have a cooling mechanism.

The ice is going to build up and then finally it's going to come to a point where it's going to peak. That's glacial maximum. Once the oceans cooled enough, the evaporation slowed, the snows stopped, and the ice began to melt. Calculations suggest that the buildup, movement, and melting of ice did not require many thousands of years as is traditionally taught.

From a warm world at the end of the flood to the melting of the ice took only centuries of time. And then I see evidence of the one ice age and a short rapid ice age that melts catastrophically. This is what I see, based on science. Present climate is not the key to understanding what produced thick piles of ice in Greenland and Antarctica.

It looks like the Bible had the key all along. The great flood in the days of Noah. Mm. OK, a little teaser overview.

What, this is just one theory of the ice age. It's not the dominant theory. There's actually two main theories. One's dominant, one's the, I guess non-dominant theory and then you have Michael Oard's theory that we'll be talking a little bit about this morning.

So this is, our parafamily ministry trying to come alongside our families throughout the course of 4 years, we're looking at the whole Bible chronologically through the seven seas of history. We're in the middle part of at least historically called the area of confusion, but we're still in the Book of Genesis. Today we're talking about the ice age. let's do, basically we're going to do a little bit of review and then we're going to take a look at some passes of scripture and then we're going to look at some, some videos and then talk about some applications.

So let's just do a little bit of review. In our first week, we talked about, we did a review of our basic foundations, our bibliology. We talked about how the Bible is authoritative because it comes from God Himself. He's the only one that's been everywhere at all times and knows all things and he's reported information to us through special revelation.

So that's the one thing that we can know with certainty. We also realize that the Bible is without error because it comes from a God who cannot lie or does not lie. we've also talked about the fact that the Bible has been preserved for us. it's not, we're not playing the telephone game.

We're talking about, thousands of manuscripts and the fact that God has guaranteed to preserve His word and yet we still have a responsibility to preserve His word. The Bible says Isaiah 40:8, the grass withers, the flower fades, but the word of God stands forever, so he's guaranteed to preserve it. We've also argued that the Bible is sufficient to answer the big worldview questions. It's not going to help you fix your carburetor, but it is gonna help us get an idea of why we're here, where we're going, basic history of the world, how it's all going to end and things like that.

when we study the Bible, we use a literal historical grammatical approach or interpretation, hermeneutic. we talked about that, what it means to be literal, historical, grammatical, as opposed to spiritualizing the text or geshika, just telling the stories, moral stories, as opposed to just looking at the big ideas rather than word by word verbal inspiration. therefore, we do exegesis instead of what? I of Jesus.

We try to get out of the text, what was intended to be there for the original audience before we come and make applications to ourselves. So when we read like say Genesis 1 to 11, for instance, we don't say how, how should this be interpreted in light of our day first. We say what was the Holy Spirit doing through Moses as he wrote to the original audience that is the 2nd generation of Israel. about origins of the world.

We find out how would they have read the text first and if, if we can determine how they would have read the text, that's our interpretation, then we make applications to our world today. Last week we observed that God is both merciful and just in his dealings with Sodom and Gomorrah and Lot and his family. We spent a lot of time on that, some pretty crazy stuff, but to me it's actually one of the, one of the demonstrations of the validity of scripture is the fact that the Bible is willing to report cultural elements even if it looks bad, right?

The Bible a lot of times just reports, this is just what happened, just the facts, man.

This is just the facts, right? and there would be a lot of temptation to try to alter the facts. In fact, there were early church fathers and early Christians that did try to alter the facts of the Old Testament, not in the sense of like changing the scripture, but they would reinterpret the scripture because they were embarrassed by stories like Sodom and Gomorrah and Lot and the way his behavior. And so the fact that the Bible's willing to report to us some of these things that really put our heroes in bad light actually makes it more valid.

It doesn't invalidate the scripture. All right, let's, let's go ahead and open up to Genesis chapter 8. the, When we talk talk about this topic, I don't know about you guys, but my kids watched All those ice age movies and every time you turn around there's another movie that comes out for children that has to do, the good dinosaur and then you've got all the Jurassic Park movies. I don't know if I'd call those for children.

Although, we, we've gotten more and more liberal as our kids have gotten older, we would have never shown Joshua Jurassic Park, but we are totally free to show my little Samuel Jurassic Park now. I don't know what's going on. I'm compromising as, as we get older or maybe we're loosening up, I'm not sure which it is. But it's real clear when you watch these movies, the worldview that's coming through.

Obviously Ice Age, it's totally built upon evolutionary worldview. You watch Jurassic Park, the newer Jurassic Park, the first thing you see is the foot of a bird, and when you first see it, it's like there's just and then the camera goes back and then you see it's a bird. And the implication is, they're they're trying to draw the connection between the evolutionary theory that dinosaurs have basically resulted in today's birds. That's the theory.

Where did all the dinosaurs go? Well, a lot of them are now today's birds. And so that's the way the movie starts off. And so when you, when you consider something like the ice age, the kids are seeing the Ice Age movie, they start hearing about the ice age from the time they're in elementary school.

And they're told that there's 4 main ice ages, and each ice age takes about 200,000 years. And when you consider all the various ice ages, we're talking about several million years, at least 2.5 million years for the ice ages to take place, which obviously on a literal reading of the scripture just makes the Bible just Outmoded, right? On a, on a straightforward reading of the Bible, if, if what they're saying about the ice age is true, then, then we've got the wrong reading of the Bible.

Not to mention the fact that the Bible really doesn't seem to say a thing about an ice age.

Right? There's not a whole lot in the Bible. I don't know. Maybe you can find something that shows that demonstrates in this particular verse about ice coming down and, and being over large masses of land.

I don't know where we would find it. there's only 3 references that we know of to ice. there's lots of stuff about snow, but really ice shows up all in the book of Job, 3 different places. In fact, keep your finger in Genesis 8.

