Ok, first of all, I cut the scripture because it then further explains what has been destroyed.
So, either the scripture is lieing, or god does not consider a plant to be alive, there is no other way around this.
Yes the tree could live like that, and so could the bushes. Have you been out to the california desert?
see my other thread for info on the science.
So, either the scripture is lieing, or god does not consider a plant to be alive, there is no other way around this.
Yes the tree could live like that, and so could the bushes. Have you been out to the california desert?
see my other thread for info on the science.
4th April 2003 at 10:36 PM look said this in Post #39
The scripture we used does further qualify it with, "both man, and cattle, and the creeping things, and the fowl of the heaven;..., You have taken a part of one verse and made it stand alone on it's own. You can't do that, if you did that in your studies, you would fail school miserably! Where do you get the justification to lift parts of verses and leave out any qualifiers? You can draw any conclusions from that, but in the process, you would be slanting the whole picture to mold it to your viewpoint. This can be shown to be misleading, therefore you should refrain from using that example (?).
I totally agree with you, they were not around when the flood occured, thus proving that ring counting is bogus. Thanks, I appreciate the assist.
With no protecting bark, in the middle of the desert?
Wow, it's been a long since I saw a contradiction in just one sentence! "Tree rings do have their problems, but they have been shown to be very accurate?"
Ok, I'll bite, what other types of dating have they been checked against?
Upvote
0