Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0
alphaparticle

OEC and ID

143 posts in this topic

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?

1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

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.

2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.  

2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It is a very good book, his journey to discovery is fascinating

1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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/evidence-for-multiple-ring-growth-per-year-in-bristlecone-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.

1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0