Christian Physicist Says New Evidence of Africa’s Wet Past Points to Biblical Great Flood

New research has confirmed that the dry, desolate climate of the Sahara Desert was once a lush tropical climate—an observation that correlates well with the predictions of biblical creationists, a physicist with the Institute for Creation Research says.

A team of international researchers collected and analyzed marine sediments from off the coast of west Africa, looking for clues into Africa’s climatological past. Their findings, published in the journal “Science Advances,” show that northern Africa was at one time much wetter than it is today.

“It was 10 times as wet as today,” said the study’s lead author, Jessica Tierney, in a press release from The University of Arizona.

Tierney and her colleagues found ancient leaf wax samples that reveal what the African climate was like several thousand years ago. The evidence suggests that the Sahara Desert, where annual rainfall now is usually less than five inches, was once lush and green.

“Our precipitation rate estimates confirm the interpretation that a seasonal tropical climate dominated most regions of North Africa during the Green Sahara time,” the researchers wrote in their paper.

“It is therefore feasible that, at the peak of the Green Sahara, monsoonal moisture inundated the entire western Saharan region,” they added.

Although scientists already knew that rainfall rates in ancient Africa were once higher than they are today, most climate model simulations underestimated how widespread the tropical conditions were.

  • Connect with Christian News

“With some notable exceptions, climate model simulations do not predict these high rainfall rates, nor do they indicate that the Green Sahara extended as far as 31°N,” the team wrote in their journal article.

As scientists struggle to make sense of the new data and adjust their climate models accordingly, biblical creationists say that these findings point to the global flood described in Genesis. Dr. Jake Hebert, a physicist with the Institute for Creation Research, says scientific models based on the Bible predict an extremely wet period following the Great Flood.

“Rapid seafloor spreading and volcanic activity during the Genesis Flood would have significantly warmed the world’s oceans,” he wrote in a online article published late last month. “This would have greatly increased evaporation, putting much more moisture into the atmosphere. This increased moisture would have resulted in much more precipitation, in the form of snow, in the higher latitudes and on mountaintops, and rain at lower latitudes and elevations.”

North Africa is not the only dry region that was once wet and tropical, Hebert pointed out. However, secular models, based primarily on uniformitarianism, struggle to explain the drastic climate changes that the earth experienced several millennia ago.

“This past climate change is difficult for secular scientists to explain,” he wrote. “Some uniformitarian scientists claim the wet Green Sahara was caused by changes in Earth’s orbital motions (the astronomical or Milankovitch theory of climate change), which caused a small increase in solar radiation some 9,000 years ago. This extra solar radiation supposedly warmed the continents, intensifying summer monsoons over Europe and Africa. But there are serious problems with attributing past climate change to astronomical motions.”

The Biblical model accounts for the evidence much better than secular theories, Hebert concluded.

“The conclusion of increased Saharan rainfall in the recent past is in perfect agreement with the history recorded in Genesis,” he said.


A special message from the publisher...

Dear Reader, because of your generous support, we have received enough funds to send many audio Bibles to Iraqi and Syrian refugees displaced by ISIS in the Middle East. Many have been distributed and received with gladness. While we provide for the physical needs of the people, we seek to provide the eternal hope only found in Jesus Christ through the word of God. Would you join us by making a donation today to this important work? Please click here to send an audio Bible to a refugee family >>

Print Friendly
  • Croquet_Player

    No, “science” does not confirm it. Some creationist people are pointing at this study and saying it does. This website should really attempt to be more accurate with their headlines and reporting.

  • Grace Kim Kwon

    Yes, the evidences of Noah’s Flood are everywhere on earth including China. Our Earth is a washed-out planet.

    • Patty L. Hyde Hostelka

      yes Genesis says it covered the entire earth

  • Tangent002

    “Her team’s continuous rainfall record shows a thousand-year period about 8,000 years ago when the Sahara became drier.”

    I thought the Earth was only 6,000 years old.

