Main page | Jari's writings

Has there been an ice age?



Ice age or ice ages. Read how there is no sensible theory for the origin of ice ages, and how signs in nature refer to the Flood, not ice ages



In the following chapters, we are going to study the Ice Age; it is not a very old concept. It was not thought of in the 1700s, just like the theory of evolution was not widely known then either. This theory gained ground in the 1840s when two researchers, Charpentier and Agassiz, tried to explain the forms of the Alps by the theory and later expanded it to apply to the whole of Northern Europe. It is surprising that this theory came to light almost at the same time as Darwin's idea of the origin of species. Both of these theories gained simultaneous attention in the society of that time.

   It has been thought that there have been several Ice Ages on the Earth. It has even been said that tropical and hot areas like the Sahara, Africa, Saudi Arabia, Yemen, Australia, India, Madagascar, and South America (as presented in the books Jääkausi (Ice Age) / Björn Kurten and Muuttuva maa / Pentti Eskola, for example) were covered with a large continental glacier tens of millions of years ago. The latest Ice Age is assumed to have started "just" about 500,000 years ago and ended 10,000 years ago. The ice sheets are believed to have covered at their widest 55 million square meters, and the thickness of the ice was at most over 3 kilometers (about 1.8 miles).

    What should we think about the Ice Age? Have we any reason to believe in it? Maybe the signs that have been interpreted as signs of an Ice Age were caused by something else? We will now study the mystery of the Ice Age.



1. What causes an ice age?
2. The evidence points to a warm climate, not a cold one
3. An ice age or the Flood?


1. What causes an ice age?


The beginning of an Ice Age is simple in principle: a sudden fall in global temperatures and a significant increase in rainfall are required.

   It has been thought that the world experienced climate changes in the past, and there was a fall in global temperatures that lasted for hundreds or thousands of years during which the temperature decreased by about 4 to 6 degrees Celsius. (A book on the development of the Finnish Nature, Suomen Luonnon Kehitys by Matti Sauramo, p. 19, says that in Western Europe that is nowadays warmer than Scandinavia, the temperature was about 8 degrees Celsius lower than now.) It has also been thought that an ice age must be accompanied by heavier rainfall.

   However, both of these ideas present some major problems. Let’s have a look at them:


Decrease in global temperatures. If we assume that global temperatures decreased by four to six degrees Celsius then we must consider that such a decrease would not help very much in creating an Ice Age because the temperatures required are at least 15 to 20 degrees lower. Even if the temperatures during the hot summer season – with temperatures of 30 degrees Celsius – were reduced by 20 degrees, the remaining 10 degrees would be enough to melt away winter’s accumulation of snow within a couple of weeks. (In Helsinki, Finland, the mean temperature in July is 17 degrees Celsius and in June and August more than 15 degrees, but it does not mean that it would always be the same steady temperature. On some days, the temperatures can rise to 25 or 30 degrees Celsius.)

   Therefore, a much more important factor in the creation of an Ice Age is cooler summers, not colder winters. The summers should constantly be so cool that the snow would not have time to melt. If this prerequisite is not fulfilled, no ice age can begin.


Significant increase in rainfall. The second prerequisite for the beginning of an ice Age is a significant increase in rainfall. There should be much more rain than now. A mere decrease in temperature cannot cause an Ice Age; enough rain is also required.

   If we look at this, we will find some problems. One thing is that if the temperatures decreased, they would have radically reduced the rainfall. Consider these two factors:


 - Firstly, the colder climate would have caused both evaporation and rainfall to be reduced. It has been estimated that a drop of 12 degrees Celsius in the temperature would reduce the humidity in the air to half, also decreasing the rainfall. Colder air would not have promoted an increase in rainfall; on the contrary, it would have prevented it.


 - The effect of a colder climate would have resulted in an expansion of the ice on the sea (lakes, brooks, and rivers would have mainly been covered with ice, and water would not have flowed into the sea or evaporated into the air). The expansion of the ice cover on the oceans would have reduced evaporation and therefore rain, because there would have been a reduced amount of free water from which water could have evaporated. This decreased rainfall would thus have made it very difficult for an Ice Age to begin, and it is also difficult to imagine how even the current levels of rainfall would have been possible. On the contrary, the amount of rainfall should have been radically reduced.


