From: Jim Eisele (firstname.lastname@example.org)
Date: Wed Sep 25 2002 - 18:58:28 EDT
Just kidding! But I wonder how they reconcile the following:
>From the AiG site under arguments we think creationists should
>ėThere are gaps in the genealogies of Genesis 5 and 11 so the
>Earth may be 10,000 years old or even more.ķ This is not so.
>The language is clear that they are strict chronologies, especially
>because they give the age of the father at the birth of the next name
>in line. So the Earth is only about 6,000 years old. See Biblical
>genealogies for exegetical proof.
Actually, I completely agree with their logic about the genealogies.
(although not their dismissal of the Septuagint and Samaritan Pentateuch).
I guess they're not real big on dendochronology (study of tree rings),
because at http://answers.org/newlook/NLCHPTR5.HTM#TreeRings
>the tree ring chronology for Bristlecone pines has been extended back
>about 9000 years as of 1982.
"Dendrochronology and Serendipity," by Charles J. Hitch, AMERICAN SCIENTIST,
May-June 1982, Vol. 70, No. 3, p. 302.
One can only guess what type of "answer" they give to this. BUT, if their
organization had any integrity whatsoever, it would be on the front page
of their site. Go ahead, do a search on their site for dendochronology.
All right, I'll save us some time. You get the same amount of information
that you would get from trying to verbally communicate with a Bristlecone
And they call themselves a ministry! If they get much more publicity, the
word ministry may someday become as tainted as the word creationist.
Genesis in Question
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Thu Sep 26 2002 - 00:43:32 EDT