    • bowie1

      Usually the range is from 6000-10000 years according to some creationists.

      • Tangent002

        Perhaps, but Bible chronology places the Noachian deluge at around 2300 BCE, so the timing still doesn’t work if the claim is that the wet period was right after the flood.

        • 0pus

          Silly little atheist. Obsessing over religion.
          Get a hobby, girl.

          • Chris

            I know. Treating the claims of creationist organizations seriously merely because they are trying to smuggle their views into science classes.

  • Steven Thompson

    I’m having trouble taking seriously the opinions of a “physicist” who asserts that “there are serious problems with attributing past climate change to astronomical motions” — but sees no problems at all in attributing them to tectonic plates moving at motorboat speeds (or in tectonic plates shifting back and forth from centimeter-a-year speeds to motorboat speeds).

  • Croquet_Player

    ‘“This past climate change is difficult for secular scientists to explain,” he [Herbert] wrote’ No, it isn’t.

  • RWH

    Scientists can certainly speculate about a climate change, and they can examine any vestiges of plants through carbon dating, but the conclusion that this happened because of a one-time-only flood is weak.

  • Patty L. Hyde Hostelka

    Scientist can have their theories however I don’t believe any of them. None of them actually know what they are talking about in my opinion. One example I do Not believe the earth is millions of years old

    • antifasciste

      Embracing mythology and allegory makes it quite easy to believe whatever you would like.

      • Amos Moses

        scientism is just that ….. so i hope you enjoy it …………..

        • Grace Kim Kwon

          Exactly. Christianity = trusting in the one true living God. scientism = trusting in nothingness.

          • antifasciste

            Faith is for the intellectually lazy.

          • Grace Kim Kwon

            Not the Christian faith. It’s the only intellectual evidential religion that makes mankind saved and civilized. The Western civilization is the proof. Christian Westerners are good and smart and proper. Non-christian Westerners are bad and force the unthinkable immorality upon mankind.

        • antifasciste

          The science hater using the Web to spew vitriol and contempt, the irony is exquisite.

          • Amos Moses

            christians have no fear of science ……….. those who exclude God from the evidence are partakers in pseudo-science ……. and we do have “vitriol and contempt” for the lie pseudo-science is ……… that many of blind faith accept ………… losers all …….

          • antifasciste

            There is a principle which is a bar against all information, which cannot fail to keep a man in everlasting ignorance-that principle is contempt prior to investigation. –Herbert Spencer

          • Amos Moses

            interesting quote ……. not sure what it has to do with anything ……. ignoring the evidence available is not science ….. it is pseudo-science …… those who deny God ignore evidence of God …… so the quote would seem to more appropriately describe your activities ……. but thnx …….

          • antifasciste

            Through years of indoctrination, I have thoroughly examined the evidence you speak of….not impressed, and certainly don’t connect the dots to the God you describe.

          • Amos Moses

            because you deny God ….. you cannot connect what you refuse to see ….. so i am not impressed by your denial ………

          • Grace Kim Kwon

            Non-christian Westerners used to declare that science is the only truth. Sicence kept only proving the Creator God more and more that now those same people declare that truth does not exist. You guys are wrong both times.

      • Croquet_Player

        I don’t mind if people don’t believe in science. But I just wish they were consistent about it, never touch a computer or phone, and never go to the doctor. They want it both ways.

        • Ira Pistos

          Comments like this are useful in that they show in an unambiguous way how the Godless abandon functional reasoning to follow whatever their told to think in defense of their faith.

          They preach the veracity of the very word they rage against.

          • Jim Tully

            I wish your post was unambiguous.

          • Croquet_Player

            Do you go to the doctor when you are ill or need a check-up? Then you believe in science.

          • Ira Pistos

            I believe in the scientific method that is used to conduct research, I apply it regularly.

            I mind very much if people believe don’t believe in God but I at least wish they’d be consistent about it and stop thinking, stop caring if something is right or wrong, stop having emotions, stop trying to use logic etc…

            One of my greatest difficulties when communicating with others are the occasions when they say something so bizarrely stupid that offering correction seems impossible daunting.