And let's turn to Job 37. Job, Genesis, Xis, Leviticus Numbers, Deuteronomy, Joshua Judges, Ruth, Samuel Kings. Oh yeah, I already went past it. Genesis, Xis, Leviticus, Numbers, Deuteronomy, Joshua, Judges Ruth.

No, Samuel King's Chronicles Ezra and Nehemiah, Esther. Job, Psalms Proverbs, right before Psalms. So, so Job 37. 10 is one of the three references.

To ice. In the Bible, or at least in the Old Testament. By the breath of God, ice is given, and the broad waters are frozen. It's about all you get.

So I don't, and, and contextually, if you look up above, There's just this is one of those sections where God is basically talking to Job and saying, who are you? here's what I've done. What have you done? Where were you?

And so right in the middle of that one of those sections, there's this idea of God, ice comes from the breath of God and then in the parallelism of the what seems to be a poetic section, the broad waters are frozen. What does that mean? Broad waters, could this fit the ice age? Maybe, maybe not.

I don't know that this is God's burden to demonstrate the ice age to Job, but then again, Dob is, he's living in very ancient times and maybe God is pointing to some glacier and saying the broad waters have been created by me. And so it could be a hint at something, but then again, maybe it's just talking about a frozen lake, maybe it's just talking about a big frozen river. we really, really have no idea. Turn back to Genesis 8 though.

And we're just gonna make a few quick observations of this text. this is, at the end of the flood, which is we've demonstrated both in the sermon time and in Sunday school that Genesis 6 to 9, just there's no question about what the text is purporting that this is a universal worldwide flood. Now, you can just try to dispute that from a scientific standpoint, but if you're just approaching the text, you start with the text, it's undeniable what Moses is trying to communicate here.

You can disagree with Moses.

You can say that Moses just didn't understand cosmology or didn't understand a lot of things about science, but it's, it's undeniable what Moses was thinking he was communicating. So in verse 20 we have this, then Noah. Built an altar to the Lord. And took of every clean animal and every clean bird and offered a burnt offering, offering on the altar.

Now the first time I read that when I was a young person, when I was a brand new Christian, I started reading through my King James Bible. I said, oh no, Noah, you just brought animals two by two and now you're sacrificing. These are going, you're putting these guys into extinction. What's the response to that?

Yeah, he was actually, he brought 2 by 2, but he was also commanded to bring clean animals onto the ark that were going to be for this very purpose. And so there were clean animals, extra animals that were brought on for the sake of worship as soon as they got off the ark, and that's what's going on here. He's not throwing some animal species into extinction. And so, but he is off, he's worshiping the Lord.

and then verse 21, what's the Lord's response? The Lord's smell, the soothing aroma. Then the Lord said in his heart, I will never again curse the ground for man's sake. Although the imagination of man's heart is evil from his youth, nor will I again destroy every living thing as I have done.

And so this is what we call the Noaic covenant. Noah, everybody's destroyed. Noah and his family, 8 people get off the ark. They worship the Lord.

They, so there's this renewal of this covenant, and God promises that he's never again going to destroy the world the way he just did. Again, as we've talked about in the past, if this was just merely a local flood, then God's done local floods all over the place many times. But if this is really a universal flood, that's never happened again, and so God has continued to keep that covenant. Then what we're interested in is Is the next part verse 22.

This is part of the covenant as well. While the earth remains. Seed time and harvest, cold and heat, winter and summer, and day and night shall not cease. So, after the flood, God makes this covenant, renews his covenant with Noah.

He's never going to destroy the world again, and the basic processes are going to continue until the end, until the earth remains. And so until the end of Earth history, God's making this promise to Noah, you've just worshiped me. I've just destroyed the earth, but I'm making this covenant with you and your progeny. And we're going to see seed time and harvest, cold and heat, winter and summer, day and night.

It shall not cease. And so there seems to be a connection. God is, is making some like, Some uniformitarian promise that things are going to move along in a fairly normal, not that there aren't ebbs and flows, but a fairly normal way that would be markedly different from something like the flood, right, that had just happened before. And so that's virtually all we really have to go on.

Let's look at one other passage and then we're gonna, we're going to watch a couple of videos. Look at Romans one. verse 20. Just generically speaking about creation, Paul says for since the creation of the world.

His invisible attributes are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made. And his eternal power and Godhead so that they are without excuse. So since the creation, God has revealed things about Himself. And to where people are now without excuse.

If you look at verse 18, the wrath of God is revealed against heaven, from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteous men who suppress the truth and righteousness. Because what may, what may be known of God is manifest in them. So, this wrath of God thing has been revealed from heaven in lots of different ways. When Adam and Eve fell, God instituted death.

when, When the whole human race had turned corrupt, God brought the flood. When you have a local area where their sin had been filled up and the outcry was so great, God brings down fire and brimstone. He saves a lot. but there seems to be some argument here that we can discern things about the character of God, from creation itself and from the very beginning, his attributes are being revealed so that we're without excuse.

So all this begs the question. I If all the Bible really says is, OK, there's, there was the flood. There's some, seems to be some generic uniformity after the flood. the other real mentions of ice we have are some obscure passage in Job.

That references ice. What are we to make of the ice age, and is this really that important of an issue? is this, do people make a big deal about the ice age when they interact with Christians or when they talk to people about the Bible? So, let me just rephrase that question in a different way.

Like when you're evangelizing, and I know for me a lot of times when I'm sharing the gospel, one of the questions I get. On a fairly regular basis is, oh yeah, what about all the dinosaurs? Raise your hand if you've had that question when you're witnessing. Maybe not as much these days.

Yeah, I get that question quite a bit., or people will say, yeah, we know evolution is true. The Bible doesn't seem to say anything about Neanderthals. What does the Bible say about Lucy? What does the Bible say about, all these types of things.