Various theories. Even though the beginning of an Ice Age seems to be impossible in itself, there have been theories of what could have caused it. Four main theories have been presented:


1. Change in the axis of the Earth: a sudden movement of the axis of the Earth to another position.


2. Movement of continental platforms. According to this theory, the movement of continental platforms could have moved large areas to the Arctic zones.


3. A theory which is based on the changes of the Earth's orbit, according to which changes in the division (but not the total amount) of solar radiation to the Earth would have caused small changes in temperatures.


4. One alternative theory is based on changes in solar radiation or changes in the atmosphere due to volcanic dust and gases so that radiation could not have properly entered the surface of the Earth.


1. A change in the axis of the Earth. One theory for the beginning of an ice age is that the axis of the Earth suddenly moves to another position.

   However, the problem with this theory is that it does not explain the decrease of temperatures during the Ice Age all around the world, not only in certain areas.

   (The books Jääkausi (Ice Age)" by Björn Kurten and Maanpinnan muodot ja niiden synty by Iivari Leiviskä and also other books show us that the continents in the southern hemisphere, such as Patagonia in South America, New Zealand and also the islands in the Pacific Ocean experienced a cold period and had glaciers the same time as North America, Siberia and Europe.) 

   It is believed that during the so-called Ice Age, the whole globe – including the southern hemisphere – was colder than usual, not only a few areas. If the axis were to move, it would cause cold temperatures in only certain areas while the other areas would be warmer than before.

   Björn Kurten has described this in his book Jääkausi (Ice Age). He says that a change in the axis of the Earth cannot explain the simultaneous cold temperatures on the whole globe. A mere change in the axis and poles could not have caused the cold temperatures in all of the areas simultaneously:


In popular writings, we can find a theory about how the axis of the Earth suddenly moved to another position, meaning that the North Pole was in Siberia (or any other place that is needed to explain the formation of continental glaciers). This would have then started an Ice Age in Siberia. Unfortunately, if this was the case, the United States would have changed into a tropical area, and geological findings indicate that North America and Eurasia were simultaneously covered with a continental glacier (and in addition to this, ice fields appeared at the same time both in the Northern and Southern Hemisphere). So, in this context the shifting of the poles as a theory is meaningless. Research on pole magnetism indicates that it is true that the poles have changed place, but the movement has been extremely slow, and it is quite apparent that the North Pole has been in the basin of the Arctic Ocean at least since the earlier Tertiary period.


2. The movement of the continental platforms. Another theory explaining the Ice Age is based on the movement of the continental platforms. There are the following problems with this theory:


 - Even though the continents could move, they certainly could not just take off and wander anywhere. People have not been able to properly explain what the energy moving these continents over great distances could have been.

   Björn Kurten has described this theory in his book Jääkausi (Ice Age):


Another theory is based on the movement of the continental platforms, and according to it, the movement of the Earth's crust moved large areas towards arctic coldness. Even though the continents have moved during the geological period, there is no reason to assume that they have moved randomly somewhere. The roots of the Earth's mountain ranges are extraordinarily deep; they reach deep into the mantle. The bottom of the Earth's crust is more buckled than the upper side, and so the continents are strongly anchored into the mantle below them. If the continents move, it is because the mantle is moving, and we have already noted what a slow process this is.


 - One problem with the theory is that the continents should have moved thousands of kilometers back and forth in a couple of thousand years! This is because during the latest Ice Age (it has been assumed that it was about 500,000 to10,000 years ago) there were at least three or four warmer periods. This would mean that the continents must have wandered back and forth many times. They must have wandered from their original places and also come back, for the climate to become colder and warm up again. It is, however, questionable whether these fast changes could have really taken place. It certainly cannot be true with the latest Ice Age.


- Another problem is also that the latest Ice Age is assumed to have ended just 10,000 years ago; such a short period is not enough when we think about the movement of the continents. People generally have to admit that the latest Ice Age cannot be connected with continental movements. The continents had to have been in their current places.


3. Changes in the Earth's orbit. The third theory – as presented by M. Milankovitch – is based on changes in the Earth's orbit. According to this theory, periodic changes in the Earth’s orbit cause small changes in the distribution of radiation on the surface of the Earth.

   However, a problem with this theory is that changes in the Earth’s orbit would hardly change the yearly temperatures locally. Also, they would not decrease global temperatures. Some months might, of course, be a bit cooler but others would then be warmer. The changes would only be in proportion to the seasons, not in overall temperatures. Many claim that these changes would not have had any meaning for the beginning of an ice age.