            That’s not intended as a reflection on your mind. As far as I know, you may be quite bright.
            The comment of yours was purely stupid though. Reflecting a faith so firmly founded in brainwashing that it rules out logic, critical thinking and in short, functional reasoning.

            It is entirely as foolish as though I had told you that I didn’t like tomato soup and you replied claiming that I said don’t like any food.

            Think for yourself and stop parroting everything you’re told to believe.

          • Croquet_Player

            I apportion belief to evidence. Some people don’t, which is why they’re perfectly happy to visit a doctor to care for their health, use computers, drive cars, take antibiotics, and enjoy the millions of other benefits offered to them by science, and still say with a straight face “I don’t believe the earth is millions of years old”. If you don’t see the irony there, I’m afraid I can’t help you.

          • Chris

            “I believe in the scientific method that is used to conduct research, I apply it regularly.”

            Then you accept the results of the application of the scientific method. So do you accept the age of the Earth, evolution, geology’s opposition to the flood and so on? Or do you pick and choose. Accepting what you want to accept and saying that the rest isn’t ‘real’ science.

          • Ira Pistos

            Do you accept the results of the application of the scientific method? I certainly hope you’re more discerning than you seem here. That appears dangerously like blind faith.
            I’m perfectly comfortable with sound application and results proven by demonstration.

            I’m discerning enough to remember that just as with a hammer, the scientific tool is limited by the aptitude of the wielder.

            I accept the age of the earth, creation, geology’s support of the flood and so on.

            Do you pick and choose?
            Does your ilk ever think to consider the words that you issue before committing them to observation?
            You’re apparently suggesting that appropriate behavior is to close your eyes and select the rotten apple if that is what your hand first rests upon.

            Do you accept what you want and declare that the rest isn’t real science? Do you? And did you mean pretend science or ineffective science or misapplied science?
            Real science? Do you even know how the scientific method works? The application of the method by default makes it “real” The only appropriate question is whether it be accurate.

            I look on in appalled wonder as it’s adherents blindly kneel before whatever as issued forth in the name of Science, checking their minds in at the door as they genuflect in respect.

          • Chris

            “Do you accept the results of the application of the scientific
            method?”

            Indeed I do. You don’t seem to though.

            “I certainly hope you’re more discerning than you seem here.
            That appears dangerously like blind faith.
            I’m perfectly comfortable with sound application and results proven by demonstration.”

            Demonstration is NOT necessary for the scientific method. Go to youtube and watch a short video entitled ‘the scientific method made easy.’

            “I’m discerning enough to remember that just as with a hammer, the scientific tool is limited by the aptitude of the wielder.”

            Indeed which is why we should distrust creationists who are not usually qualified in the disciplines about which they pontificate.

            “I accept the age of the earth, creation, geology’s support of the flood and so on.”

            Creation has NOT been shown using the scientific method. Nor has it been shown by duplication. Try making an animal poof into existence.

            As to the flood geology does NOT support any such thing. Go once again to youtube and watch a video entitled ‘noah’s flood debunked’. this video shows what the vast majority of geologists would say concerning the flood.

            “Do you pick and choose?”

            No. If science has shown a certain thing then I accept the evidence and move on. You obviously do not.

            “Does your ilk ever think to consider the words that you issue before committing them to observation?”

            What is my ‘ilk’? You don’t know the slightest thing about me. As to ny words I used to be a creationist before I examined the evidence. There is over 150 years of research which supports evolution – DNA, Fossils, Homology, the Geologic Column and so on.

            But more than that. Scientists have used evolution to produce things like vaccines. What has creationism ever produced?

            “You’re apparently suggesting that appropriate behavior is to close your eyes
            and select the rotten apple if that is what your hand first rests upon.”

            Nope! I’m suggesting that science examines evidence which contradicts creation and the flood. Now unless you want to become qualified in the respective scientific disciplines I am suggesting you accept the evidence produced by science and move on.