One of the questions that, that is clear and we're going to see it in the video here is is the ice age seems to at least throw a challenge upon the traditional view. Of biblical history and so does that really, really matter? we're going to take a look at that. So let's press forward.

Is this our second video? OK, so we're going to watch about 4 minutes of this particular video to try to answer the question. Does the ice age really even matter? Is it that big of a deal what we think about the ice age, the fact that the Bible doesn't seem to say a whole lot about it, the fact that, at least traditionally back in the 70s, people said there were four ice ages, and now it's up to 30 ice ages.

what's the big deal? Why are we taking up time with this in Sunday school class on September 25, 2016? At 9:24 in the morning. Right.

Let's, let's check out this video. Well, the topic this time is the ice age. Only the Bible can explain it. Provocative title.

But I will flush it out for you and see, and you'll understand what by that. You better have some sweaters available because people tell me when I talk about this subject they feel cold. But don't worry, when I talk this evening, you can take them off. Right.

Well, here's those Earth science challenges. This is just a sample, like I said, that is 16 out of 40 I wrote down. we have hundreds of them, of which the ice age is one of those challenges, the challenge is, how can you account for the ice age in your model? Well, that's what I've tried to work on or explained for 35 years.

And here's some of the results of those challenges like I went through before. It's caused many to doubt God's word. Yeah, it's caused tens of thousands of atheists, agnostics, millions of Christians to try to fit evolution and deep time into the Bible, enhance the local flood myth, and it's resulted in a mass exodus of the youth starting in grade school. They learn about it and then they become more out of touch with church, and that's why the book Already Gone was mentioned because they're already gone.

They're in church, but they're already gone mentally. And it's, and we need to get our youth back, and this is what this is about. So this issue is a very important issue. So let's talk about the ice age.

What is an ice age? Well, it's simply a great increase in snow and ice. We have 10% of the continental areas are covered by ice now, and where they are. During the ice age, it was 30%.

Most of northern Canada, northern United States, excuse me, most of Canada, the northern United States. Also, I want to make a point that I'm going to come back to at the end. It's the last major geophysical event in Earth history, the last major thing ever since the ice age, which is after the flood. It's been generally uniformitarianism, present processes, slow processes like we observed today that we do observe today.

It's been going on since the end of the ice age, so it's the last major event. I'm going to make a point. So what is the challenge of the ice age? Well, the evolutionists say, well, each ice age takes 100,000 years.

A glacial phase is 90,000. Interglacial phase is 10,000. And over the last 2.5 million years there's been about 30 regularly repeating ice ages during the past 2.5 million years. Now you might have heard there was only 4 ice ages.

How many have heard there was only four ice ages? OK, have you, or 3, yeah, or 5 sometimes. How many have heard that that is obsolete? Well, it's been obsolete since the 1970s, believe it or not.

And it's still taught in museums like the Museum of Price, Utah has a display showing the four ice ages, but that's been thrown out since the 70s and now they have 30. And why do they have 30? It's not because of the deposits you see on land. It's because they get their ice the number of ice ages from deep sea cores and they measure in Microorganisms, what's called the oxygen isotope ratios, which they believe proportional to the temperature, and I think it generally is, but there's lots of exceptions.

So when it wiggles this way, it's an ice age. When it wiggles this way, it's an interglacial. So it does this dozens of times going down that core. So to them that's how they get those 30 ice ages.

And here's a typical statement they give. This is from an anti-creationist book. By Arthur Stroller, an atheist. Increasing the duration of the ice age by a factor of about 10.

In other words, they increased the age of Antarctica by a factor of 10 is what he's talking about. But doing this, he says, greatly increases the stress upon the creation of scientists who must compress the events of 15 million years into 4000 years of post-flood time. In other words, can we explain the ice age and those multiple ice ages, and even when Antarctica started to glaciate about 30 million years ago, reached a peak of about 15 million, it's been steady-state ever since.

That's what he's talking about.

Can we explain such things? Well, Do you give up, just believe what they say. you start examining the data. look at what they're talking about, like I said, when I find out they have problems too explaining the ice age.

The ice age is not a showcase for their model, as I'll show, I hold fast to that, which is good. I put on my biblical glasses and examine the data. So the first thing we need to talk about is, was there an ice age? Maybe we don't have to explain anything if there wasn't one.

Well, the way to find out whether there was an ice age is to go look at areas that were glaciated recently, like All right. OK, so I just want to show that introduction to basically give Michael OR the opportunity to explain why this is important from his perspective. Michael Orard was retired from the National Weather Service. He got his master's in atmospheric science from the University of Washington and he's been studying this issue for about 40 years.

In this video, he says 35 years but it's now up to 40 years and. And so he would argue and I would agree with him that this is an important issue. it has caused people to doubt God's word because on a straightforward reading of God's word, we don't have 2. million years for these ice ages to take place.

it's caused, in his opinion, hundreds, thousands of agnostics and atheists as they look at different aspects of the Bible when they see that the Bible doesn't seem to be matching. The current theories, they say they check the Bible and so on and so forth. So, what I want you to notice as we, as we watch the longer video, the thing I really appreciate about Michael Ord is, and, and this is true of a lot of scientists, is he's really careful to use weasel words. What by weasel words is we think that this might explain, this is one way to explain this.

He's very careful to say when something's coming from the Bible to say this is what I know and when he's offering theories and explanations to say this is what I think. That's just a very good practice. And so I wanna, as we've done in this course, I want to encourage you guys to follow the same example. I, I don't, I'm not a meteorologist like Michael Ord and I have, I've been studying the ice age now for exactly One week and so I don't have the wherewithal to know how to, to evaluate everything that he's going to lay out for us, but I do think that he sets a good example in starting with the Bible, and if we think that our interpretation of the Bible is firm, then is there a rational way to explain, a reasonable way to explain other things that we see, in nature.

