ice age, why hasn't there been an ice age, a better explanation is the Flood

The “Ice age: A Frozen World” program under review

The secular science program under review. The subject is the ice age

This article discusses the three-part program Ice age: A Frozen World (2023), which was shown on Finnish television. The preface of the program tells how the ice age started a long time ago and how it is believed to have affected people's lives: "More than 2.5 million years ago, our planet drifted into an ice age. The era shaped the fate of the entire planet. Large animals were plentiful, and early humans struggled to survive on a daily basis. The environment was harsh, unhealthy and challenging. Steve Backshall and Michaela Strachan step into the ancient past and reveal how the Ice Age laid the foundation for the modern world."

What did you remember from the previous program? It was a well made and interesting program, but a good question is whether the history of the earth has been as it is presented in this program. Are the views presented in the program part of real history or is it an unscientific perception and rewriting of history? This is what we will consider next.

Dinosaurs, Mammoths and Man . If anyone watches this show, right at the beginning they will come across the evolutionary view that there has been life on Earth for millions of years and that the dinosaurs became extinct 66 million years ago. The program tells:

In the beginning, when there weren't even humans, a different being ruled our planet. Everything changed 66 million years ago. An asteroid at least 10 kilometers wide collided with our planet. It was a total destruction event. Most of the big animals disappeared. Some organisms survived. Some organisms survived. The country gradually recovered. Freed from the yoke of the dinosaurs, other animals appeared. Life was small at first. When our planet froze, we drifted into an ice age. And the megafauna came back completely new.

How can the previous view of 66 million years be proven true? In no way. There are no notes in the dinosaur fossils that they became extinct 66 million years ago. This view is based on a geological table drawn up in the 19th century, and not on the fact that it could be deduced from fossils. Dinosaur fossils actually point in the exact opposite direction. When radiocarbon ( http://newgeology.us/presentation48.html ) , soft tissues, blood cells [Morell, V., Dino DNA: The Hunt and the Hype, Science 261 (5118): 160-162, 1993] , and DNA [Sarfati, J. DNA and bone cells found in dinosaur bone, J. Creation(1):10-12, 2013; creation.com/dino-dna, 11 December 2012] have been found, there is no question of millions of years. None of these substances could survive in nature for millions of years.

Furthermore, extinction times are questionable. How do we know that dinosaurs became extinct millions of years earlier than, for example, mammoths? You can't prove this either. If the fossils of both these animals are in equally good condition and equally close to the surface of the earth, there is no scientific basis to claim that they lived on earth at different times. They could very well have lived at the same time on earth, just like early humans, but only in different ecological compartments. In addition, it is worth remembering that numerous peoples have mentions of dragons that resembled dinosaurs (the term dinosaur was invented only in 1841 by Richard Owen). The following quote alludes to this, and how dinosaurs and dragons may have been the same animals:

The dragons in legends are, strangely enough, just like real animals that lived in the past. They resemble large reptiles (dinosaurs) that ruled the land long before man is supposed to have appeared. Dragons were generally regarded as bad and destructive. Each nation referred to them in their mythology. (The World Book Encyclopedia, Vol. 5, 1973, p. 265)

What caused the Ice Age? When it comes to the origin of the ice age, the program presents a theory for its origin: Changes occurred in the Earth's orbit around the sun (the Earth orbits the sun once a year) so that the orbit became more oval, when it is usually almost round.

How do we know about ice ages millions of years ago? The concept of ice ages is quite new... Only in the 19th century - the concept of a planet shaped by ice ages began to take over the field. What caused the ice ages was still a mystery. The riddle was only solved in the 1920s, when a geophysicist had a bold idea. Serbian mathematician Milutin Milanković - discovered the reason for the expansion and contraction of the ice sheet. It is related to how the Earth revolves around the Sun. Milanković concluded that every 100,000 years the Earth's orbit becomes more elliptical. The planet orbits farther from the Sun, and the ice fields expand. When the orbit becomes rounder again, the planet warms and the ice cover shrinks.