   In his book Jääkausi (Ice Age) Björn Kurten describes the weaknesses in this theory:


However, all these factors together in no way reduce the overall amount of radiation coming from the Sun onto the Earth. They only affect the division of radiation on the Earth’s surface. Putting it simply, they can only affect a certain latitude either in the Northern or in the Southern Hemisphere; the amount of radiation in the summer would either decrease or increase and the winter would be the opposite.

   How can this affect the climate so powerfully that it leads to the creation of ice fields and interglacial periods? Many researchers deny this possibility. They think that the differences in temperatures caused by this phenomenon are very minor. On the other hand, it has been noted that even slight changes in temperature can, over time, result in big climatic changes.

   But the effect in the Southern Hemisphere should have been different, almost the opposite. However, there is clear proof that the ice cover was formed simultaneously in the Northern and Southern Hemisphere. How can this be explained with the astronomic theory?


4. Changes in solar radiation on the surface of the Earth.  Another alternative is based on the fact that some changes in the atmosphere took place because volcanic dust and gases prevented solar radiation from getting through to the Earth. There are the following problems with this idea:


 - There is no evidence that solar radiation decreased so decisively that the temperature of the Earth dropped radically. Several astronomers criticize this theory. In addition, the decrease and increase of solar radiation should have taken place several times in history, because there have supposedly been several ice ages. This makes this theory even more problematic.


- As far as atmospheric dust and gases are concerned, it is very difficult to understand how they could have frozen a large part of North America, an area of about 15 million square kilometers (surface area of Canada is 9.98 million square kilometers), a large part of Eurasia and many places having warm climates.

   Even if some kind of a dense cloud were formed it would also have had another kind of effect: it would have raised the temperatures during the nights and in the winter because it would have prevented warm air from escaping. Thus, the effect of this kind of a cloud is not always unequivocal.


- If there has been this kind of a gas and dust cloud then it is difficult to understand how such a cloud would have held its form for hundreds and thousands of years. Wouldn’t water and air circulation have affected it?


- All clouds that block radiation and that are known to astronomers have too sparse a structure to have any great effect. That is why this kind of a cloud that blocks radiation for centuries seems impossible.


Other PROBLEMS. There are also other problems that come to light when it is claimed that there was an ice age. We can mention the following:


Movement of ice. One of the effects of the Ice Age is supposedly movement of ice. It has been thought that ice moved on the surface of the Earth for distances of hundreds, even thousands of kilometers, moving in large erratic blocks of stone. (The book Maapallo Ihmeiden Planeetta, p. 192, proposes the idea that some stone blocks moved with ice for over 1,200 kilometers [745.6 miles.])

    However, we could ask how an ice cover of 3 kilometers (1.8 miles) can move. If this mass of ice were to move 1,000 kilometers (621.3 miles), would it not also have moved in rough terrain and gone uphill? On a journey of one kilometer there could be impassable hills and even more so on a journey of over 1,000 kilometers (621.3 miles). What power could have pushed ice like this even uphill? Was there really any movement of ice at all? It is against nature for ice to move up on the mountains: if and when ice moves its direction is always downwards. On a journey of over 1,000 km (621.3 miles), this kind of movement would certainly be impossible.

   Keijo Parkkonen addressed this problem in his book Sadan vuoden harha-askel (p. 20), which considers the non-existence of the ice ages:


Teachers of Ice Ages present the idea that the ice started to slide from northwest to southeast, as the markings on the rocks show. A mass of ice, which is over 3 kilometers (1.8 miles) thick, has enormous weight. The weight is distributed equally along each kilometer. To make this kind of a mass to move, some kind of a power would be needed to push it forward. Where could we find such a power that would get this mass to move through rough terrain – a mass that weighs millions of tons?

   The theory of moving ice was tested in the Antarctic by using explosives to get the ice to move. The experiment came to a sorry end because the ice did not move even one millimeter, except when it fell in pieces into the water. The movement of ice fields has often been used to explain the Ice Age theory. We can see that the movement of ice fields does not have anything to do with the Ice Age because ice never moves upwards or transports large erratic blocks.