And if there is a rational explanation, then there wouldn't seem to be any reason to throw away our interpretation of the Bible. however, if we're coming to an interpretation of the Bible that says purple polka dotted unicorns inhabit all of North America, there are literally hundreds of thousands of purple polka dotted unicorns, and then we go out in nature and we look and, and we don't see any purple polka dotted unicorns anywhere in North America. Then there's probably some good reason to go back to the Bible and say, did I misinterpret it?

Right?

but if the Bible seems to report something or like in this case, if the Bible really doesn't, it doesn't say anything specifically about the ice age, but it does have a lot to say about the flood, it has a lot to say about history and Bible history and stuff like that. If we look out into the world and if there's a rational way to explain that harmonizes with the scriptures, I'd encourage us to stick with our, our initial reading of the Bible. And so we'll lay this out to you guys.

We'll, I think we'll have some time for questions at the end.

this is, so let's take a look at his theory and see what you think. I got to watch it about 5 times and I still don't understand all the terminology. So this guy's, hopefully you guys can just really, what does Milton say, gird up the loins of your minds and take some notes and I think you guys will find a lot of this very interesting. Let's take a look.

Oh, by the way, if you want to check out more about Michael Ord, you can go to his site, michaelors.netnet. There's also a really cool bio on him, on Answers in Genesis. Really neat guy. So let's take a look at this.

Was there an ice age? When you examine the surficial sediments, the sediments that are on the surface of the Earth, in presently glaciated areas, you see a number of features. Now this is the beautiful Athabasca Glacier in the Canadian Rockies that has been receding. This sign, right There's, that's where it was in 1890 and yet it has been receding and when it leaves behind, you can examine what ice does.

It leaves behind rocks of all sizes within usually sand and silt in a finer green matrix. It leaves behind in moraines. And lateral moraines, in moraines and lateral moraines are formed when the glacier pushes out material ahead of it and as it's along the side, it's called a lateral moraine when it's in the front, it's called a terminal inmoraine. Speaking of this, I can't help but make a comment on global warming.

Yes, all glaciers of the world have been receding, or mostly all, and yes, it is true there has been global warming, and I believe it is true that man has been a cause of it, but I believe that nature is part of it too, because between 1350 and 1850 we had the little ice age where all the glaciers in the world advanced. Now we're in the opposite fluctuation where they're receding, so I think this is probably due to the effects of the sunshine and less volcanic ash in the stratosphere of why we're getting some of the global warming.

There's a beautiful in Marine, very sharp looking, made not too long ago, probably made about 1890. Another feature you observe around glaciated areas is scratched bedrock.

As the glacier moves over bedrock, it has rocks on the bottom of it, and those rocks on the bottom scratch the bedrock. So it's typical to see striated bedrock or pavement as they call this. Also, some of the rocks themselves get scratched, and a lot of times they get scratched in different directions. Here's one set going that way and there's another set going this way.

Like this, and it's probably because the rock turned a little bit in the ice. The ice is more plastic and malleable, so that's probably why you have striations in different directions on rocks. So those are some of the features we see in currently glaciated areas. So let's extend those to features where it's claimed to have been glaciated.

Here's one area where I live, used to live west of Great Falls, Montana, near Augusta, Montana. This is the Rocky Mountain front. The Rocky Mountains were glaciated during the ice age, and the ice came about 10 miles out on the high plain and formed this in moraine just typically is what you see at the Athabasca Glacier. I've taken a picture of this from.

This part of the in moraine right here, it was breached right in here, probably when the glacier melted. It breached through the in moraine right here. So that's why there's a gap there. When you look at the material in the in moraine, it's very similar to glaciers you see today.

It's rocks of all sizes in a finer grain matrix surrounding the rocks, typically they call that glacial till. Also, as you go when you go up into the Rocky Mountains, you see scratched bedrock going east. In fact, there's an 800 ft cliff right along here. The glacier came up out of this valley, scratched the bedrock, and went down over an 800 ft cliff.

Also you'll find in the In the moraine that I showed you previously, you find rocks that are scratched in several different directions, typical of what you see in glaciated areas, and this is in an area that gets up in the 80s for high temperatures in the summertime. Also, as you tour around the west, you see that out of some of the mountain valleys of the western US you see moraines just like you see at Athabasca Glacier. This is probably one of the best moraines that I, I've ever seen before.

This is the horseshoe shaped lateral and end moraines around a beautiful Waawa Lake in northeast Oregon.

It it moved out onto the Enterprise plain in northeast Oregon. About 4000 ft altitude where it gets a high temperature of 90 as the average in July. There's a lateral moraine, in moraine, and lateral moraine. They're fairly sharp looking, indicating that the ice age ended not that long ago.

Furthermore, a feature like this could not form during the flood. This feature has to form by other mechanisms and it's on top of flood sediments, so the ice age occurred after the flood. And here's this another picture of that lateral moraine. You can see the trees for scale.

This lateral moraine is 600 ft tall. And here's what you see within the lateral moraine glacial till rocks of all sizes and a finer grain matrix, and you see these around the Sierra Mountains and other Wind River Mountains of the western United States. Also you see these erratic boulders here and there. Most of them I see are sub-rounded or rounded.

I think that a lot of erratics were were transported by water. This one is very angular. This is the famous Okatoke erratic southwest of Calgary, Alberta. This forms a line of erratics from Jasper, Alberta down into northern Montana.

It's a line and very angular, which means they didn't roll down there. Probably they, they were deposited by icebergs as ice was melting. Here's a, here's another famous erratic called the Bellevue erratic. Now this erratic is, now erratic boulder is, is a boulder that rock that doesn't outcrop in the local area.

It's been transported somehow. That's what they mean by an erratic boulder or exotic boulder is another name. This one is found southwest of Portland, Oregon in the Willamette Valley. It's composed of argillite, which is a slightly metamorphosed shale, and the nearest outcrop of that is in northern Idaho.