What can be said to the previous concept? The problem with this theory is that it does not change the total amount of solar radiation from the Sun to the Earth. The amount of radiation and heat remains the same on an annual basis. Some months of the year can be colder than before, but others are warmer, so this does not affect the formation of ice in any way. This theory, which has been debunked by several ice age proponents, does not explain the origin of the ice age. However, all other explanations for the origin of the ice age are equally poorly justified. They do not provide an explanation for how the temperature would have radically decreased in the entire area of the Earth. Those who believe in the ice age theory are at a loss as to what could have caused the ice age.

Was the climate cold or warm? Concerning the Ice Age, it is assumed that the climate was very cold. Only animals that are well adapted to the cold are believed to have survived the extreme conditions. This point of view is also brought up several times in this program.

However, through a few examples, the program shows that the perception of a cold climate is poorly justified. First of all, the program tells about mammoths, who needed plenty of food to live: " With these giant teeth, the matriarch ate 200 kilos of plants a day". The question is, where did the mammoth or mammoths get so much food if the ground was frozen and covered in snow. Wouldn't it be more likely that the climate was warm to provide enough food for these large animals?

Secondly, the program tells about footprints made by people (without shoes) on a coastal area that was supposed to be in the grips of the ice age "900,000 years ago". The question is how did people survive in the extreme cold without shoes. How was walking barefoot in snow and winter conditions possible? A more likely explanation for the footprints is that the climate was warm and not cold:

The story of the Ice Age is our story. In that period, humanity was born. We are in Norfolk, where in 2013 one of the more remarkable discoveries was made at this very spot. 900,000 ancient footprints in the estuary at Happisburg Beach. Eerie visions of Ice Age people. We find out how our species survived one of the harshest climatic conditions in Earth's history.

One reference to the warm climate is that the show talks about warm-zone animals found in the Norfolk region of Britain. This area was supposed to be in the grips of the ice age, but among the discoveries are e.g. the spotted hyena and the hippopotamus, which today are only found in the warm regions of Africa. These findings also clearly point to a warm, not a cold, climate:

In some places you can still glimpse Ice Age in Britain. The limestone cliffs are full of caves, crevices and ravines where Ice Age skeletons have been well preserved... Cheddar Gorge is a hotbed of the Ice Age, and archaeologist Danielle Schreve reveals what has been found deep inside of the earth. Pretty amazing stuff, and it's worth remembering that these animals lived here. And they no longer live in Britain...

… The spotted hyena is the same creature that is found in Africa even today. Before, they had spread widely to Europe as well. The teeth show that they were fully developed for crushing and grinding bones. A spotted hyena would have made Ice Age Britain a dangerous place.

… Luck in the accident is deposits of geological treasures. What is your best find? A piece of hippopotamus. An African creature lived here a million years ago. It's wonderful that we had hippos. - Yes. As far as Norfolk. It wasn't just hippos here tens of thousands of years ago. One of the country's most important discoveries has been preserved in the ancient sediment . Probably the best find is the West Runton mammoth. It was discovered in the 1990s.

Human history. The program also briefly tells about assumed human evolution. The following quote tells about how man is believed to have developed in the final stage, "during the last seven million years", i.e. it is one of the basic beliefs of the theory of evolution regarding human development.

To begin to understand the progress of human evolution, I have arrived at the Natural History Museum in London. One of the world's leading paleontologists, Chris Stringit, acts as my guide to the lives of ancient people. A huge topic of human evolution. Are you summarizing it from the start? We share a common ancestor with our living relatives, chimpanzees, seven million years ago. For the next five million years, man developed in Africa. Two million years ago, the first human, Homo erectus, was born. After that, new human forms such as Neanderthals developed. About 100,000 years ago, the current Homo sapiens began to spread. So from Africa. Falling sea levels also played a role in the spread of humans to new areas.

What can be said about the previous one? It is pointless to talk about the correctness of the theory of evolution, because it has never been proven that the origin of life by itself is possible, and gradual development has never been observed in fossils either. Stephen Jay Gould and many well-known paleontologists have denied that fossils show the gradual development required by the theory of evolution. Yes, changes in organisms take place within the framework of their heredity, but that does not mean that all species originate from the same original cell. Variation and adaptation to circumstances is different from the true theory of evolution, which requires the birth of new organs. It has never been observed, and the fossils do not bear witness to it.

