Hambo Explains the Post-Flood Ice Age

Gather ’round, dear readers, and learn some true science from Ken Ham (ol’ Hambo) — the ayatollah of Appalachia, the world’s holiest man who knows more about religion and science than everyone else. He posted this at the website of Answers in Genesis (AIG), his creationist ministry: Discover the Real History of the Ice Age. Here are some excerpts, with bold font added by us for emphasis, and occasional Curmudgeonly interjections that look [like this]:

The ice age, a time of wooly mammoths, saber-toothed cats, and glaciers, may seem like a great mystery. But it’s not a mystery when we start with the history found in God’s Word.

As we’ve said before, there’s no mention of an ice age in the bible — see Ken Ham Explains the Ice Age, and before that Answers in Genesis — The Ice Age. The word “ice” appears only three times in the whole bible:

Job 6:16 — Which are blackish by reason of the ice, and wherein the snow is hid

Job 38:29 — Out of whose womb came the ice? and the hoary frost of heaven, who hath gendered it?

Psalm 147:17 — He casteth forth his ice like morsels: who can stand before his cold?

That’s it. That’s all there is. Hambo is forever telling his drooling followers that there’s a sharp distinction between “Operational” (or “Observational”) science (like chemistry) which is acceptable to creationists, and “Historical” science (like evolution) which contradicts the bible. According to Hambo, the godless belief system of hell-bound evolutionists is based on unproven assumptions, and only scripture is a reliable guide to the past — see Creationism and Science.

Hambo seems to be aware — albeit dimly — of what he has been preaching about science, because then he says:

Indeed, that history actually explains how an ice age is even possible — in a secular worldview it’s very difficult to explain one ice age, let alone the many that secularists believe in.

How is Hambo going to handle this problem? It should be interesting. He tells us:

Now, you may be wondering what the Bible says about the ice age. Well, the Bible doesn’t specifically tell us there was an ice age, but we can observe today that there was indeed an ice age.

How do we “observe” it? Hey, Hambo — Were you there? He continues:

The evidence it left behind is all around us — including in the glaciers that still exist at the poles. But the Bible gives us the history we need to understand this event.

The evidence of evolution is also all around us. Oh, wait — Hambo claims the bible gives us the history we need. What would that be? Let’s read on:

In order to produce an ice age, three basic things are needed:

1. Warm oceans. Warm water evaporates faster than cooler water. Warmer oceans would produce excess evaporation.

2. Cooler land masses. Cooler continents would cause this precipitation to fall as snow, rather than rain.

3. Cool summers. If the summers are cooler, this snow would not melt as easily, allowing it to quickly pile up and form glaciers.

Warm oceans, cold continents, and cold summers. How did that happen? Does the bible tell us? Hambo explains:

What could give us all three of these conditions? Well, the global flood of Noah’s day and its aftermath would! [Yes, it’s so obvious!] Volcanic and other geological activity during and after the year-long flood would warm the oceans. This same volcanic activity would fill the air with ash and dust particles, reflecting sunlight back into space, cooling the air and the continents, and providing the necessary cooler summers.

Does the bible mention those things in connection with the Flood? We don’t think so. But Hambo disagrees:

We know from the geologic record that during and after the flood, the world saw intense volcanic activity. [Huh?] Some of these volcanos [sic] dwarf even the largest eruptions in recent history. The flood of Noah’s day (about 4,300 years ago) and its aftermath formed the perfect conditions for an ice age to encapsulate much of the globe in ice and snow.

Did you follow that, dear reader? No? Too bad for you! Now we come to the end:

As the oceans cooled and the continents warmed, the ice age peaked and began to subside. The glaciers began to retreat and now exist largely at the poles. During this time, many creatures thrived and, as the ice age ended and conditions changed, they died out or lost the gigantic varieties. Others died out due to the harsh conditions of the ice age.

That’s all there is, except for the promotion of a video on the subject. Well, dear reader, what do you think? Did Hambo convince you that there was an ice age after the Flood?

Copyright © 2018. The Sensuous Curmudgeon. All rights reserved.

add to del.icio.usAdd to Blinkslistadd to furlDigg itadd to ma.gnoliaStumble It!add to simpyseed the vineTailRankpost to facebook

. AddThis Social Bookmark Button . Permalink for this article

27 responses to “Hambo Explains the Post-Flood Ice Age

  1. Just two points from the Talk.Origins website:

    – Adding heat to a system tends to make it hotter. The falling moisture would have been a hot rain, not snow.
    – Creationists invoke evaporation as a cooling method. They forget that all the heat lost to evaporation returns when the water condenses again and that more latent heat is then released in the freezing.

