Review—Implications—Conclusion

Noah’s Flood

Perhaps the most convincing, certainly the best known tradition indicating that man witnessed the fall of one of the last, if not the very last, increment of primordial atmosphere, is contained in our own Bible. However, stories with the identical theme are contained in the religions and folklore of all races of mankind, from the aborigines of Australia to the Eskimos of the Arctic; from the Aztecs to the very ancient Chinese. The story is the account in Genesis of the Noachian flood. This biblical account takes on a new and very real meaning in the light of our theory. It proves that, without doubt, a revolving canopy of cloud water was seen so recently by man as to have been indelibly stamped in his memory.

Statements that God made “a firmament in the midst of the waters and let it divide the waters from the waters”; that the waters “which were under the firmament” and “which were gathered together” to make the seas were divided “from the waters which were above the firmament” certainly have an absolutely definite meaning which our theory makes perfectly clear. The biblical account vividly describes the deluge which resulted when “the windows of Heaven were opened,” when the waters “were increased greatly upon the Earth” and the rain fell in a great, cataclysmic deluge, destroying almost all land life on Earth. The sudden, calamitous nature of the catastrophe is accented throughout the story. Very evidently, the source of that terrific deluge was decidedly different from the puny collections of cloud moisture which come from mere evaporation of surface water. Not the least meaningful of the above biblical statements is that the waters “were increased greatly upon the Earth.”

The Bible definitely records the fact that Noah’s flood came from the last remnant of primordial water, for God said to Noah, “I will establish my covenant with you; neither shall all flesh be cut off any more by the waters of a flood; neither shall there any more be a flood to destroy the Earth.” And God said,

I do set my bow (rainbow1) in the cloud and it shall be for a token of a covenant between me and the Earth. . . . And I will remember my covenant, which is between me and you and every living creature of all flesh; and the waters shall no more become a flood to destroy all flesh.

Man knew there could never be another flood, for he had seen the last of the “waters above the firmament” descend and the sky was clear at long last! Would it be possible for language to corroborate our theory more plainly? Quite aside from any religious connotation, the above quotations constitute amazing bits of evidence to add to all that has been cited before. Surprisingly enough, although this story was handed down by word of mouth for hundreds of years before writing was invented, it has retained historical validity.

Men of narrow, cynical minds may say the biblical story of a flood is nothing but a fanciful Sumerian tale. How do they know? Aside from pure assumption, based solely upon imagination, they can produce no evidence whatsoever to support such a statement. On the other hand, evidence to sustain validity of the biblical story is plainly visible not only throughout the whole world, but in the heavens as well. Furthermore, the story is by no means exclusively Sumerian. It exists in the traditions of nations throughout the world—nations some of whom never heard of the Sumerians. One need not accept the biblical story as God-given to recognize that its truth is attested by much actual evidence.

Conclusion

For more than one hundred years since Agassiz first showed that ice ages have occurred, countless students of glacial mysteries, right down to the present day, all pursuing persistently and clinging without deviation to two concepts only, have tried in vain to solve the riddle of ice ages. As has been noted, the two concepts are: that refrigeration of climate was the cause and evaporated surface water was the source of the ice.

These students have learned much about the nature, the behavior and the effects of the ice sheets; but they are positively no nearer to discovery of their origin than was Agassiz! Surely, therefore, they must have been pursuing the wrong basic concepts. While behavior and effects are interesting, certainly cause is far more important. Yet so little attention is paid to cause that a typical book of four hundred or more pages about glacial periods will contain perhaps but twenty pages devoted to cause! Actually, not one theory of cause, as such, will be offered in those twenty pages. The twenty pages will be devoted entirely to an effort to imagine conditions which would result in refrigeration of climate. That colder climate, per se, was the cause of ice ages, has just thoughtlessly and universally been taken for granted!

The unique theory which has been sketched herein is based upon entirely different conceptions. The author is convinced that it is the only one which, in more than one hundred years, has disclosed a competent force, combined with an adequate source, to supply the inconceivably vast amount of water involved in an ice age. The theory derives its great strength not alone from support given by well-known laws of nature, but also from even more convincing visible testimony supplied by the planets.

The author fully realizes how difficult it is to obtain thoughtful consideration, much less acceptance, of a new idea. He realizes that the theory herein expounded is so startlingly new and different from orthodox teachings, it may immediately elicit vio-review—implications-conclusion

lent opposition. Nevertheless, those who would refute it must dispose of much corroborative planetary testimony and also conclusions which are based solidly upon that potent evidence.

The basic principles alone of the theory are important; not this writer’s poor efforts to develop them. That they are not sound and true cannot be proved by picking out here and there miscellaneous assumptions, deductions and statements which have been made herein and demonstrating that they are erroneous. Neither can the theory be discredited because it is unorthodox, for all orthodox theories have long since been definitely, decisively and repeatedly rejected by leading authorities in the field. For the latter reason, students of glacial and other geological phenomena should heartily welcome this fresh theory to ponder.