Rising of ground. One example that is used to prove the existence of an Ice Age is the uplifting of the ground that occurs, for example, on the coast of Finland. It is said that the ground elevates because the weight of the ice is gone and the crust of the Earth can rise back to its normal levels again.

   We might question whether or not ground’s elevation is a reliable proof of an ice age. We need to ask ourselves, if there has been an ice age why has this feature been observed in areas that were never under ice? We can find several places where the ground is rising all the time even though there was never an ice cover. How can this be explained if you cannot use the ice age theory? We must look for some other reason that applies to both areas – those that were and were not under ice.

   Another cause for doubt is that the ground does not rise evenly in all areas that were supposedly under ice. Many areas are actually sinking and the sea is rising. For example, in Denmark the ground sinks about one millimeter (0.03 inch) a year. It is known that historically the sea has gained ground along the shores of the North sea, Germany, Holland, and the English Channel. The majority of the North Sea floor was originally ancient shoreline taken over by the sea. (Muuttuva maa by Pentti Eskola, p. 42). So if there really was an ice age and the rising of the ground is one of the proofs, there should not be this kind of inconsistency. Why is there?


End of Ice Age. Another problem is the end of the Ice Age and how ice melted away. If the ice was more than three kilometers (1.8 miles) thick and the temperatures decreased about 5 to 8 degrees per kilometer (mostly in the summer), should there not have been almost an everlasting coldness at these heights?

   The snowline, where there is everlasting winter, is actually quite low in many areas. The next list shows how low these snowlines are (information from Maanpinnan muodot ja niiden synty by Iivari Leiviskä, p. 206):


- In Spitzbergen 450 meters (0.2 miles)

- In Norway, Ofoten fjord 1,100 meters (0.6 miles)

- In Norway, Bergen 1,250 meters (0.7 miles)

- In the Pyrenees in Spain 2,800 - 3,000 meters (1.7 - 1.8 miles)

- In the Alps 2400 - 3,200 meters (1.5 –1.9 miles)

- In the Caucasus Mountains in the west 2,700 meters (1.6 miles) and in the east, where the climate is drier, 3,800 meters (2.3 miles)

- Around the equator, the height of the snowline is 4,700 - 4,800 meters (2.9 –3,0 miles) in Ecuador and 5,380 - 5,800 meters (3.3 - 3.6) at Mt. Kilimanjaro, Africa. Note that in the surrounding areas of Mt. Kilimanjaro, the annual average temperature is almost 30 degrees Celsius (86 F) and the day temperature is over 40 C (104 F).


The examples above show us that height plays an important role. If we only go high enough snow does not melt away at all. Also, the tendency of white snow to reflect back radiation means that it would be increasingly difficult for snow or the ice underneath it to melt away.

   The question now is that if there was an ice age, what caused the snow to melt? Consider especially the northern areas where the snowline could have been below 1,500 meters (0.9 miles) and melting would have been very difficult. (Jokamiehen Geologia , p. 94, claims that the thickness of the ice on the mainland was 2,500 - 4,500 meters (1.5–2.7 miles). It is almost as big a problem as what caused the Ice Age.


Ice age in Sahara? One hypothesis connected with ice ages is that there was an ice age in many areas that are very warm today, as noted earlier. It has been supposed that ice was present in areas such as the Sahara, Saudi Arabia, Yemen, Ethiopia, Australia, Brazil, India, Madagascar, and South America, and that an enormous continental glacier covered Africa.

   However, this is very difficult to believe because even the existence of the Ice Age has not been proven. What then could have caused these areas with a current annual average temperature of almost 30 C (86 F) to freeze?

   Perhaps one explanation for this is that the features being used as evidence of an ice age were caused by something else, such as the Flood described in the Bible and in the oral traditions of various cultures. This is a much better explanation than the ice age theory. We will look at this alternative later.



2. The evidence points to a warm climate, not a cold one


It is a rather common view that there was an Ice Age in the Earth's past. It has been said that animals and people lived in the frigid temperatures of this winter that prevailed on Earth. It has also been said that the northernmost and southernmost areas were even colder than nowadays and that there was a thick sheet of ice on their surface.

  But is this consistent with all the facts? If we look at this in the light of the next points, we find the opposite. They show that the Earth experienced a warmer, not a colder climate. This is deduced from the next observations:


- Remains of palm and fruit trees have been found in Antarctica, Greenland, Alaska, and Siberia. These simply could not have survived there under current conditions. Fossils of tropical plants and ferns have also been found in the Antarctic.


