This doesn't make sense to me....the ice age was a post flood event and the ice age was a direct result of the ice age? You trying to say that the Flood was just a period between ice ages? (I'm not sure if there is enough "ice" to flood the entire earth anyway, but God could create water and then take it away)..............and your constant use of "they" tells me you don't believe as such?
My problem with the young earth theory and -ists is that it is exactly like the ID theory. They start with the conclusion that the Earth is 6000 years old and instead of actually looking for evidence proving it (because you cannot), they then try to poke holes in other theories and think that proves their pre-determined conclusion is correct. CArbon-14 dating isn't perfect down to the single year, so that means one can make it all up and be "right." Carbon readings say something is 200,000-300,000 years old.....well, that's too big a range, so 6000 is correct.
If you start with the conclusion that there is a Design......then ANYTHING complex or not understood at that time can be deemed "part of the Design"....more importantly, anything that shows any other theory to not be a perfect theory now proves ID to be true.
That very simply ain't science.
....and the GWT is bunk, generated by politicians and massive wads of research $$$$ to lefty researchers. Anyone in ANY scientific field can look at the raw data and laugh.
I said it wrong originally and corrected it in 122. The ice age was the aftermath of the flood. There is not enough ice to flood the entire earth. However, there is plenty of water to cover the earth if the topography was different prior to or changed during the time of the flood.
I used "They" because this thread was about ICR's article and their positions. I don't know if I agree with everything ICR has ever said, but I am a young earth creationist. I think man's knowledge is still so limited, that even the things we think we know from scientific observation may be completely wrong as our knowledge increases, no matter how logical it may seem now.
I think ICR has actually done a good job of looking for the evidence of a young earth, as well as challenging the observations and the interpretations that are leading to a conclusion of an old Earth.
"If you start with the conclusion that there is a Design was evolution......then ANYTHING complex or not understood at that time can be deemed "part of the Design the result of evolution
It's not that your comment is wrong, it's just a shoe that fits every world view.
....and the GWT is bunk, generated by politicians and massive wads of research $$$$ to lefty researchers. Anyone in ANY scientific field can look at the raw data and laugh.
I agree, but there are a lot of lefty researchers who aren't laughing. And I often laugh at the conclusions of evolutionists, but they don't laugh with me either.