    There’s more on http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CH/CH590.html

  2. “Well, the Bible doesn’t specifically tell us there was an ice age, but we can observe today that there was indeed an ice age.”

    Uh….. so…. “observational science” can tell us about what happened in the past?

    Hambo just shot himself in the foot. But his dimwitted followers probably didn’t notice.

  3. The word “volcano” does not occur in the KJV, but there are verses which describe things like volcanoes. There is this source which gives nine possible verses (although some of those are dubious) https://www.openbible.info/topics/volcano
    Another site is https://www.naves-topical-bible.com/VOLCANOES.html
    None of these has anything to do with the time of the Flood, not even any of the Book of Genesis. There are other web sites which forecast volcanoes at the End Times.

    As far as science explaining ice ages, the first thing that comes to mind is Milankovitch cycles (see the Wikipedia article).

  4. Ah Hambone, I think Skaði (Skathi) is a more likely god of the ice age.

  5. Perhaps Hambo would be more (!) convincing were he to attribute volcanic activity with the rearrangement of continents after the flood. That would let the marsupials colonize Australia before it moved away. Wonder if he’s feeling OK, promoting observational science.

  6. Wow. Just. Wow. And Hambo accuses scientists of pulling stuff out their wazoo.

    A geologic record of volcanoes during and after the Flood? There’s no geologic record of “The Flood”, let alone any volcanoes at the supposed time. And there’s certainly no mention of that in the Bible, either.

    Hambo’s a great storyteller. Now, if he only had a sense of humor, he could give Mark Twain a run for the money.

  7. Michael Fugate

    So now we know the hierarchy of authority.
    4. Historical Science
    3. Observational Science
    2. God’s word as revealed in the Bible
    and drumroll, please…..
    1. Ham’s hindquarters

  8. “… the glaciers that still exist at the poles.”

    There are glaciers at the North pole? Is that what Santa’s workshop sits on? I always wondered.

  9. “The flood of Noah’s day (about 4,300 years ago) and its aftermath formed the perfect conditions for an ice age to encapsulate much of the globe in ice and snow.”

    I suppose we can’t ask Ham to produce the equations supporting his claim, nor to indicate the duration of this mysterious ice age that even God or Moses didn’t bother to put in the Bible.

    Another surprising point is that nobody in Mesopotamia, Egypt, or even Greece (for example) remembered this catastrophic ice. Strange amnesia.

  10. Ashley Haworth-roberts

    If you bother to fact-check it, you will discover that everything Ken Ham says about climate change is either intentionally misleading, deliberately incomplete, unscientific or plain FALSE: http://forums.bcseweb.org.uk/viewtopic.php?f=18&t=2967&p=52322&hilit=astronomical#p52322

  11. Ashley Haworth-roberts

    ”Uh….. so…. “observational science” can tell us about what happened in the past?” I think you or Ham at least really meant ‘historical’ science there (a present day observation pointing to something historical)? But if what it tells us is both undeniable and not obviously unbiblical (or the Bible can be forced to ‘explain’ it if you indulge in eisegesis and evidence-free speculation) then – yes then the Hambo will accept that the evidence tells us that something (such as at least one ice age glaciation) happened in the past. But if the past event in question is obviously unbiblical then of course the evidence tells us NOTHING – and those scientists have the wrong ‘worldview’ and are deluded. Nothing in the past that goes against the Bible and its doctrines can ever be true. Such as evolution and deep time (which go against Genesis and genealogies). But a mere ice age isn’t so obviously unbiblical (as long as you ignore Genesis 8:22) so it – given that it really happened – it must be crammed into ‘biblical’ history. It must be blamed on the Genesis flood.

  12. Ashley Haworth-roberts

    Ham teaches a fictional ‘rapid’ ice age around 4,000 years ago. Whilst teaching that today’s observed and measurable man-caused global warming/climate change is fictional. As on all other matters scientific the claims of Ken Ham (and fellow young earth creationists) should and must always be fact-checked. I suggest.

  13. Ashley Haworth-roberts

    ”The word “volcano” does not occur in the KJV, but there are verses which describe things like volcanoes.” There’s NOTHING about volcanoes erupting all over the globe during the flood in Genesis verses. Genesis 7:11 can be read as suggesting a huge earthquake which somehow caused waters from below to flood upwards to Earth’s surface.