 - Coal and lignite deposits found in Canada, the Spitzbergen island area, Greenland and other cold areas show that those areas were previously covered by luxuriant vegetation.


 - Corals have been found in the Norwegian Sea, the Spitzbergen island area, and polar regions; these only live in warm seas.


 - Mollusks and corals – typical species of the Mediterranean – have been found in the North Sea.


 -Millions of fossils of animals including crocodiles, lions, antelopes, camels, sheep, cows, rhinoceroses, horses, mastodons, musk oxen, and numerous mammoths have been found in the arctic areas of Siberia and Alaska. These large animals would not have found food and water if the climate had been cold.


 - Extremely well preserved fossils of dinosaurs have been found in Alaska, 200 km (124 miles) north of the Arctic Circle. These have also been found in Greenland and Antarctica. For these cold-blooded animals to have survived, the climate must have been warm, not cold.


TIME of THE climate change. Since we can conclude from plant and animal fossils that the climate was once warm in arctic areas, the next question is how long ago did this warm period happen? Generally speaking, it is said that this warmer period occurred hundreds of thousands, or millions of years ago.

   However, there are some indications that this warm environment existed on earth only some thousands of years ago. The following points support this:


Sediment examples from the bottom of the Ross Sea. After studying sediment from the bottom of the Ross Sea in the Antarctic, it was noted that the cold phase or the "Ice Age" started in this area only about 6,000 years ago, which is much less than those hundreds of thousands years that were previously supposed. Keijo Parkkunen explained a newspaper article in his book (Sadan vuoden harha-askel, p. 24, 25):


C.H. Hapgood, a professor of history and anthropology, provides interesting information about the Antarctic in his article Changing Earth's Crust in the Sunday Evening post 10 January 1959.

   "With the help of radiocarbon dating, the scientists rechecked the end of the last Ice Age, which proved to have been only 10,000 years ago instead of the 30,000 years suggested earlier.

   This observation gave reason to doubt the basic principles of the system the geologist Charles Lyell, who lived in the 1800s, created. He presumed that geological events such as water and snowfalls, erosion and the stratification of sediments, had in the past progressed at their current speed. (…) During the late Ice Age these geological events would have greatly quickened their speed. There must have then been some factor in effect that does not exist now. Another new method of dating the age, which we call the ion method, has also greatly shocked people when it has been used to determine ages from the sediment findings from the bottom of the Ross Sea: it has appeared that during the last million years, the Antarctic has melted several times (...) After dating these drillings from the sediment, it was observed that the latest Ice Age in the Ross Sea began 6,000 years ago."

   The observation that the Ice Age of the Antarctic only began 6000 years ago is a real bomb. Finally, a researcher approached the facts directly. This statement has such an understanding of the facts that it is simply shocking. There was no ice in the Antarctic before 6,000 years ago. Fruit and palm trees have been found there, also in Greenland and Siberia. It is also suspected that there is oil and coal in the Antarctic.


Ancient maps. It can also be concluded from ancient maps that cold climate conditions have not prevailed for a very long time.  We can see this from two maps from the 1500s which were prepared by Piri Reis and Oranteus Finaeus and which are both copies of some earlier maps – maybe dating to the classical period.

   Both of these maps present the continents with their borders and are quite consistent with the modern ones especially in the north-south direction, even though the east-west direction is not so accurate. However, what is special with these old maps is that both of them show the coastline of the Antarctic as unfrozen, even though it now is almost completely covered with ice. This indicates that there was a time in the not-too-distant past when there was no ice.

   In addition, seismic measurements taken in the coastlines of the Antarctic and Greenland have been quite consistent with these maps. Both maps are consistent with the landforms that have been found under the current ice field. The conclusion is that the current ice field areas cannot be very old; they must have been formed during the last few millennia. These maps are one piece of evidence supporting this.


Practical observations. We can also see in practice that the current climate in the arctic areas is not necessarily from ancient times. Airplanes that were left in Greenland during the Second World War have been covered with ice to a depth of 40 to 100 meters (43 to107 yards) in less than 60 years. This means almost 1 to 2 meters (1 to 2 yards) per year. Also, a 17-meter antenna in the Antarctic has been covered with ice over a period of 30 years, which is quite fast.