            “Do you accept what you want and declare that the rest isn’t real science?”

            There is no ‘rest’. What research has creationist organizations produced? All they ever do is try to disparage the evidence produced by actual scientists.

            In addition one of the key components of the scientific method is falsification. That means that you state up front what evidence, if found, would prove your hypothesis wrong. If creationism is science what would prove it wrong?

          • Ira Pistos

            “Indeed I do. You don’t seem to though.”

            This was irrational and not based on what I’ve said. You seem to reinterpret everything to fit within your presupposed narrative.
            That absolutely cripples your capacity to engage in constructive conversation.

            Your next presupposition:
            “Demonstration is NOT necessary for the scientific method. Go to youtube and watch a short video entitled ‘the scientific method made easy.'”

            I said that I am comfortable with results proven by demonstration. I did not say anything about demonstration being or not being required.
            Please do take one thing away at a minimum from this segment of our exchange. Demonstration is mandatory, one can not simply state that a thing is true using the scientific method without demonstrating viability on paper at the very least.

            “Indeed which is why we should distrust creationists who are not usually qualified in the disciplines about which they pontificate.”

            That’s extreme to the point of paranoia, it’s born of your presupposed narrative.
            A more rational view would be to take with caution what is offered externally from a field of expertise.
            I’ll offer another point of advice on this matter. Take with a hefty dose of salt those believes preached by non-Christians externally to their area of competency.

            “As to the flood geology does NOT support any such thing. Go once again to youtube and watch a video entitled ‘noah’s flood debunked’. this video shows what the vast majority of geologists would say concerning the flood.”

            Flood geology is most certainly supported by the evidence. Do feel free to find a video on youtube that says so.

            “No. If science has shown a certain thing then I accept the evidence and move on. You obviously do not.”

            No, I had expressed concern that you did not exercise discernment and you’ve confirmed those fears. If you’re told a thing you accept it with the evidence being that you were told it.

            I should always hope that it is obvious I do not.

            A word or three of advice. A moderate level of skepticism is healthy.

            “What is my ‘ilk’? You don’t know the slightest thing about me.”

            This sort of thing is why people that are weak in critical thinking really drain me.

            I know about you all that you have said. I’m aware of a number of stances and opinions that you cling to and thoughts that you’ve presented on matters.

            “As to ny words I used to be a creationist before I examined the evidence.”

            You’ve a history of blindly accepting what you’re told.

            “But more than that. Scientists have used evolution to produce things like vaccines.”

            No they haven’t. That’s a fantasy and you’ve faith in it.

            “There is over 150 years of research which supports evolution”

            Let’s play a game! How many logical fallacies can you eek out of that statement?

            “Nope! I’m suggesting that science examines evidence which contradicts creation and the flood.”

            Science isn’t a real person, it’s a tool and it examines nothing. Real people examine things in the real world.

            Retaining your misuse of the word evidence; People examine evidence that contradicts the secular paradigm of everything just magically poofing into existence.

            “I am suggesting you accept the evidence produced by science and move on.”

            In the real world and in the pursuit of genuine knowledge, researchers do not create evidence, they weigh existing evidence.

            Do you actually know what evidence means, what it is and how to use the word in a sentence?

            “There is no ‘rest'”

            Oh really? I was just using your own words. Sorry about backing you into the corner like that ~s

            “What research has creationist organizations produced?”

            I recognize your preconceived misunderstanding here so I’ll just save time and go with it.

            Off the top of my head, a lot.

            “All they ever do is try to disparage the evidence produced by actual scientists.”

            Oh horror of horrors the blasphemy! ~s

            The audacity to question in the pursuit of genuine knowledge… shudder.

            Stepping beyond the myth of your faith for a moment, did you know that those are highly respected scientists that believe and are researching the wonders of God’s creation?

            Did your elders tell you that only the people you’re told to agree with are real scientists?

