He's now saying that all he trees used in the chronologies are post-flood.
So we now have the idea that at some point in the past current species of trees grew in a radically different way - but he's offered no evidence or even a plausible explanation for why this should be so. It's just bullshit made up for the express purpose of ignoring the clear evidence. The whole basis for the argument is that the truth must be whatever is convenient for him. I'd like to see him argue for that proposition instead of assuming it all the time. Let's see some of the real truth from a creationist for once.
Edited by PaulK, : No reason given.
™ Version 4.2