  As far as the current levels of rainfall are concerned, they are enough to explain the formation of an ice field in quite a short time. Greenland gets around 400 mm (15.7 inch) of rainfall a year, which will be even more when it turns into snow, even if part of it were to melt. The current rainfall is enough to create an ice field in a very short time, not over the course of hundreds of thousands of years. The following article will discuss the topic further:


American Fighters Defrosted in Greenland


Aviator-journalist Dieter Herrmann of Berlin is planning to thaw five rare P-38 Lightning fighter planes from the depths of the eternal ice cover over Greenland. If everything goes as Mr. Herrmann plans, these historical war fighters will be lifted up next summer by an international expedition consisting of more than 300 people.

   The American fighters desired by the expedition have been buried in eastern Greenland near Tasiilaq since 1942. Nowadays, these planes that were lost by the Allied forces during the war are covered by almost one hundred meters of eternal snow and ice.

   (…) In practice, the expedition will be able to reach the American planes inside the glacier by thawing a 100-meter vertical shaft in the snow and ice cover.

   (…) The Americans already used the thawing method to lift one fighter up in 1992. At that time, the plane was under an ice layer 80 meters thick. Now the P-38 in question has been restored and is used in aviation shows all around the world under the name Glacier Girl. (Newspaper Etelä-Suomen Sanomat, 14 January 2007)



3. An ice age or the Flood?


It has been thought that ice ages have been a part of the Earth's history.

   However, there is also another alternative that can explain the signs of an “ice age.” This is the Flood. Below, we will compare the facts we possess about the Flood to the theories considered so far:


 - There is not a single good theory that explains the beginning of the ice ages. The theories of continental movement, radiation reduction, and others are either weak or lack practical evidence.


 - Stories about the flood. One piece of evidence supporting the Flood is ancient records from all around the world that also include descriptions of the Fall of man and the confusion of languages in Babel. On the other hand, there are no ancient records of an ice age or humans descending from apes.


 - Warm climate. Clear signs of a warm climate can be found at the time when the Ice Age and cold climate were supposed to have prevailed in the northern hemisphere. This clearly indicates that perhaps there has not been any ice age at all.


- Buried large animals, such as mammoths. This is difficult to explain in any other way than that they were buried under mud and sludge during the Flood. At least five million of these animals are buried in the ground, which shows the full extent of the catastrophe.

   If we assume that the Ice Age or some other phenomenon was the reason for the devastation of these animals then it would not explain how they could have been buried inside icy ground during the Ice Age. That cannot be possible.


 - Potholes. The formation of potholes (and ridges) has often been attributed to the melting glacial waters during the Ice Age. However, it is more probable that these peculiarities of nature are connected with the Flood. The water masses during the flood would have moved more powerfully than the quiet purling waters of the Ice Age.

   As the speed of flowing water increases, the ability of water to transport things also increases. For example, the flood in Johnstown in May 1889 is said to have been so powerful that the current moved twenty iron railway engines for almost 1 km (0.6 miles) and one of them was buried so deep that it could not be found. (p. 182, Kaikkeuden sanoma by Wiljam Aittala)


 - Ancient shorelines have been used as a sign that the water level rose as ice melted, thereby covering dry areas. There are several signs of ancient shore lines in Finland. The so-called Ancylus Lake, and the Baltic Ice Lake supposedly covered Finland and its neighbors after the Ice Age.

   However, it is more probable that these ancient shorelines are the result of the Flood. Researchers are right that water did cover these areas, but it was an effect of the Flood, not of the melting of ice lakes. This is also supported by the fact that these ancient shores and marine animal fossils are found on all the highest mountains and dry areas around the world. The Ice Age could not have done this.


 - The rising of the ground has also been used as one piece of evidence proving the Ice Age, as was mentioned above. The same theory has also been used to try and prove the formation of mountains from former sea beds, because fossils of marine animals have been found on slopes of mountains.

   As we stated, however, the rising of ground cannot be used as evidence of the Ice Age because it is not consistent around the world.

  It is difficult to believe that all the mountains were at one time ancient sea beds which later rose. This would mean that all the highest mountains rose, because fossils of marine animals can be found on all of them – the Himalayas, Andes, Alps, and so on. That all of them rose from the sea is quite an unbelievable thought. A better explanation is that the Flood as described in the Bible did, in fact, occur.