  14. I humbly bow my head for Ol’Hambo. For years I have trained myself, especially on this nice blog, to think like a creacrapper and think up as stupid possible explanations for eg TomS’ questions. Yes, I’ve understood for quite a while that there is no bottom in the cesspool of creacrap. Being an experienced Dutchman I thought I could sink lower than anybody, even including all creacrappers.
    The vanity! Boy, I was wrong. Ol’Hambo beats me. Noah’s Flood created the ideal conditions for an ice age. I’m baffled. I’m stunned. I’m not speechless, as you may have noticed, but that’s only to hide that I have no answer, neither a sensible one nor a stupid one.
    Ol’Hambo wins.
    For now.
    Because I ain’t gonna give up.

  15. @KenP: spot the glaciers.

  16. I thought I made it clear that there is nothing describing something like vocanoes in the Bible in the time of the Flood.

  17. Ashley Haworth-roberts

    2 Thessalonians 2:11 – the real history of presuppositional apologetics (the young earth creationism thing) in the last 60 or so years?

    As for Ham’s ”including in the glaciers that still exist at the poles” if that is what he really meant then yes – they do NOT point to past ice ages (they would have been bigger then but how could we tell that they melted when people were not around at the poles to observe and record the melting). I think he was TRYING to say that today’s glaciers high up mountains away from the poles point to ice age glaciation because of the abundant evidence that glaciers once reached into lower latitudes and altitudes than they do today (eg u-shaped valleys and glacial erratics). But of course when people push nonsense it’s easy to misspeak in the process.

  18. @FrankB – Where the hell is Santa’s house?

  19. Karl Goldsmith

    I don’t think Ken Ham has ever seen a glacier.

  20. @Ashley Haworth-roberts
    2 Thessalonians 2:11
    This was new to me. I did a quick search, for I was sure that there was a standard reply. This was the most serious treatment from a “conservative” point of view that I saw.
    The Master’s Seminary 16/1 (Spring 2005) 73-93
    Gregory H. Harris

    If I were called on to explain this (why anyone would call on me, I have no idea) I would liken this to the way that in the Exodus, God hardened Pharoah’s heart: This seems to be sayiing that Pharoah did not have a free will, and thus is not culpable for his mistreatment of the Israelites. But I think that it is merely a way of saying that Pharoah became ill-willed. Something like saying about the future, “if the Lord is willing”, whatever happens is God’s will, whether good, bad, or indifferent.
    That is, if I were called on to explain this from the point of view of a Biblical inerrantist. Fortunately, no one has callled on me, so I don’t have to defend this.

  21. Researchers have not found saber toothed cat fossils deposited with trilobite bearing strata in situ. Neither has anyone identified a Pre Cambrian bunny rabbit fossil mixed in with in situ bacterial and algal mound bearing strata.
    Conclusion? Strict fundamentalist interpretation of the musings of Bronze Age middle eastern goat shepherds may not be scientifically up to date. A willingness to conclude that one will burn in hell if one isn’t strictly fundamentalist represents superstitious insanity. The good news for Hambo and his ilk is that some people are willing to base their existence and belief system on such willful ignorance in order to shield themselves from a reasoned and logic based existence. The mindset Hambo offers yields the opportunity to be “special” and to judge others , an activity apparently needed by the weak and the illogical.

  22. @och will
    The Bible (which is what I assume that you mean by “the musings of Bronze Age middle eastern goat shepherds”) has nothing to say about:
    cats (neither kitty, wild, nor saber toothed, but lions are mentioned, and one dubious mention of tigers – they are in the family Felidae, so presmably of the same kind)
    the Precambrian
    rabbits (not bunnies, but there are a couple of rerferences to hares and coneys – coneys may be of the same kind as bunny rabbits)

  23. My dear SC, is there an annual award for the person who has achieved the most in the “lying for God” stakes each year? Surely Ken Ham’s recent posts must put him in the running. I have no doubt that the folks that follow this blog would assist with nominations.

  24. tedinoz, it’s not called “lying for God.” It’s testifying.

  25. I recall asking last week whether anyone has done any “actual” research on post-Flood migrations and conditions. I am indebted to @Anonymous for their reference to Baumgartner. But this post from Ken Ham explains why the answer to my question will always be a resounding “no”; there’s no need for research when you can just as easily make up your own ‘facts’.

  26. Oops, @DouglasE, not @Anonymous, gave me the Baumgartner suggestion.

  27. I was going to let it go 🙂