What about human development, which was mentioned in the program? First, the idea of humans sharing a common ancestor with chimpanzees; how is this known? From nowhere. This is a requirement of the theory of evolution, but it has never been proven with the help of fossils. Evolutionists are forced to believe this notion because otherwise they are not evolutionists, but there is no clear evidence for it. Anyone who claims otherwise is outside of real science.

Secondly, we can bring up the presumed human ancestors Homo Erectus, i.e. the so-called upright man and Neanderthal man, which were brought up in the program. Fossil scientists have determined that these two supposed human ancestors are almost identical. Homo erectus is slightly smaller than Neanderthal man, but otherwise there is not much difference between their body and skull shape. Both are also associated with cultural finds and manufactured objects, so it must have been ordinary people. In contrast, all other discoveries related to the supposed human history, such as Australopithecus, are ordinary apes. Several fossil researchers have come to this conclusion based on Australopithecus' small skull and ape-like body. Therefore, in the fossils of the human family tree, only two groups remain in the end: common apes and common humans. The latter group is represented by Homo Erectus, Neanderthal man and modern man

Were Homo Erectus and Neanderthal man more primitive than modern humans? The more information that has been accumulated, the less grounds there are for this notion. On the contrary, the image of these people has become more human-like all the time. This was also evident from the program in question, which mentioned how Neanderthal man and modern man probably interbred. Similarly, the program told how the Neanderthal man was highly developed and we would see them as ordinary people if they came against us. So if they were human in appearance and manners, why talk about anything but ordinary people? They must have been ordinary people. Next, a quote from the program:

Neanderthals must have been tough. Still, we've used the term quite disparagingly. We call them stupid or scumbags. It doesn't correspond to the truth. - It's really unfair. They were highly developed people just like us… How different did they look compared to you and me? We would see them as people. They walked upright with big brains. But in the details they were different. The body was short and wide. They had muscle power.

Ice Age or the Flood? The ice age and its existence is a fairly new idea. The program also brought up how people only started to believe in it about 200 years ago, i.e. around the same time when Darwin's theory won the field:

The concept of ice ages is quite new. So... Only in the 19th century - the concept of a planet shaped by ice ages began to take over the field.

So is the ice age real history or not? Just as life's spontaneous birth and Darwin's theory (all current forms of life originate from the same primitive cell) are weakly substantiated, so is the ice age. There is no indication in human history that our ancestors shivered with cold during the Ice Age. Instead, the Flood, where water is mentioned as the cause of destruction, is referred to hundreds of times. Here are some quotes on the subject and how, from a global perspective, similar accounts are strong evidence for the Flood:

Around 500 cultures – including indigenous peoples of Greece, China, Peru and North America – are known in the world where the legends and myths describe a compelling story of a large flood that changed the history of the tribe. In many stories, only a few people survived the flood, just like in the case of Noah. Many of the peoples considered the flood to have been caused by gods who, for one reason or another, got bored with the human kind. Perhaps the people were corrupt, like in Noah’s times and in a legend by the Native American Hopi tribe of North America, or perhaps there were too many and too noisy people, like in the Gilgamesh epic. (Kalle Taipale: Levoton maapallo, p. 78)

If the world-wide Flood was not real, some nations would have explained that frightening volcanic eruptions, large snow storms, droughts (...) have destroyed their evil ancestors. The universality of the story of the Flood is therefore one of the best pieces of evidence of its truthfulness. We could dismiss any of these tales as individual legends and think it was only imagination, but together, from a global perspective, they are almost indisputable. (The Earth)

What about the "Ice age: A Frozen World" program , which is the subject of this article? It also brings up several times, directly or indirectly, how the Flood is a possible explanation for things that have been considered caused by the ice age.