   It is possible, and it is true: if the amount of water on Earth suddenly increased, then movement of the Earth's crust and increased volcanic activity could have resulted. Great rift valleys such as the Mariana Trench, which is about 11 km (6.8 mi) deep, and extensive mountain ranges could have been created. It is difficult to explain the formation of these geological features by any commonly held human theory. Their formation can, however, have resulted from unimaginable amounts of water pouring down from the sky.

This is a good place to bring up continental drift theories. It is often times said that everything has happened slowly over millions of years, but it doesn’t have to be that way. It is interesting that the developer of the continental drift theory, Alfred Weger, is said to have originally developed his theory based on the Bible, when it tells about the Earth being divided (1. Gen 10:25 a word-for-word translation tells about the Earth being divided at a certain time. King James says: “In his days was the earth divided). As such, when the crust of the Earth has moved, it’s not necessary that it took millions of years, but a catastrophe like the Flood and the following turmoils could have set off movement rather quickly: continental movement, emergence of rift valleys and rising mountains are such phenomena. In the following extract from the largest newspaper of Finland there is a reference to, how geologists believe that continents have separated from each other during a one single rip:


The fracture point in the Great Rift Valley extends from the Great Lakes of East Africa across the Red Sea all the way to Jordan Valley, where the deepest crack of the crust, the Dead Sea, is almost 0,4 kilometers below the sea level. Nowadays, it is thought that the Horn of Africa will separate from Africa in the future. It is interesting that the rift between, what came to be South America and Africa, is regarded to have happened  rapidly during a catastrophic phenomenon, all the while the rift of the Red Sea is also regarded as a sudden phenomenon.  The bay of the Read Sea has trenches, where the water temperature is around 50 degree Celsius due to the thinness of the crust. Africa and Asia separated from each other in one fell swoop, not in a slow rift, as was previously thought. The Red Sea was created in one single rip, say geologists Goman Omar and Michael Steckler in Science magazine (Helsingin Sanomat 25/11/95)


The ridge formations of Salpauselkä. When we’re talking about Salpauselkä, we’re talking about the around 600 kilometer long ridge formations of Finland. The most common explanation for their emergence has been that the climate got colder millennia ago, when the ice sheet stopped melting and then formed piles of gravel on the edges of the ice sheet. And so the the ridges were formed, and these ridges contain approximately half of all the sand and gravel of Finland.

However, Risto Isomäki has questioned this common viewpoint in his new book Miten Salpauselät syntyivät? [How were the Salpauselät formed?] (2015). He does believe in Ice Age, but based on his research he speculates that the ridge formations of Salpauselkä were formed during a period, when the melting of the ice sheet was at its fastest, and not during a period, when the melting had stopped. He specifically suggests that water affected the formation of the ridges. He doesn’t believe in the Flood, but his remarks are in accordance with the fact that water has greatly shaped the nature:


According to the frequently cited calculation, Salpauselkä contains around half that is around 20 billion cubes or 20 cubic kilometers, of Finland’s gravel and sand. The estimates have supposedly only factored in those deposits that could be economically utilized.

The estimate instantly brings up an interesting question: why would have two 200 years lasting periods, during which the ice wasn’t melting, formed as many layered sand and gravel mounds, as a couple thousand years, when the ice sheet was melting, would have? On the contrary, shouldn’t the largest gravel and sand mounds connected to melting have formed during the fastest ice melting period and, when the flow of the meltwater rivers were the strongest? (Risto Isomäki: Miten Salpausselät syntyivät?, p. 37)


Another interesting observation that Risto Isomäki faced, relates to Greenland. It is usually explained that ice masses have carried large erratic blocks for hundreds of kilometers, but this doesn’t seem to be the case in Greenland, which still possesses a continental glacier. Rocks are on top of the ice, and inside the ice rocks are very rare. Rocks can move for sure, as in, e.g., in steep ice streams of the Alps, because the rocks have first tore away from the mountains and then ended up in the icy streams, but this hasn’t been observed in Greenland. Risto Isomäki explains further:


The surface of an old iceberg is very complex, full of caves and cavities and other formations created by the continuous melting and refreezing… The surface of those icebergs that have formed during late summer, is often brownish gray and dirty. A flipped iceberg, on the other hand, is clean and smooth. Water has melted away all the distinct features.

