OEC and ID

[Guest shiloh357]

 

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.  

 

I just don't think its that important. If someone chooses to believe a day in the bible is symbolic representing 100 million years, and I believe its a  literal 24 hour day its not going to make much difference to the fruits of the spirit in that person's life. What's more important are the fruits of the spirit, love, kindness, joy and peace, patience, long suffering etc.

 

I guess it dpends on whether or not you think the Bible is inerrant or not.   That is what is at stake.  It is important for reasons I guess you just don't understand. 

[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? 

 

No. The truth is what it is, regardless of what we think or how in error we are.

 

1 cor 13:9, 10 For we know in part and we prophesy in part, but when the perfect comes, the partial will pass away.

 

Well let's test that claim.   Do you believe that man was created from the dirt separate from the rest of the created order, as the Bible says, or do you believe that man evolved from an ape-like ancestor that we alledgedly have in common with chimps?

[gray wolf]

I personally don't care I see another bristle cone pine as long as I live

[LookingForAnswers]

 

For those that like to prove things, here is the actual science behind dendrochronology.

 

http://www.geog.psu.edu/sites/default/files/Maxwell%202011-%20comparison%20of%20two-techniques.pdf

 

dendrochronology is a bit deeper than each ring equals one year like the YEC site tired to imply.

 

Also, the quote from Dr Mriv was taken out of context and he did not question the determined age of the trees.  I am trying to find a quote of this that I can use and should have it by the end of the night.

 

The science of dendrochronology is full of faults. They link hanging chronologies with low probability tree ring sequences to their main chronology. However their current computer software recognises those low probability matching sequence as high probability matching sequences. Dendrochronologists themselves point out these problems. So they trust incorrect percentages that a computer throws at them, and they also gain further confidence by matching these sequences to world events (eg volcanoes) that are dated through radiocarbon or thorium dating.

 

It ends of in a vicious circle of circular reasoning, based on the assumption that radiocarbon decay occurred at a similar rate when the magnetic field was a lot stronger.

 

 

Outstanding response, thanks.  dendrochronology is not without its faults that is for sure, though I think they realize this even more than most.  Also, the world events are dated by much more than just radiocarbon or thorium, they can be matched to world events that we have written records of.

[LookingForAnswers]

 

 

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.

 

I just don't think its that important. If someone chooses to believe a day in the bible is symbolic representing 100 million years, and I believe its a  literal 24 hour day its not going to make much difference to the fruits of the spirit in that person's life. What's more important are the fruits of the spirit, love, kindness, joy and peace, patience, long suffering etc.

 

I guess it dpends on whether or not you think the Bible is inerrant or not.   That is what is at stake.  It is important for reasons I guess you just don't understand.

 

 

Except for the fact that if someone believes the day in Genesis is representing 100 million years still believes the bible is inerrant. 

 

*** Removed person insults.  Do not continue to attack the person, debate the subject ***

Edited February 13, 2014 by OneLight

[ARGOSY]

 

 

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.  

 

I just don't think its that important. If someone chooses to believe a day in the bible is symbolic representing 100 million years, and I believe its a  literal 24 hour day its not going to make much difference to the fruits of the spirit in that person's life. What's more important are the fruits of the spirit, love, kindness, joy and peace, patience, long suffering etc.

 

I guess it dpends on whether or not you think the Bible is inerrant or not.   That is what is at stake.  It is important for reasons I guess you just don't understand. 

 

 

Is the inerrancy of the bible at stake just because someone differs in their interpretation to your interpretation?   I would honestly say the answer is no, this does not put the inerrancy of the bible at stake. I believe you are sometimes wrong in your interpretation because we are all fallible. I wouldn't feel right to judge you if you get it wrong sometimes.

[ARGOSY]

 

 

For those that like to prove things, here is the actual science behind dendrochronology.

 

http://www.geog.psu.edu/sites/default/files/Maxwell%202011-%20comparison%20of%20two-techniques.pdf

 

dendrochronology is a bit deeper than each ring equals one year like the YEC site tired to imply.