And it's well south of the ice where the, the boundary of the ice, by the way. How did it get down there? And it's very angular. The only way you can think about it is, is in an iceberg.

And how would an iceberg take it down there? Well, when Glacier Lake Missoula broke, it spread through eastern Washington, through the Columbia Gorge and spread over Portland, Oregon, 400 ft deep and up into the Willamette Valley. So if there was a glacial Lake Missoula and a Lake Missoula flood, there had to be a thick ice dam in northern Idaho to block up the water in the Clark Fork Valley, indicating again that the ice age was a real event. So when you sum it all up, this is the big picture right here.

Ice covered practically all of Canada. Just a little bit in the Yukon Territory was unglaciated. And came down to the northern United States to around they claimed northern Missouri and I'm not quite sure of that. I'm that's a subject of research but it got pretty far south of the Great Lakes.

And it covered some of the mountain areas as ice caps, but interestingly enough, in Alaska, the Brooks Range in the Alaska Range, they were glaciated, but the lowlands of Alaska were not glaciated, and that's where you find all those wooly mammoths, bisons, and horses and lots of animals in ice age permafrost in those areas. When you go to Europe and Asia, this is a general feature where the ice was. It covered much of England and In northern Germany and Poland and clear out in northwest Siberia.

Now there's a little question on the boundary right in here, and some people think that the ice covered the Barents Sea north of Norway there.

So there's still some controversy over the exact distribution of the ice. But when you add it all up, ice covered 30% of the continental areas. The closest ice to this area would have been up in Pennsylvania. Can you explain it?

Well, I believe we can. First of all, we can tell from the clues that it's post flood. It's on the surface of flood sediments, and we definitely don't have it today in the present climate. The ice sheets in Canada are gone, so it must have happened in a transitional climate from the flood to the present climate.

Well, that means the flood could have caused the ice age. Well, indeed, I believe that is the case. So let's see how the Genesis flood fulfills the requirements for an ice age. Well, the flood was a giant volcanic tectonic event.

Tectonic is crustal earth movements. But at the end of the flood you have a huge shroud of volcanic dust and aerosols. Aerosols are fine particles about a micron in diameter. They would be floating on the stratosphere.

What they do, what we know from modern volcanic eruptions, They cause cooler temperatures, especially in summer and over the large land masses. So after the flood you'd have so much volcanic ash and aerosols that you'd cause a pretty good cooling right off the bat. Also, the fountains of the great deep and volcanism cause a warm ocean. There's lots of ways to cause a warm ocean in any flood model, but the fountains of the great deep imply that there is water trapped in the crust, and it came up, and at the end of the flood, that warm water coming from the crust would have been added to the current oceans, resulting in a warm ocean.

From top to bottom and pole to pole, you could probably swim in the Arctic Ocean right after the flood. It was so warm. There'd be no sea ice. Anyway, the significance of the warm water is that the warmer the water, the more the evaporation.

In fact, at 86 °F, you would have 7 times the amount of evaporation of water than at 0 °C or 32 °F, a huge amount of evaporation with warmer water. Also, the mechanism is going to persist, but it's going to wane with time as the volcanic ash settles out and the earth settles down to equilibrium and the oceans cool, particularly if the ocean's cooling is the key for the waning of the ice age. Here's a schematic of how this would work. The volcanic dust and aerosols will reflect some of the sunlight back to space, cooling the surface of the Earth, mainly the land masses at mid in high latitudes.

Now volcanic ash and aerosols filter out of the atmosphere, sink out of the atmosphere in about 1 to 3 years, so you have to keep replenishing the stratosphere after the flood, and indeed there's a tremendous amount of ice age volcanism in ice age sediments indicating we had tremendous volcanism for quite a while after the flood. Now they notice, they know that uniformitarians noticed that they know volcanism causes cooling, but when they stretch out the ice age in the 2 million year period.

It's nothing But when we telescope it into a short time scale, it becomes very, very significant. Now with basic meteorology, you can guesstimate, that's meteorological jargon, the storm tracks during the ice age.

Storm tracks would be in areas where you have strong horizontal temperature differences, and where would they be? They would generally be between the cold, cool land and the warm ocean, so you'd have a storm track parallel with the east coast. Also, another storm track would be. Cold ice ice sheet and a little bit warmer land here, so you'd have a storm track just south of the ice sheet and storms would generally follow these.

Now these are general storm tracks in meteorology, chaos usually rules, so. Mhm. These are just, these are just general, and most of the time precipitation in wintertime storms falls on the north side of the storm. So it falls right in there where the ice was building up in this schematic this is where the ice is still building up.

Also, you can figure out where the main evaporation areas are, generally with west-east flow. You have fairly drier, cooler air from the continent going out over the warmer ocean that produces strong evaporation on the east coast of continents and of course in Arctic Ocean close to the land you'd have strong evaporation. Those are close to the areas at the mid and high latitudes where you want it to evaporate. It's close to where the building ice sheets developed in Canada and the northern United States and of course Scandinavia.

Now I'm going to go on to support for the model. There's lots of evidence for wet deserts, and I'm going to show you a few diagrams and a picture coming up, but the evidence shows that the dry areas about 30 degrees north, like the southwest United States, the Dead Sea area, Australia, lots of places were once much wetter. Here's a plot of the what's called pluvial lakes in the southwest United States, right in this area. Now, this is just in the Great Basin.

There are lakes down in here. Death Valley had a lake about 600 ft deep. This is Lake Bonneville, which is a Great Salt Lake, about 6 to 8 times as large, 800 ft deep, deeper. By the way, the average depth of Great Salt Lake today is only 15 ft deep.

It was 800 ft deeper during the ice age. Now uniformitarians, how are they going to get a climate change to fill these things up in those areas? It is very difficult, but like I said, in our model, we fill them up first as the flood drains off. It'll fill up pockets or basins.