First of all, the program mentions limestone rocks of marine origin and how Ice Age skeletons, i.e. fossils of dead animals, have been found in them:

What can be concluded from the above? It has long been known that limestone rocks are of marine origin, e.g. former coral reefs and hard parts of marine animals such as shells and gastropods. The limestone formations may have been created in a flood-like event. Wikipedia has written about the subject and how water is related to the creation of limestone: " Limestone (CaCO ₃ ) is a stratified type of rock that is created by the precipitation of calcium carbonate in water... Limestone is one of the most common types of rock on our planet... In limestone areas there may be caves that were created when weakly acidic rainwater has dissolved calcium carbonate of limestone. There are stalactites in the caves.”

Secondly, the program mentions fossils, e.g. the large mammoth, which took five years to dig out, meaning the fossil was surrounded by petrified earth layers.

Why and how are fossils created? They are only created when an animal or plant is quickly buried under the mud. Otherwise, fossils are not created because they rot very quickly under normal conditions or other animals eat their carcasses. Only in a disaster like a flood can fossils of large animals such as mammoths and dinosaurs be born, but not under normal natural conditions. The program also says that the mammoth fossil was born because it is supposed to have gotten stuck in the mud. It took five years to extricate it from the petrified rock. Extracting most dinosaur fossils from petrified rock is an equally demanding process (Evolutionists should ask themselves why fossils of large animals such as mammoths and dinosaurs are usually found inside hard rock. How did they get there? The only alternative is a flood-like event where mud covered the animals and then petrified as a rock around the animals):

Britain is a treasure trove from the Ice Age. Most of them are found on the Norfolk coast, where the largest species of mammoth has been excavated. What is this "coast of history" all about? It has become the world's leading ice age coasts. I will be joined by Norfolk Museum Curator David Waterhouse. For him, the answer lies in unique rocks. This part of the Norfolk coast is a hive of discovery. Why are fossils found here? It's mostly about luck. These rocks are very soft. This is not rock. - But Ice Age sediments?

… One of the most important discoveries of the country has been preserved in the ancient sediment . Probably the best find is the West Runton mammoth. It was discovered in the 1990s. Britain's largest and oldest mammoth was found here. It was found by amateurs who were exploring the beach. How did they do it? Christmas storms had eroded away some of the sediment. A huge mammoth hip bone was found there. Twice the size of today's elephant... Unearthing a mammoth was too much for hobbyist archaeologists. It was so big that it took five years to dig out…. Although the mammoth was fully adapted to its environment, its life was tragically cut short. How did this animal die?- Its story is quite sad. It was an adult male. You can tell from the hips and huge canines. It was 39-40 years old. But its right kneecap is dislocated. It got stuck in the mud. That's how it died. That's why we have the whole skeleton. Elsewhere, only pieces of mammoths can be found.

A third example from the same TV show. It mentions a cave discovery where the remains of a hyena, a wolf, herbivores such as a horse, a woolly rhinoceros and even a mammoth have been found in the same cave. Usually, the animals in question don't even live in caves, but the program brings up the possibility that the flood water has brought the animals into the cave. This view is certainly true if the Flood was the cause of the destruction:

The Ice Age treasures are estimated to be 45,000 years old. Among the finds are the jawbone of a baby hyena, the entire skeleton of a lone wolf, bones of herbivores such as a horse, and even a young mammoth. There are big herbivores in front of you. There are the remains of a woolly rhinoceros... Could this have just been a place where they lived? Rhinos don't naturally live in caves... This well-preserved skeleton reminds me of another theory. I have seen caves to where animals have been washed by floodwater. Could these have come with the flood current? There is evidence that disasters have collected animal carcasses together. Whole herds have been washed away with the flash flood… I can't fathom what this massive mammoth was doing there. Why did this majestic creature walk alone into the cave and never come out again?