 

Also, the quote from Dr Mriv was taken out of context and he did not question the determined age of the trees.  I am trying to find a quote of this that I can use and should have it by the end of the night.

 

The science of dendrochronology is full of faults. They link hanging chronologies with low probability tree ring sequences to their main chronology. However their current computer software recognises those low probability matching sequence as high probability matching sequences. Dendrochronologists themselves point out these problems. So they trust incorrect percentages that a computer throws at them, and they also gain further confidence by matching these sequences to world events (eg volcanoes) that are dated through radiocarbon or thorium dating.

 

It ends of in a vicious circle of circular reasoning, based on the assumption that radiocarbon decay occurred at a similar rate when the magnetic field was a lot stronger.

 

 

Outstanding response, thanks.  dendrochronology is not without its faults that is for sure, though I think they realize this even more than most.  Also, the world events are dated by much more than just radiocarbon or thorium, they can be matched to world events that we have written records of.

 

 

Thanks for that   

 

History is also out though, most historical dating links into Egyptology. Now Egyptology is based on certain records, but emphasis on some king lists.  Certain of these king lists are more logically concurrent than sequental, and so there is a large stretch of Egypt's history that has been double counted. (Ref Rohl) 

[Guest shiloh357]

 

Is the inerrancy of the bible at stake just because someone differs in their interpretation to your interpretation?   I would honestly say the answer is no, this does not put the inerrancy of the bible at stake. I believe you are sometimes wrong in your interpretation because we are all fallible. I wouldn't feel right to judge you if you get it wrong sometimes.

 

This is not about "interpretation."  The issue amounts to accepting the Bible's record as true and accurate, or deciding that the Bible got it wrong and that man was NOT created from the dirt, but was the product of evolution.  

 

Evidently, you don't understand what is really at stake, when it comes to Evolution, vs. the Bible. 

[LookingForAnswers]

Argosy, I was referring to historical events a bit more recent that we have written records of.

[Guest]

Is the inveteracy of the bible at stake just because someone differs in their interpretation to your interpretation?   I would honestly say the answer is no, this does not put the inerrancy of the bible at stake. I believe you are sometimes wrong in your interpretation because we are all fallible. I wouldn't feel right to judge you if you get it wrong sometimes.

 

This is not about "interpretation."  The issue amounts to accepting the Bible's record as true and accurate, or deciding that the Bible got it wrong and that man was NOT created from the dirt, but was the product of evolution.  

 

Evidently, you don't understand what is really at stake, when it comes to Evolution, vs. the Bible. 

 

~

 

Evolution

 

Your thinking is perverse! Should the potter be regarded as clay? Should the thing made say about its maker, "He didn't make me"? Or should the pottery say about the potter, "He doesn't understand"? Isaiah 29:16 (NET)

 

Versus Jesus

 

But now is Christ risen from the dead, and become the firstfruits of them that slept. For since by man came death, by man came also the resurrection of the dead. For as in Adam all die, even so in Christ shall all be made alive. 1 Corinthians 15:20-22

 

~

 

Argosy, I was referring to historical events a bit more recent that we have written records of.

 

~

 

The Written Record

 

Remember the sabbath day, to keep it holy. Six days shalt thou labour, and do all thy work:

 

But the seventh day is the sabbath of the LORD thy God: in it thou shalt not do any work, thou, nor thy son, nor thy daughter, thy manservant, nor thy maidservant, nor thy cattle, nor thy stranger that is within thy gates:

 

For in six days the LORD made heaven and earth, the sea, and all that in them is, and rested the seventh day: wherefore the LORD blessed the sabbath day, and hallowed it. Exodus 20:8-11

 

The Historical

 

And this is the record, that God hath given to us eternal life, and this life is in his Son.

 

He that hath the Son hath life; and he that hath not the Son of God hath not life.

 

These things have I written unto you that believe on the name of the Son of God; that ye may know that ye have eternal life, and that ye may believe on the name of the Son of God. 1 John 5:11-13

 

Record