R
Rau
Guest
Christ rose from the dead. The church advocates (requires) that that be understood as actually that. The talking serpent - no such requirement. So what’s possible is not the issue.Just to be clear – it is not possible?
Christ rose from the dead. The church advocates (requires) that that be understood as actually that. The talking serpent - no such requirement. So what’s possible is not the issue.Just to be clear – it is not possible?
That is the extent of your case?Possible or not possible, I don’t know a single person who interprets Genesis 3:1-5 literally.
Is this required?The church advocates (requires) that that be understood as actually that. The talking serpent - no such requirement. So what’s possible is not the issue.
I think my point is clear and despite obfuscation I think you know that.Is this required?
Do you have more to add, or is that it?Be careful what you say.
Are we required to beleive this or not? It is a yes or noI think my point is clear and despite obfuscation I think you know that.
No, the “case” has been thoroughly made throughout the thread. But let me ask you, what is the snake in Genesis 3:1-5 to you?That is the extent of your case?
What are the limits and base assumptiions of potassium argon?My apologies, it’s potassium-argon dating. Potassium-argon dating is derivative of the way potassium-40 decays into argon-40. It’s not a scientific theory so much as it’s a mathematical use of scientific facts.
Since it deals with igneous rocks we see that volcanic rocks of recent eruptions are showing very very old ages.Well, the base assumptions are that we know how half-lives work and that potassium-40 decays like every other radioactive element. Both of these assumptions are, so far, completely valid and backed up by scientific research. Potassium-Argon dating stops working when something is very, very old. Older than the scientific age of the universe.