In the land at the end of the flood. By the way, if you've ever been to these areas, there's beautiful large shoreline features along this Lake Bonneville here, shorelines and high deltas. If you land at Salt Lake Airport, look out the window along the foothills, and you see the shorelines. There's two distinct shorelines.

In fact, I found shorelines around this. This lake is called Lake Lahontan. it's today you just have a few shriveled remnants of that lake. These lakes right here, they get up to almost 100 degrees now in the summer.

I've. Taking pictures around there, Mono Lake there, Glacier Lake Mo Mono Lake, and then Death Valley and there's shorelines around Death Valley, Quite a different climate during the ice age, a lot wetter. Now it's interesting that the Sahara Desert. It was much wetter.

The man lived in the Sierra Desert by the thousands, and he has all kinds of rock art. This is a picture of a giraffe on a rock in the Sahara Desert. And I'm going to just summarize a quote from the book The Great Sahara. The Sahara is a veritable art gallery of prehistoric paintings.

The evidence is enough to show that the Sahara was once a well populated area of the prehistoric world, yet there is man's work in the most inaccessible corners of the desert. Literally thousands of figures of tropical and aquatic animals, yes, aquatic animals, enormous herds of cattle, hunters armed with bows and boomerangs, and even domestic scenes of women and children in the circular huts in which they lived. Why would the Sihara be much wetter during the ice age? Well, because you had a huge amount of evaporation right after the flood.

The lowlands of Siberia, Alaska, and the Yukon were unglaciated, and this is a mystery. And here's a plot of. The mountains being glaciated. And the lowlands which are in yellow there are unglaciated.

By the way, most models of the ice age have extreme difficulty forming the ice age. Extreme difficulty. Now some will produce it, but a lot of times it's because those models are tweaked to produce it. Anyway, Phillips and Hild said in the Journal of Climate, Siberia and Alaska, well, they said we now have glaciation.

They did produce glaciation, but unfortunately it was outside the areas where it existed during the last ice age, and that included the lowlands of Alaska, Siberia, and the Yukon. In other words, those lowlands like to glaciate. Why weren't they glaciated in our model? It's because of all the warm onshore flow.

Mainly it was the onshore flow that kept it ice free. Now the wooly mammoths in Siberia. What were millions of mammoths doing in Siberia where they couldn't live today, mainly because it's boggy they can't get around and the bog vegetation is toxic to them because they ate grass. Not only were the wooly mammoths in Siberia, you had wooly rhinoceros, horse, bison, a lot of different animals that lived in Siberia during the ice age.

So what's going on? Why, why these sorts of things? Well, First of all, you've got to determine whether the mammoths died during the flood or during the ice age. I think from what I've seen studied, it's overwhelmingly they died at the end of the ice age.

One of the main evidences in northwest Siberia you find wooly mammoth skeletons on top of glacial till, which means that as the glaciers receded from northwest Siberia, the mammoths came up in that area and then they died on top, so they died at the end of the ice age. That's the distribution right there all across the northern hemisphere. In fact, you don't find them in areas where the ice lasted the longest, which is much of Canada and northern and central Scandinavia, which is what you'd expect during an ice age.

And during the ice age they would be able to migrate over a Bering land bridge.

Now as the snow piles on land. It evaporates from the ocean of the original water and the sea level drops and the Bering Land Bridge is very shallow, so man and animals could easily migrate into the United States and down through an ice-free corridor. They came down here and spread through into the southern United States, Central and South America. Now a good indication that the climate was quite different during the ice age is the distribution of the saga antelope.

The solid line there represents the current distribution of the saga antelope, and the dash line is the historical. Their range is shrinking, but those dots represent ice age distributions. You can see them up in northern Siberia. What's so significant about that?

Well, the saga antelope has thin hooves. And it likes wide open spaces, plains, and can't negotiate permafrost and swamps very well, indicating that this area was totally different ecologically during the ice age than it is there today. During the summers it's quite a swamp land because of the melting of permafrost. Permafrost melts that much and it has nowhere to go, and so it ponds and then you get all these plants growing in there and it becomes a bogland.

And it's hardly any animals can live there today in those areas. This is indication that we very likely had no permafrost during the ice age. Now the uniformitarians, I think, have not really faced this problem because they grudgingly might say, well, maybe it was a little warmer climate, but some say, hey, it was during the ice age. It had to be a lot colder in Siberia, and they say, oh, that would solve the problem with those bogs.

It freeze the bogs. Well, if it freezes the bogs, what are they going to eat? And here's the wooly mammoth timeline whether you start with two elephants that leave the ark at the end of the ice age or 2 wooly mammoths, I believe it was 2 elephants, and the mastodons and mammoths are part of the elephant kind, but regardless, they're going to grow slowly. They grow slowly and then finally their population is going to mushroom by geometric progression.

Yes, you have plenty of time for millions of mammoths in a 700 year ice age. Finally, towards the end of the ice age, the climate changes. It's a dynamic climate. It becomes colder, drier, and windy, and they go extinct.

At the end of the ice age. This is the famous Berissavaca mammoth that was towed out of northeast Siberia, and that's generally the position they found them. It's in the St. Petersburg Museum in St.

Petersburg, and it had a broken foreleg, and broken ribs, broken pelvis, and it was in a general standing position. The question is that really plagues most people is how did these animals die. Well, I believe the solution is found in the deposits surrounding the mammoths. Let's take a look at what they're buried in.

Are they buried in bog with bog material, river material? Some are those, I think, but the mass majority of them are in wind blown silt. This is a recent quote. From a book called Mammoths and the Mammoth Fauna, a particular interest for paleozoologists is what's called the Odama.

