Below is a sample of arguments in which neither side seems to be able to prove for a fact which one is correct. When the time comes in which there is no doubt.....perhaps belief systems will change.
If the critics are correct.....one would be forced to re-examine the flood story with it's current accepted dating time. Notice the t time argument by the believers who won't say this tree could have EXCEEDED the time frame of the flood , casting doubt it happened.
THE OLDEST LIVING THINGS
The religious side:
But as tall and old as many sequoias are, they are not the oldest tree. A bristlecone pine in the White Mountains of California has this honour. It is more than 4,000 years old.
As trees such as the bristlecone pines and the redwoods are still living after 4,000 years or more, and seem impervious to the normal problems of trees, it is conceivable that they could live another 4,000 years or longer - a total of 8,000 years! Why then, are none found much older than 4,000 years?
It would seem that if these trees grew before this time, it would take something like a catastrophic natural disaster to wipe them out. This is seen as strong evidence for Noah's Flood having occurred a little more than 4,000 years ago.
The critical side:
"Methuselah" dated |
to understanding of longevity in general. |
Once the doubt is cleared........how will the wrong party respond? If the latter is correct......would that negate the flood?
Gumby
(edited to resize format)