The major problems with equating ice ages with Flood stories are in the speed and dynamics of events that each can cause. Glaciers advance and retreat very slowly while floods ravage the land very quickly. The evidence left behind by each is easily identifiable and unmistakeable to geologists. And the flood story is not the only example, mind you. The two use diametrically-opposed methods to approach and describe the universe.
Science approaches the issue through the use of facts, observation, experiment and reason.
Religion approaches it with more concern for what sounds good and is easier to understand without regard for any evidence. I believe that the two work hand in hand and that one is the other. Or perhaps a better way to say it is that one attempts to explain the other. That doesn't mean that they can't coexist, but they are better off when they don't try to encroach on the other's turf. I guess I don't really understand why people try to reason their way through such a profound subject.