How did the earth recover after the flood?
Published: 29 June 2014 (GMT+10)
Rainbows and vegetation growth
We are often asked about the catastrophic effects of the Flood and how the earth could have recovered. S.K., Germany, writes:
Wikimedia commons/Erik Christensen
Mr. Michael Oard,
During my studies for the APO111 class I encountered your book “Frozen in Time”. Finally I found answers to some of the mysteries that nagged my mind for quite some time. Thank you for your great work!
In Chapter 7 you explained your theory that volcanic dust shaded the word globally right after the flood that led to a higher albedo of the outer atmosphere resulting in decrease of usable energy on the surface triggering the ice age.
My questions to this condition:
Would a rainbow be possible to form without supernatural interaction? Would the vegetation destroyed on the landmasses and decimated in the oceans get enough sunlight to regrow?
The dust of the volcanoes was washed away by the continuous rain of the flood. The reduced vegetation reduced the evapotranspiration causing a decrease in the greenhouse effect that would lead to colder temperatures. This would also explain how mammoths had time enough to grow into so big numbers after being reduced to 2–5.
Michael Oard replies:
I am very happy that you found answers in some of my writing … that is why I do it.
In answer to your question, yes a rainbow would be quite possible right after the Flood, because a lot of sunlight would still penetrate through the volcanic ash and small particles called aerosols. And yes, there would be enough sunlight for plants to grow. I estimated that possibly about 25% of the sunlight would be reflected, meaning about 75% would pass into the lower atmosphere.
During the Flood, a lot of the volcanic ash in the lower atmosphere (the troposphere) would have been washed away during the Flood, but weather systems do not penetrate the stratosphere (except in strong thunderstorms). So the ash and small particles in the stratosphere would take a lot of time to settle out by gravity, and the rain at lower altitudes will not help. The ash particles would have settled out in days to months, while the small particles would have taken years.
In regard to the greenhouse effect, warm oceans would cause a lot of evaporation and heat the air, especially in winter. Also, there probably would have been high levels of carbon dioxide after the Flood. High levels of water vapor and carbon dioxide can have a strong greenhouse effect, but with less solar radiation, the greenhouse effect would be less. I think there were plenty of plants for evapotranspiration. Determining the greenhouse effect early in the Ice Age right after the Flood will be challenging.
It would not take long for two mammoths to multiply into millions right after the Flood. The population expands by geometric progression, the environment was healthy, and there were few predators.
I hope this helps.
J.G., U.S.A., writes:
I have long had a burning question I have been meaning to ask.
The flood being a global and very dramatic event would have put a thin layer of salt on all the continents. Do we find this? Why? How would it have affected salt deposits? Was there enough salt in the ocean back then to show any deposits?
If you could post this question it would be greatly appreciated. I have not found any current articles that touch on this particular topic.
Thanks for all you guys do.
Keep up the good work,
Dr Tas Walker responds:
Much of the salt left on the continents after the Flood would have been washed away by rain in the post-Flood period. Some is still present on the continents but it has accumulated in inland basins such as the Dead Sea and Lake Eyre. It has also accumulated in the groundwater. We assume there was salt in the ocean before the Flood but that is something that we need to speculate about because we were not there at the time.
All the best,
Michael & Tas,
Your replies show definite detachment from the available evidence. There were multiple ice ages, not just one and these are very apparent in Australia's rock & landscapes. The weathering mantle(surficial, red & ferruginous), developed under humid climates from Mesozoic times, that extends across so much of Australia was approximately coincident with the palaeo-Lake Eyre drainage basin which extended from near Townsville. The weathered landscape has been partially eroded and the breakaway cliffs formed; stream beds were incised into gorges which were refilled with fresh water swamp, lignite and sponge-spicule deposits. Lake Eyre waters were initially fresh and "salina-land" which now extends from WA to Qld, was only established with the onset of aridity (coincident with the uplift of the PNG mountains & the separation of the southern tip of South America from Antarctica) in relatively recent times. Your creationism model is only sustained by the blatant disregard for the available evidence.
All the components of the amazing story you tell have been chosen to fit into the long-age uniformitarian way of explaining things. But the evidence can be interpreted from the biblical perspective if you are willing to give it a try.
When you say "there were multiple ice ages" it's not clear whether you are referring to supposed multiple Pleistocene ice ages, or the other supposed ages in the Permian, Precambrian, etc. These have all been adequately explained in papers and articles that appear on creation.com, and which you can find by using the search box on the site. The former are explained as waxes and wanes of the post-flood Ice Age. The earlier ones as giagantic submarine landslides that have been misinterpreted. This is addressed in considerable detail in Mike Oard's monograph "Ancient Ice Ages or Gigantic Submarine Landslides", which you can find and order from creation.com.
The weathering and drainage that you refer to are explained by the receding of the floodwaters from the Australian continent. The weathering occurred in a specific period geologically that fits such a Flood correlation, and it was not 'weathering' as we see it happening today.
The break away cliffs, stream beds, etc are also related to the processes that occurred during the Recessive stage of the Flood, although some of the less significant features would have occurred in the approximately 4,500 years since.
There are multiple lines of evidence that support the historical account in the Bible that Noah's Flood being a real event in history that inundated the whole earth. One reason people do not see it is that all the geologic evidence for the Flood has been misinterpreted in terms of slow-and-gradual processes over millions of years. Another reason is peer pressure. Geologists do not want to discuss it, and actively work to suppress anyone talking about it. And a third reason is that the idea is just too confronting. The thought of the Creator God is too much for some people, but to realise that He is active in human affairs and judged the whole world for its behaviour is a bridge too far. But, when we are prepared to face the truth we find it leads us to freedom.
I teach HS Earth Science in a Christian school and use Michael Oard's book as a reference for many of our lessons. Thank you, sir, for your work. We need you and your work.
It would be very interesting for you to investigate the attachment to reality of the multiple ice ages you refer to.
What exactly caused those ice ages to occur in the first place?
What does the scientific literature say?
Does it include lots of words like "maybe", "perhaps", "it is possible", "it is thought", etc?
Perhaps you'd like to enlighten us with your findings?
Micheal you have written an article in which you estimated some 36,000 asteroids struck the earth during Noah's flood, producing craters ranging in size from several tens of kilometers to several thousand kilometers in diameter. The effect of these asteroid strikes would have been catastrophic. How did Noah and the Ark and all marine life survive? Further the impact winter resulting from these strikes would have lasted several years and prevented any sunlight reaching the earth and preventing any plant growth. What did the herbivores eat after leaving the Ark?
In that calculation you are referring to, I was simply extrapolating from the Moon to the earth. Since that time, Wayne Spencer has updated it to 58,000 impacts based on newer data from the Moon in a more recent “Journal of Creation” article.
You are so correct that so many impacts would be too devastating. Some creationists postulate that most of the Moon impacts occurred on Day 4 during creation. This is possible, but to me uncertain. You can read my response to this dilemma in two letter to the editor exchanges I had with Rod Birnett in the “Journal of Creation”.
My tentative proposal is that God modulated the impacts on Earth (reducing their expected number by far) so as to cause the Flood He wanted, while He did not modulate the impacts on other solid bodies of the solar system, since there was no life on these bodies.