I have never seen a single rock in the ice of a flipped iceberg, not even a tiny piece, not to mention large erratic blocks. You cannot even see any gravel or sand on any flipped icebergs, as the ice is always crystal clear and white and sometimes blue, turquoise or translucent. According to the people of Greenland this is a clear norm, albeit anomalies do occur.

Detached ice blocks from the ice sheet, i.e. ice streams, and icebergs separated from those pouring into oceans do carry rocks, gravel and sand with them, but they are only in the bottom layer of the iceberg, never really on the surface or in the middle. There is only dead alga and smutch or dust carried by the wind on the surface of the icebergs.

Rocks on top of ice sheets are very rare. So rare, in fact, that a rock found from wide ice sheet areas is usually a meteorite.  

One of the old common assumptions about the Salpauselkä theory was that large amounts of moraine were carried on top and inside the ice sheet. To a large extent, this is how it was assumed that Saplauselkä was formed – that is from the rocks and gravel carried on top and inside the ice. In reality, ice sheets don’t work like that. (Risto Isomäki: Miten Salpausselät syntyivät?, p. 80)


What can we conclude from erratic blocks then? The most likely explanation for their shift is water. Above, we had an example of how a stream carried twenty railway engines with it for almost a kilometer. Similar activity might have taken place during the Flood, which has been far more forceful than any singular flooding.


Striations on rocks. Striations on the surface of bedrocks have been considered as one of the most important evidence for Ice Age. It is believed that they were formed, when rocks embedded in the base of glaciers scratched the bedrocks and the ground.

However, there is another way we can explain, what caused these striations, without ice. That is, when Mount St. Helens erupted in 1980 causing mud -and landslides, the bedrock was left with striations, which completely resemble the striations usually associated with the Ice Age. Thus, ice was not necessary to form these striations, because mud –and landslides were able to cause similar scratches. (Tas Walker: ST. Helensin tulivuoren opettamaa, Luominen-lehti, numero 31 [Tas Walker: What ST. Helens can teach us, Luominen magazine, number 31])

The series of catastrophes at St. Helens in 1980 was also significant in other ways. It showed us, how layers of several hundred meters were formed in a few days or weeks. For example, the 8-meter-thick sediment layer by the North Fork Toutle-river only took 3 hours to form on the 12th of June 1980.

Furthermore, this series of catastrophes also caused canyons to form, granted, they were not comparable to the Grand Canyon in size, but otherwise they were similar. These canyons didn’t require millions of years to shape, because they were formed in a few days.



More on this topic:

The Bible and history. There is tremendous evidence for biblical events and the historicity of individuals - including Jesus. Check out this evidence

The early stages of mankind. The first 11 chapters of the Bible are real history. This includes creation, the Fall, the Flood, and the mixing of languages. Read here

The Flood. There is ample evidence for the historical nature of the Flood in nature and in human tradition. Read how much evidence there is

Can we trust in Criticism of the Bible? Bible criticism and liberal theology are contemporary phenomena. However, critics have a naturalistic preconception that is not based on science and facts

"The Bible isn’t historically reliable"


Josephus' book War of the Jews and biblical history. The same people and events mentioned on the pages of the Bible also appear in other sources. Read what the historian Josephus has written


Apocrypha of the Old Testament and the history of the Bible. The same persons and events mentioned on the pages of the Bible also appear in other sources, such as the Old Testament apocryphal books. Read more here















Jesus is the way, the truth and the life





Grap to eternal life!


More on this topic:

The Bible and history. There is tremendous evidence for biblical events and the historicity of individuals - including Jesus. Check out this evidence

The early stages of mankind. The first 11 chapters of the Bible are real history. This includes creation, the Fall, the Flood, and the mixing of languages. Read here

The Flood. There is ample evidence for the historical nature of the Flood in nature and in human tradition. Read how much evidence there is

Can we trust in Criticism of the Bible? Bible criticism and liberal theology are contemporary phenomena. However, critics have a naturalistic preconception that is not based on science and facts

"The Bible isn’t historically reliable"


Josephus' book War of the Jews and biblical history. The same people and events mentioned on the pages of the Bible also appear in other sources. Read what the historian Josephus has written


Apocrypha of the Old Testament and the history of the Bible. The same persons and events mentioned on the pages of the Bible also appear in other sources, such as the Old Testament apocryphal books. Read more here