Jump to content

christian forums

Worthy Christian Forums - Christian Forums

Welcome to Worthy Christian Forums
Register now to gain access to all of our features. Once registered and logged in, you will be able to create topics, post replies to existing threads, give reputation to your fellow members, get your own private messenger, post status updates, manage your profile and so much more. If you already have an account, login here - otherwise create an account for free today!
Photo

OEC and ID


This topic has been archived. This means that you cannot reply to this topic.
142 replies to this topic

#1
alphaparticle

alphaparticle

    Senior Member

  • Senior Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,312 posts

My question is, what is the exactly distinction between OEC and ID? Can you be OEC and think that God created life in stages that resemble evolution? Can you be an ID type and think that God created through evolution?



#2
shiloh357

shiloh357

    Royal Member

  • Platinum Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 33,550 posts

My question is, what is the exactly distinction between OEC and ID? Can you be OEC and think that God created life in stages that resemble evolution? Can you be an ID type and think that God created through evolution?

I don't think so.  If you watch the film "Expelled" with Ben Stein, it is clear that the evolution community considers ID to be sourge of the earth. 



#3
alphaparticle

alphaparticle

    Senior Member

  • Senior Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,312 posts

 

My question is, what is the exactly distinction between OEC and ID? Can you be OEC and think that God created life in stages that resemble evolution? Can you be an ID type and think that God created through evolution?

I don't think so.  If you watch the film "Expelled" with Ben Stein, it is clear that the evolution community considers ID to be sourge of the earth. 

 

Yeah. But suppose you decide to ignore their distaste of ID and look just at the principles.



#4
LookingForAnswers

LookingForAnswers

    Senior Member

  • Seeker
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,169 posts

Those that think that God created through evolution are called Theistic Evolutionist and they are different from IDers.

 

This site gives the TE's point of view on ID....http://www.theistic-...com/design.html



#5
shiloh357

shiloh357

    Royal Member

  • Platinum Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 33,550 posts

Evolution simply cannot be mixed with creationism or with ID.   It may work in someone's imagination, but the reality is that neither the Bible nor Evolution are smorgasboards from which you can pick and choose according to your taste.  

 

You cannot be an evolutionist on your own terms.  At some point, you will need to decide if evolution or the Bible holds the truth.  God doesn't share His glory.   Trying to live with one foot in naturalism and one foot in the Bible simply doesn't work.  Those are two worldviews that stand mutually exclusive to each other.  



#6
LookingForAnswers

LookingForAnswers

    Senior Member

  • Seeker
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,169 posts
I have never been comfortable telling someone what they can and cannot believe, just reeks too much of arrogance. I have read Dr Collins' The Language of God, and while I don't agree with him on it all he has a clear, concise and coherent point of view. To tell him he cannot hold that view is just going too far.

#7
alphaparticle

alphaparticle

    Senior Member

  • Senior Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,312 posts

shiloh- you've stated this before and at this point is kind of meaningless rhetoric to me. You can accuse me of smorgasbord reasoning all day but you have yet to convince me that I am in error that way.

 

Looking- I should check out the Collins book.



#8
LookingForAnswers

LookingForAnswers

    Senior Member

  • Seeker
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,169 posts
It is a very good book, his journey to discovery is fascinating

#9
gray wolf

gray wolf

    Senior Member

  • Senior Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,428 posts

We have to look at the evidence with an open mind and let it speak for itself.  For example, if bristlecone pines tell us they are 8200 years old, then perhaps some of our dates, such as the Flood, may be coming from an error in assumptions.



#10
Enoch2021

Enoch2021

    Senior Member

  • Senior Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,120 posts

We have to look at the evidence with an open mind and let it speak for itself.  For example, if bristlecone pines tell us they are 8200 years old, then perhaps some of our dates, such as the Flood, may be coming from an error in assumptions.

 

 

Or maybe first we should look @ that "8200 year old" claim (I think it's actually 8700 years old) to Verify and assess Veracity.

 

 

Source:  http://creation.com/...istlecone-pines

 

 

It appears these trees and their subsequent "Tree Rings" are very sensitive to climate/weather anamolies......

 

 

'.....induced multiple ring growth in sapling BCPs by simply simulating a two week drought.'

Lammerts, W.E., Are the Bristle-cone Pine trees really so old? Creation Research Society Quarterly 20(2):108–115, 1983

 

 

An expert in the genus Pinus didn’t seem to have any problem believing that White Mountain BCPs grew multiple rings per year. In his book, The Genus Pinus, Mirov states, ‘Apparently a semblance of annual rings is formed after every rather infrequent cloudburst.'

Mirov, N.T., The Genus Pinus, Ronald Press Co., New York, 1967.

 

 

'It is important to understand that the idea that mature trees can grow more than one ring per year is not a highly speculative hypothesis. It is well established that mature trees of many species of both angiosperms and gymnosperms, including other species of the genus Pinus, can grow multiple rings per year, especially under the types of conditions in which some of the BCPs in the White Mountains grow.'

