How Young Is the Earth? Applying Simple Math to Data Provided in Genesis - LINK to ICR article (http://www.icr.org/article/4124/)

See the article - use the link!!

Check the list of "timeframes" used.
In a time that most people did not get older than 50 - 60 years, the ICR holds to the bible, and uses ages of 130, 105, 90, 70, 162, 187, 182, and even 600 (Noah)...
Not based on anything scientific, but based totally on BELIEF.

THAT my fellow AMHD'ers is ICR "science"...

The final official ICR conclusion :

Therefore, the total earth-time in years from God's creation of Adam to the birth of Abraham cannot be more than 1,985 years, although it is likely somewhat less than that,5 yet it cannot be less than 1,948 years. Add 5 days,6 and you have the age of the earth when Abraham arrived here. It was a young earth into which Abraham was born--absolutely!

My conclusion :

I have no problem what the people at the ICR prefer to BELIEVE, but the ICR certainly is not an organisation that has any link with science and any serious scientific research.

Any reactions ?

:)

.

.

Bible? Written documents of the history of the hewbrew nation.

Sort of like saying you can't believe the documents about engravings on temples in Egypt about who is buried in which tomb since it is not proof

bible ??
Yes Chuck ! As far as I know Genesis is still accepted officially as part of the Bible...

:D

.

bible ?? written documents of the history of the hewbrew nation.

Sorta like saying you can't believe the documents about engravings on temples in Egypt about who is buried in which tomb since it is not proof

Actually it's more like not believing the story of Horus that is also engraved on the temple. Which you don't believe in. Also we don't just believe in who is buried in the tomb because of what it says but we also use outside evidence as to whether that can even possibly be true or not. Like when they say here lies god. We don't believe it.

I don't understand genesis' chronology, when it comes to creation, because of the dinosaurs. I am a christian, but there's leeway for doubt, when it comes to great spans of time. I believe that god lives forever, and we can't understand some things he does. We can only use common sense, but that only goes as far as our lack of knowledge.

The Bible does give a time line from Adam to Abraham.
It does NOT give a time line from "In the beginning---" to Adam. It can be ANY length of time.

The Bible does give a time line from Adam to Abraham.
It does NOT give a time line from "In the beginning---" to Adam. It can be ANY length of time.
That is NOT in accordance with the creationists version of the age of the earth...

:D :D :D :D :D :D

.

.

That is NOT in accordance with the creationists version of the age of the earth ....

:D :D :D :D :D :D

.

.


It IS in accordance with the Bible though.

A young earth is in accordance to the bible according to the ICR.

Cred, I looked over the article, but I can't spend time reading about ancient Jewish folklore and myth.

Science has proven(genetics and DNA testing) that human beings originated in Africa and branched out 40,000 years ago through the Middle East and west to Europe and East through Asia to Cathay.

Humans arrived in North America via extreme north around the Bering Sea; they were the original residents of Japan crossing to North and South America.

All this is proven by genetic testing, DNA... the case has been closed for over ten years.

Those who want to believe folklore and myth is fact... let them *believe* but have no influence on public education for teaching folklore as science is an abomination.

I understand that it is EASY to use a few chapters of an ancient text as the basis for a person's education in a complex world full of vast quantities of scientific proof and facts which require a lot of effort and education to understand. However, letting the ignorant dictate knowledge based on childish tales from yore is cultural and national suicide.

Cred, I looked over the article, but I can't spend time reading about ancient Jewish folklore and myth.
I can understand that, Mary Sue !
The entire article is nothing but a lot of hot air, and shows the lack of serious and real science involved in an organisation that holds its actions and research as "scientific"!!

:)

.