The Odamas are hills of perma that are formed after permafrost melts around it and then leaves some permafrost as hills. This is actually a lus layer that is wind blown silt as a rule containing the largest amounts of remains of late Pleistocene animals. They're buried in wind blown silt. So what's the picture here?

Well, I believe they died in in large dust storms, like. What happens in the Dust Bowl era. This is a picture from the Dust Bowl era that if you were in a dust storm, you would see just a cloud of this dust coming and the visibility would go down to zero. There might not be any wind right before it.

It'd be like with a cold front. Sometimes there's no wind ahead of a cold front. Suddenly the winds just really pick up and the visibility drops to zero. And dust strips.

Talk about dust strips. During the Dust Bowl eras, dust strips covered up fences, machinery. This one is up to the top of a house. And by the way, I believe that the amount of wind blown silt in those areas of Siberia in some places is over 100 ft thick.

So I believe you had worse dust storms up there in Siberia than you did in the Dust Bowl era. They might ask, well, why are we going to have ice age dust storms? Well, because of colder winters. Colder oceans, which means more sea ice, which also means a drier atmosphere, and stronger north-south temperature differences, all resulting in a lot stronger winds and dry cold fronts, a lot drier cold fronts.

So here's the big picture wooly mammoths peacefully eating grass and buttercups, yes, buttercups. The reason we have those is because They were in his mouth and in its stomach, half decayed. The digestion of a wooly mammoth doesn't occur in the stomach. It occurs in after the stomach, by the way, I think that's a key to why the vegetation is only half decayed.

But anyway, the winds come up. oh, he's going to ride it out. Guess what? He ends up like a snow fence, and what happens to snow fences?

The snow piles up around it. The dust would pile up. He's starting to suffocate. And he's in a standing position.

He tries to get out and he breaks his right leg bone because it appears that he was alive when that front leg broke. And by the way, there's an analog for this in Hot Springs, South Dakota where some of the mammoths that fell into that sinkhole, they excavated 52 mammoths in Hot Springs, South Dakota in a sinkhole. Some of them have broken 4 limbs also that the researcher thinks it was because they're trying to get out of the mud. In this case, the dust packing up would be almost like concrete.

Finally, other dust storms totally cover him up, and he ends up in a standing position in the dust. And the, how do you get them into the permafrost? This has always been a major question. One person said, Do you jam them into the permafrost?

No, the permafrost in this case will come up to meet them. And by the way, permafrost also shifts and faults once you get it up there, and the faulting can break the pelvis of the Beresavaca mammoth and its ribs. So in a nutshell, that's the story of how I believe they went extinct. Also something called disharmonious associations.

They find as a rule you have animals that love the heat and love the cold that were buried in ice age deposits together. In the book Quarteria Extinctions of Prehistoric Revolution, it said the late Pleistocene communities, that's Ice Age communities, were characterized by the coexistence of species that today are allopatric, translated, not climatically associated, and presumably ecologically incompatible. Disharmonious associations have been documented for late Pleistocene Ice Age floras, that's your plants, terrestrial invertebrates, lower.

birds and mammals.

In fact, it was common and that's exactly what you expect because this distribution would occur with cool summers and mild winters. Well, in the uniformitarian model you have cold winters, period. You shouldn't expect that. One of the most outrageous instances is in England where you have 100 associations of hippos with musk ox and reindeer in the same stratigraphic layer.

How do hippos get up there during the ice age? Well, because I believe Britain was warm with a lot of warm onshore flow for quite a while and very wet, very heavy precipitation, so the hippo, after the flood and leaving the ark, would find it congenial up in there. And finally, as the temperatures cooled off, he found himself in the wrong environment and he was being populated by reindeer and musk ox and wooly mammoths, and finally they all died. And we were buried in in what it says here in this quote in stratigraphic context that seemed to indicate contemporary, in other words, they died at the same time.

Also, they found out that when things are supposed to get better at the end of the ice age, it was warming up, the ice was melting. Suddenly all these large animals disappeared on whole continents or went extinct all over the world. And ice age extinctions, 100 species of large animals in North America, 70% died at the end of the ice age, including the horse and the camel. Europe and Asia lost 75% at the end of the ice age.

Australia lost 90% at the end of the ice age. Why? Well, I think it's the same reason they were lost in Siberia. It was colder, drier, and windier.

I think the dust storms, which there's lots of evidence, was a prime factor in the extinctions at the end of the ice age. Here's a quote from a recent book. After many decades of debate, the North American Pleistocene megafauna mass extinction remains a lightning rod of controversy. The extraordinary divergent opinions expressed in this volume show that no resolution is in sight.

I would say it can readily be explained in the post-flood ice age model. All right. The first time I saw that video, I said, praise the Lord for Very smart geeks. But one of the things that you pick up or that I pick up from Michael Ord is there is not a uniformity in secular, the secular approach to the ice age.

There's actually several different theories, and then there's all kinds of sub-theories. He didn't really go into it in this video, but there's, there's a lot of mysteries about the ice age to where, There's just even though we get this uniformed approach in our public school textbooks and maybe in the movies for kids, there's a lot of debate and it's, there's just not a uniform approach. There's several different theories, and then Michael Ord is giving one theory from creation scientists.

So it's not like Michael Ord's theory is the only theory out there that's being offered by creationists, but it's something that That he's laying out and has been very persuasive to many.

And it is the dominant theory that is presented in the Answers Bible curriculum. If you go take a look at Answers in Genesis, they'll talk about several different theories, but they, they feel more persuaded by Michael Ord's theory than some of the other ones. but one of the things that you'll see in all of the literature is everybody says, it doesn't matter which theory you're looking at. Everybody says there's problems in every theory.

The ice age is an amazing mystery. There's just things about it that people do not understand, like why in the world do we not get glaciation up there in lowlands in Alaska? why is it that we have all these animals from cold and warm climates all gathered together and dying in the same beds with the, I can't even remember the word, contemporary entity. Meaning they all died at the same time.