 

 

Glock et al. published a large study in 1960 documenting the common occurrence of multiple ring growth per year, under conditions similar to those in the White Mountains.
Glock W.S., Studhalter, R.A. and Agerter, S.R., Classification and multiplicity of growth layers in the branches of trees, Smithsonian Miscellaneous Collections 140(1):1–292, 1960.

 

They found that multiplicity was more than twice as common as annularity, and conclude that probably very few annual increments, over the entire tree, consist of only one growth.
Glock W.S., Studhalter, R.A. and Agerter, S.R., Classification and multiplicity of growth layers in the branches of trees, Smithsonian Miscellaneous Collections 140(1): p. 123, 1960

 

 

'researchers must use wood from dead trees to extend the chronology beyond the lifetime of currently living trees. The older parts of the chronology come from dead wood found lying on the ground near the living trees. This means that some pieces of wood in the earliest part of the chronology would have had to lie around on the ground for more than 7,000 years!'

 

 

Thanks Grey...it's been a while since I looked @ this.

 

ps. I like the new avatar.



#11
gray wolf

gray wolf

    Senior Member

  • Senior Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,428 posts

Thanks about the pic. . . .  the mug shot didn't do anyone favors.  From what I've read, although some trees do form double rings, this is rare with bristlecones.  They tend to have missing rings altogether, which would give a younger age to the specimen than what it actually is, which is not surprising considering the climatic conditions in the southwest compared to the White Mtns.



#12
LookingForAnswers

LookingForAnswers

    Senior Member

  • Seeker
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,169 posts
Dendrochronlogist understand that different events effect the accumulation of rings in a tree. The idea that they just count each ring as one year is a faulty view of what they do. It is also a sloppy way for those who want to discredit them to go about things

#13
Enoch2021

Enoch2021

    Senior Member

  • Senior Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,120 posts

Thanks about the pic. . . .  the mug shot didn't do anyone favors.  From what I've read, although some trees do form double rings, this is rare with bristlecones.  They tend to have missing rings altogether, which would give a younger age to the specimen than what it actually is.

 

Did you read my post?

 

Click on the Source document in my last post....it's quite comprehensive. 

 

"although some trees do form double rings, this is rare with bristlecones."

 

I've just provided "cited references" then summarily refute this claim quite demonstrably and say the exact opposite.  :huh:



#14
gray wolf

gray wolf

    Senior Member

  • Senior Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,428 posts

Ha!  I had the wrong mountains in mind!  My mistake



#15
gray wolf

gray wolf

    Senior Member

  • Senior Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,428 posts

I've done some digging and found some accounts that run counter to the claims of that creation website.  I am not going to argue again about OE/YE creationism, ID etc, and cite opposing sources, however.  I do not think anyone benefits or is convinced by the arguments either way, so I respectfully bow out.



#16
LookingForAnswers

LookingForAnswers

    Senior Member

  • Seeker
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,169 posts
My suggestion would be to turn to a science source vice a religious one like the one posted.

#17
shiloh357

shiloh357

    Royal Member

  • Platinum Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 33,550 posts

shiloh- you've stated this before and at this point is kind of meaningless rhetoric to me. You can accuse me of smorgasbord reasoning all day but you have yet to convince me that I am in error that way.

 

Looking- I should check out the Collins book.

So you do think it is up to man to decide which parts of the Bible are true and which parts are expendable? 



#18
LookingForAnswers

LookingForAnswers

    Senior Member

  • Seeker
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,169 posts
Collins does not do this, so why do you imply that he does?

#19
shiloh357

shiloh357

    Royal Member

  • Platinum Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 33,550 posts

I have never been comfortable telling someone what they can and cannot believe, just reeks too much of arrogance. I have read Dr Collins' The Language of God, and while I don't agree with him on it all he has a clear, concise and coherent point of view. To tell him he cannot hold that view is just going too far.

It's not a matter of me telling people what they can and cannot believe.  It is simply a matter of facts.   The Bible makes no room for evolution.  That is why atheists support evolution  over Genesis.  

 

God's word is above other things, Holy.   By nature it can't be mixed or live at peace with any other idealogy.   You cannot be a Christian and a Wiccan, or be a Christian and a Mormon/Jehovah's Witness.  

 

Evolution is no different the very crux of Evolution is that it absent of any intelligent/divine causality.  Collins may prefer to ignore that aspect of Evolution, but Evolution isn't compatible with a biblical world view.

 

It might be compatible with a "religious" worldview where the Bible can be viewed as a document written by ignorant shepherds who didn't know how the world worked, and so forth, but one cannot maintain a biblical worldview and be an Evolutionist.   The two idealogies can't mix.



#20
shiloh357

shiloh357

    Royal Member

  • Platinum Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 33,550 posts

Collins does not do this, so why do you imply that he does?

I don't know what Collins does.  My question was not aimed at Collins.  I was aking Alpha.  I will say that if Collins thinks man evolved from some ape-like ancestor that man has in common with chimps, Collins is wrong and he rejects what God says about man in Genesis 1:27-28.






Worthy Christian Forums - Christian Message Boards - 1999-2014 part of the Worthy Network