            “If creationism is science…”

            Really? You put that in black and white?
            Hey! Try this out! If scientism is science…, if secularism is science…
            Those are called world views. They aren’t fields of research. What they do though is color how every bit of evidence is interpreted.
            They color how the entire house of cards is put together and those card houses can be maintained for centuries before the foundation is ever shown to be flawed.

          • Chris

            Your entire post is an exercise in projection. Sorry but I’m not interested.

          • Ira Pistos

            That was an irrational comment. Thank you for your input just the same.

          • Chris

            That was an irrational comment. Thank you for your input just the same.

          • Ira Pistos

            Really? You’re choosing childish. Whatever, amuse yourself to your hearts content.

          • Chris

            Really? You’re choosing childishNESS rather than answer my question? Whatever, amuse yourself to your hearts content.

          • Chris

            Where did I claim secularism is science? I didn’t did I?

            “Retaining your misuse of the word evidence; People examine evidence that
            contradicts the secular paradigm of everything just magically poofing
            into existence.”

            Two points:
            1) I spoke of science and compared it to creationism. You immediately switched to secularism.
            2) Quote any secularist or scientist who’s claimed that anything poofed into existence fully formed. Just one.

            When I asked what creationist organizations have produced you replied “Off the top of my head, a lot.”

            Like? Give a few examples. And explain why they have to rely on gifts and donations to continue to exist rather than living off their patents.

          • ter ber

            Always keep searching. Talk to your Creator, keep an open mind to all the evidence underneath your feet and throughout the only livable planet in this galaxy.

            http://www.genesispark.cAom/exhibits/fossils/graveyards

          • Chris

            “Always keep searching.”

            It’s the scientists who are doing the searching but I take your meaning.

            “Talk to your Creator, keep an open mind to all
            the evidence underneath your feet…”

            And everywhere else as well.

            “…and throughout the only livable planet
            in this galaxy.”

            That’s quite a claim. How do you know Earth is the only livable planet? In any case I think what you’ve written is excellent advice for both of us.

          • ter ber

            Hubble. Nothing has been found with life yet. And Hubble has proven the theory and God’s Word confirms it the Universe is still expanding. Which means there was a starting point of the expansion. The latest research updated in wiki has the scientist worried the expansion could be accelerating.~ “While Hubble helped to refine estimates of the age of the universe, it also cast doubt on theories about its future. Astronomers from the High-z Supernova Search Team and the Supernova Cosmology Project used ground-based telescopes and HST to observe distant supernovae and uncovered evidence that, far from decelerating under the influence of gravity, the expansion of the universe may in fact be accelerating. The cause of this acceleration remains poorly understood;[121] the most common cause attributed is dark energy”.[122]
            All very exciting and scary as we approach God’s Word for the end of this age.

          • Chris

            “Nothing has been found with life yet.”

            Correct. Which doesn’t support your statement that “…and throughout the only livable planet in this galaxy.”

        • ter ber

          The word Science in Latin means= knowledge. Nothing more, nothing less. To insinuate people that thirst after a relationship with The Creator of the Universe do not appreciate knowledge is foolhardy and bigoted. Because He gave His Creation- mankind the desire for the quest of knowledge, one of them being…..”How does His Universe work?”

          • Croquet_Player

            Did you even read Patty’s remark? Yeah, there’s someone with a “desire for the quest of knowledge”. Rejects all science based on her “opinion”.

          • ter ber

            She only said, “she rejects their theories.” Just like you, rejecting theories from scientist who are also creationist.

          • Croquet_Player

            When a creation “scientist” can actually prove something, that the rest of the scientific community deems legitimate, do please let us know.

  • Not Guilty

    Yeah, the Sahara used to be green.
    Climate changes. The doofuses are the fascists who claim that humans can control the earth’s temperature (if we follow their dictates, that is).

  • wILLYBURGER

    The scientific method requires applying evidence and repeating the experiment. Since evolution and creation can not be repeated then they are both FAITH. I prefer to believe in the God of the Bible. His book is older than Darwin’s