Fourth example from the same program. It refers to how the so-called The Doggerland region was submerged. It's an area that runs from Britain to Denmark and is now the seabed, but the program refers to a sudden tsunami that may have been the Flood. As a result, the country's conditions may have changed permanently anyway. Some mountains have risen and some areas have gone under water. What in geology is seen as processes of millions of years, such as the creation of land deposits, may have happened in a short time through disasters, especially floods. Today, more and more atheist scientists have come to the position that catastrophes explain natural formations better than slow geological processes. Although they may believe in several large-scale catastrophes instead of the Flood, they believe in any case that catastrophes were possible and probable:

Doggerland was completely submerged. How long ago?- Like 8,000 years. That was the end of Doggerland. It was dry land and now we know it is sea. Did it happen gradually or all at once? Based on the sample, gradually, but other North Sea samples show the Storegga tsunami. Rising sea water made human survival more difficult. Those who remained in Doggerland could not have known how shaky the situation was. What the heck is the Storegga tsunami? Storegga is off the coast of Norway. 8,200 years ago, a fierce tsunami passed through the North Sea. The Storegga tsunami was caused by an underwater landslide that displaced an estimated 3,500 cubic kilometres of sediment. The amount would cover New York City under a 180-meter layer of soil. This landslide caused a major tsunami with a 7.5-metre tsunami drowning Doggerland. This massive flood shaped the British coast to what it is today... The sea level rose 9 metres higher than today. The face of the planet changed permanently.

What can be concluded from the above? The best conclusion is that the Flood is real history, but the evidence for an extensive ice age is weak. Atheist scientists are certainly sincere in their research, but the atheist education they received in school leads them to make false interpretations of the history of the earth. I especially consider the spontaneous generation of life, the theory of evolution (adaptation to conditions and normal variation are facts, but the actual theory of evolution, i.e. the idea that all species are inherited from the same primordial cell, has not been proven), millions of years, and the ice age theory, the evidence of which is weak, to be false ideas. It is much more reasonable to believe in God's work of creation and that the flood is the best explanation for several layers of nature, the creation of which is thought to have taken millions of years. Most of them may have been born in connection with this disaster.

Addition. I also happened to see another Ice Age-themed program called The European Ice Age (Production: Doclights / NDR Naturfilm / Arte, Germany 2022). What did I remember about this program?

Perhaps the most interesting thing was the indirect references to a flood-like event of immense force, which the following quotes from this program are related to. The program tells about erosion caused by violent floods and large-scale events.

I have watched some similar nature programs and they repeatedly refer to the destruction caused by the waters. However, due to their worldview and school education, the creators of the programs and scientists do not know how to connect this to the Flood. They know and admit that water has been the cause of destruction, but they have to come up with other explanations for nature's large formations.

A similar rewriting of history occurs repeatedly when atheist scientists try to explain the origin of the universe, the solar system, the earth, and life. All theories based on a naturalistic worldview in these areas are at a dead end, yet scientists are still only looking for an explanation that ignores the actual history of the Bible (God created the galaxies, stars, solar system, earth, and life, and that the Flood is a historical event). This is due to nothing more than a spiritual blindness that prevents the creators of the programs and scientists from noticing the obvious facts.

Anyway, here are a couple of quotes from this other Ice Age themed show that mentions water as the cause of destruction:

We made a peculiar observation. We found huge, sediment-filled pits in the bedrock in the middle of the Strait of Dover. They could have been created only by large waterfalls. There are dozens of meters deep pools at the bottom. The pool in the picture is 90 meters deep and hundreds of meters wide. Such pools are only created by the power of really big waterfalls... The amount of water must have been really big. … It is worth thinking about how the English Channel came into being. It is usually suggested that erosion has worn away the rocks slowly and the channel has been created over time. New discoveries on the seabed reveal the real way of birth. We can see chasm-like structures, which are smooth-edged grooves in the bedrock. They have many features that belie erosion caused by violent floods. The water must have flowed tens of meters per second in these canyons that we see it carved into the bottom of the channel. The event has been dramatic. …

A huge underwater landslide occurred in the Norwegian Sea. Its size is hard to imagine. 3,000 cubic kilometers of land collapsed. If the same amount of sediment were spread over Britain, the whole country would be covered by a ten meter high layer of sand. This landslide was massive and created a tsunami that wreaked havoc in the North Atlantic and North Sea region.