I am not a scientist, but as far as I know there are two necessary requirements for an Ice Age: lower avg temperatures and more precipitation. But the problem is that lower temperatures cause less moisture in the atmosphere and thus less precipitation. I haven't seen a secular explanation for the cause of the Ice Age that addresses both requirements simultaneously.
However, if the Biblical Flood happened, and the "fountains of the great deep" (Gen. 7:11) contributed to the waters, then all that warm water or molten rock or whatever was coming out of the "fountains" could have caused warmer oceans and therefore a higher rate of evaporation and more atmospheric moisture. We also know that there was more volcanic activity during the Ice Age, which is known to cause cooler temperatures. When these two things combined, it could have caused an Ice Age of several hundred years (not 100,000 years).
What is the secular explanation for the cause of the Ice Age(s).
The causes of ice ages are not fully understood for both the large-scale ice age periods and the smaller ebb and flow of glacial–interglacial periods within an ice age. The consensus is that several factors are important: atmospheric composition (the concentrations of carbon dioxide, methane); changes in the Earth's orbit around the Sun known as Milankovitch cycles (and possibly the Sun's orbit around the galaxy); the motion of tectonic plates resulting in changes in the relative location and amount of continental and oceanic crust on the Earth's surface, which affect wind and ocean currents; variations in solar output; the orbital dynamics of the Earth-Moon system; and the impact of relatively large meteorites, and volcanism including eruptions of supervolcanoes.
I remember reading about Milankovitch cycles back in college and how axial tilt may have played a part in causing ice ages. Coincidentally (or not) I also read a work of fiction at about that same time which used this hypothesis as a large part of its theme.
My point is that in order to logically, honestly and critically come to a personal conclusion about anything which may disprove some part of the Christian bible, you need to separate fact from fiction. Understand where I'm coming from?
This is where I think your problem lies, jasonkthompson.
You refuse to see past your dogma, and see a tree where any reasonable, fact-seeking fellow might see a forest. Look at the actual facts, not just creationist sources (they are lying to you) and open your mind a little.
But like Subbie told you in the unitarian thread, be careful. You might not like what you find...
Let's begin at the beginning. What makes you think that low temperatures and high precipitation are necessary requirements for an ice age? And from where did you get that notion?
More generally, let me make this observation. Your question is of a general type frequently found among creationists. You acknowledge that you are not scientist, yet you seem to think that you can conceive of a simple problem that will bring an entire scientific discipline crashing to the ground. What makes you think that you, a non-scientist, sitting in your recliner in your living room, know more about a subject than the hundreds, thousands, and tens of thousands of people who have spent their entire lives studying it do? If a rational person were to pause for a moment and consider that dilemma, I think he would realize the absurdity of the proposition.
Let me put it another way. I take it you are a person who has spent a great deal of time studying the bible and considering its contents. I am not. How likely do you think it would be for me to be able to make a one sentence argument to get you to see that everything you believe about the bible is wrong?
On the other hand, perhaps you didn't come up with this "problem" with ice ages by yourself. Perhaps you got it from a creationist, either in person, from some book, or from a website. If is this so, I strongly caution you not to advance any such argument here again. Creationists as a rule lie about the evidence. I know several people have told you this already, and I don't really expect you to believe us, particularly since they subscribe to a proposition with which you agree. But you will not find much more than frustration here if all you can put offer is lies and misunderstandings from creationists.
I'm not trying to sound harsh, jason. I'm trying to get you to do a little critical thinking. I hope you see that, and I hope to stay around long enough to learn something.
Ridicule is the only weapon which can be used against unintelligible propositions. Ideas must be distinct before reason can act upon them; and no man ever had a distinct idea of the trinity. It is the mere Abracadabra of the mountebanks calling themselves the priests of Jesus. -- Thomas Jefferson
For we know that our patchwork heritage is a strength, not a weakness. We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and non-believers. -- Barack Obama
We see monsters where science shows us windmills. -- Phat
I love how two people just called creationists liers back to back ...
Anyways, jasonkthompson, you just asked a probably grey-zone area question in science. And any serious answer should say that there is no definite answer to your question, only hints of probable explanations. (Meteorology is much more complicated then it sounds. Especially in long term climat change.)
A biblical flood, however, would most probably cause an ice age as you mentioned. This does not mean that it is the only way this can be obtained.
And any serious answer should say that there is no definite answer to your question, only hints of probable explanations.
True, we haven't perfect knowledge of what factors are necessary to cause an ice-age. However, "hints of probable explanations" is doing quite a disservice to the work put in by people studying this phenomenon. There are differing theories and hypotheses, some with more evidence than others. This does not mean they are simply hints. This may be quibbling over semantics, but the models put forth by climatologists are much more than hints, they are viable theories, which, as has been covered in various threads, means there's more than just one or two pieces of evidence to back them up.
A biblical flood, however, would most probably cause an ice age as you mentioned.
Um. Elaborate, please. How you come by "most probably"? Evidence? Is there a decent climate model for this even? How can you make such a bare assertion on this forum without evidence? You know it's going to get torn apart.
We have many intuitions in our life and the point is that many of these intuitions are wrong. The question is, are we going to test those intuitions? -Dan Ariely
Hypothetical great flood - How does such lead to an ice age?
The biblical flood is placed by biblical scholars about 4,350 years ago. The most recent ice age ended well over 12,000 years ago.
Please explain these two vastly separate ages.
Although there would seem to be a strong correlation of YECism and floodism, I don't think they are rigidly linked. Glenn Morton (ex-YEC) seems to be trying to support the existence of "the flood" in an old Earth time frame.
Also, please explain why you can believe in a biblical flood when the biblical flood as described in the bible has been disproved by scientific data.
Even my own humble archaeological research has disproved the flood myth, as written.
I think a better route to take, would be to simply ask how this hypothetical flood (regardless of its reality) would lead to an ice age.
Professor, geology, Whatsamatta U Evolution - Changes in the environment, caused by the interactions of the components of the environment.
"Do not meddle in the affairs of cats, for they are subtle and will piss on your computer." - Bruce Graham
"The modern conservative is engaged in one of man's oldest exercises in moral philosophy; that is, the search for a superior moral justification for selfishness." - John Kenneth Galbraith
"Yesterday on Fox News, commentator Glenn Beck said that he believes President Obama is a racist. To be fair, every time you watch Glenn Beck, it does get a little easier to hate white people." - Conan O'Brien
"I know a little about a lot of things, and a lot about a few things, but I'm highly ignorant about everything." - Moose
I am sorry, you're quite right. They did say that. If it is not an excuse to say that I was drunk when I wrote that, and therefore incapable of my usual high standard of critical analysis, then I hope it is at least an explanation. Oops.
I myself prefer the belief that creationists are halfwits, and will defend this view against the proposition that creationists are deliberate liars in despite of anyone who prefers that opinion.