And so on The one thing that I want to end with is just this idea and, and we've seen this. I think we, we see this in the history of the church is, when we start with the Bible and we say as much as the Bible says and don't go beyond, so don't try to affirm something the Bible doesn't affirm, but let's try to affirm all that the Bible does affirm. then when we look out through our Bible glasses and say, can we make a rational explanation for things in the world, that by and large as the evidence comes in, that's what we're seeing.

now, is there evidence out there that are there things that we just still don't know, obviously.

we have to be careful about this whole, I'll, I'll, I'll try to see if I keep telling you guys I'm gonna send you this article by, an archaeologist that talks about the very, very small percentage of things that we've discovered in the past through archaeology and therefore how ridiculous it is to say that something could not have happened because we haven't discovered it in archaeology. That's like saying we can't say there's hay because we haven't discovered the needle yet.

I don't know if that analogy works. I'll go back and think of a better analogy.

But we're, OK, we're at time. Is there any, any questions that you guys have? Yeah, Luwan? No.

Luwan, OK. Because in and in a way covenant. Good. One of the things God said was to go ahead and spread.

Yeah Yep, so my question is, could it be a possibility. The ice age happened The Tower of Babel OK, so Lawan's question is, is, is it possible that the ice age happened between the flood and the Tower of Babel because God had commanded human beings to spread. I'll have to go back and look at the timeline. But I, I think that the My, my default is I'll do more research on this is that the spreading or the Tower of Babel would have probably have had to have happened around the same time as the ice age, like, like, Michael was saying, the ice age covers only 30% of the continents and so in the areas that we would traditionally associate as where the ark landed and then people began to populate and didn't spread out, that would have been fairly warm climates.

But one of the things that regardless of whether you're coming at it from a biblical or secular perspective, most people argue for like this Bering Strait and some of these ice bridges in order for people to get over to North America and South America. And, and virtually all scientists argue for that type of thing and so you'd have to have something like the Bering Strait with the ocean levels low enough where people are getting across the Barren Strait to be able to get to North America and South America if that makes sense.

So that would seem to me to think that the ice age is still going on after the Tower of Babel because you have to have all these people getting to North and South America. Yeah, a couple and then we'll come to Allison, yup, Grace, I think.

No, no. Anna, that's right. Because Yeah, so the question is, is uniformitarianism the main view of evolutionists? Yes, it is.

It, it can be a little bit confusing when we talk about basically the two theories are uniformitarianism versus catastropheism. So uniformitarianism is the, the dominant view today that you take today's processes. And then you assume that everything is always decayed at the same rate and that all the processes are exactly the same, not just on Earth but all over the universe, and then you extrapolate back into the past. That's one of the ways that we get to these really, really old ages.

catastropheism is basically the argument that creation scientists make is that how do that all these processes have always occurred at the same rate as we go back in the past. Because from a biblical perspective, we know that the flood happened and so lots of stuff that could have theoretically taken a short amount of time actually happened very quickly because of this big catastrophe. and one of the examples they point to is Mount Saint Helens. When you, when you date the rocks after Mount Saint Helens, these rocks date at all kinds of periods.

But all of them are in the like thousands and hundreds of thousands and some of them are in the millions when we know for sure that they were just created. And the analogy that I, I'll use a lot of times when I'm talking to people is imagine a scientist walking above Adam and Eve 10 minutes after they were created and observing them scientifically. They would look like maybe 21 year old adults and you could look at their bones, when my child was younger, he was a little small and they would look at his bone age.

Like how old is his actual age versus his bone age.

And so you could have examined the bone age of Adam and Eve and arrived at, well, these are 21 year old adults, so they must have been here for at least 21 years and you'd be absolutely wrong because what you didn't know is that God had just created them 10 minutes ago. You just weren't there and didn't see it. You didn't have the special revelation to know that. And so if you don't factor in things like God creating immediately, if you don't factor in things like the fall which affects all of creation, the Bible tells us, if you don't factor in the flood and things like that, then yeah, you can look back into the past and do what we call historical science and come up with completely wrong conclusions.

Now, does uniformitarianism work generally speaking, if you're looking at short periods of time, I would say yes, obviously. it's because our, our time period is basically uniform, uniform, uniform that we can make predictions and Michael Ord can do meteorology for the National Weather Service because then things tend to be uniform, although there's chaos as he said. and you can make certain weather predictions, but can you always extrapolate that back into the past and creationist scientists say no.

That's, that's really the crux of the debate.

One final question and I'm gonna be in trouble. Yeah Yeah, he argues for 700 years, based upon what he would argue would be the, the decay rates looking at like say that 1890 and in his theory, how much of the aerosols are in the atmosphere, what would have, what would have happened to the aerosols, the volcanic dust and I don't understand all the, you could look at his book and see the way he calculates it all out. Yeah, he basically argues for about 700 years. It's a really good stuff.

Again, let's keep in mind when we're talking about the Bible and we're talking about like the weasel word stuff, but let's go ahead and pray. Lord, we thank you so much that when we look at your word, we see that it is authoritative and it is sufficient. We can affirm everything that your word says and when your word does not speak on something, we need not affirm it. And but we thank you, Lord, that That we are so blessed to have a Bible that comports with reality, how sad it is to think of other religions that have falsified history.

I'm thinking of like the Mormon religion and when they look out, read their Book of Mormon and they look out into the world, they see nothing. And yet when we look at your word and we look out into history and science and so on, we see confirmation and so help us to hold strongly to your word as, as we've interpreted it, if we've made the right interpretations. we pray, Father, we would hold loosely to things that are just mere speculation. Thank you for men like Michael Ord and others that are trying to help us explain, the ice age, but we just thank you for your glory, your power, your beauty.

That we see in such phenomena, we give you all the glory in Christ's name. Amen.