OEC and ID

[gray wolf]

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.

[LookingForAnswers]

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

[Enoch2021]

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. 

[gray wolf]

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

[gray wolf]

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.

[LookingForAnswers]

My suggestion would be to turn to a science source vice a religious one like the one posted.

[Guest shiloh357]

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? 

[LookingForAnswers]

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

[Guest shiloh357]

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.

[Guest shiloh357]

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.