 |
Open Theism Discussion Board > Public Forums > General Chat > (No Subject)
| Forum Quick Jump
|
| 
Tom
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 10353
| Posted 5/24/2002 8:10 PM (GMT -6) |   | Just saw that CT 5/20/02 has an interview with Polkinghorne. Interesting. Here's the URL:
http://www.christianitytoday.com/ct/2002/006/9.64.html
There's also a couple of other interviews with him too:
http://www.crosscurrents.org/polkinghorne.htm
http://www.christianitytoday.com/bc/8b5/8b5030.html
Tom
"Every saint has a history and every sinner a future." Oscar Wilde | | Back to Top | | |
 |
GregBoyd
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 1818
| Posted 5/25/2002 12:43 AM (GMT -6) | | Thanks for the tip, Tom. Polkinghorne is da man!
Doc
"In Christ...the ONLY THING that matters is faith energized by love." Galatians 5:6 | | Back to Top | | |
|
Matthew Timothy Short
Huh?
Date Joined Apr 2002
Total Posts : 635
| Posted 5/25/2002 4:05 AM (GMT -6) | | Giberson: Your discussions of natural history portray God's patient crafting as he works within the natural order, respectful of the laws of nature. You allow a lot of room for conventional theories of evolution…
Polkinghorne: The difference lies in the adequacy of an exclusively evolutionary explanation. Of course, that we are evolved beings, that we have a long history behind us, that we derive genetically over periods of many millions of years from animals and so on is a fact about us, it seems to me, and it is a fact that conditions us in various ways. But it doesn't explain all about us.
TIM: I have to part company with Polkinghorne on the evolution thing; other than that, I enjoyed the reading very much, thanks for sharing, Tom.
| | Back to Top | | |
|
n/a
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 218
| Posted 5/25/2002 5:31 AM (GMT -6) | | so sorry to hear that you don't agree with evolution, tim. Although you are not a scientist, I guess you are allowed your own opinion.
"Remember, education is MORE about confronting views you don't hold than absorbing views you already hold.
"~Gregory A Boyd | | Back to Top | | |
|
writerdad
Registered Member
Date Joined Jun 2001
Total Posts : 448
| Posted 5/25/2002 8:04 AM (GMT -6) | | Tim: I am glad to see you don't agree with the "evolution" thing. Faithful, a person doesn't have to be a scientist to see how wrong evolution is, but it helps...
| | Back to Top | | |
|
Matthew Timothy Short
Huh?
Date Joined Apr 2002
Total Posts : 635
| Posted 5/25/2002 8:18 AM (GMT -6) | | Dear faithfullservent,
Kenneth R. Miller: Evolution is both fact and a theory. It is a fact that evolutionary change took place. In addition, evolution is a theory that seeks to explain the detailed mechanism behind that change.
TIM: Although, I find the above statement vague, I agree and disagree somewhat, how is that, for being ambiguous. Furthermore, I believe I have a different idea than Kenneth, of the fact of evolutionary change and what he meant by the detailed mechanism behind that change, which I do not see as a theory; simply another fact.
Fact can be considered an effect produced or achieved; anything done or that comes to pass or to happen; an act; an event; a circumstance; reality; actuality; truth.
There is also, the assertion or statement of a thing as done or existing, suggested by theory. History abounds with falsehoods, sometimes, even when false or improperly put, by a transfer of meaning, for the thing done, asserted, or supposed done; the false fact stands, as being true.
There is the matter of fact, of the actual occurrence of creation and evolution; evolutionary change does occur and the detailed mechanism behind that change. There is the verity; the quality or state of being true or real; of using or having adjective or rather relating to the procedure objectively of, or pertaining to the facts of creation and evolution. There is the Biblical account of creation as a matter-of-fact narration, given of God, which some may consider a historical or hysterical falsehood. However, opinion, based upon theory is not objective or pertaining to the evidence of facts in my mind.
Sir M. Hale: Opinion is when the assent of the understanding is so far gained by evidence of probability, that it rather inclines to one persuasion than to another, yet not without a mixture of uncertainty or doubting.
TIM: Since I hold the above statement as my understanding, of an opinion, to be fact. Then I obviously do not have an opinion, on the evolution of humans, which come from animals, as presented by Polkinghorne; versus the Biblical account of Creation; of Adam being born of God, not slowly evolving from animals. Thank you for your understanding of my firm stance, in advance; I will not change my mind, about the Biblical account of Creation; being considered well informed or not.
Thank you for the vote of confidence, writerdad.
In God’s Love,
Tim
| | Back to Top | | |
|
n/a
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 218
| Posted 5/25/2002 8:22 AM (GMT -6) | | no, because seeing how wrong it is proves they are not a scientist--that they don't know the first thing about evolution;and if they do, it is probably misrepresented arguments they heard from their peers. Maybe they should go read some scientists work, and no I am not talking about (pseudoscience) creation scientist's. Sorry to hear you don't agree with evolution either, writerdad.
"Remember, education is MORE about confronting views you don't hold than absorbing views you already hold.
"~Gregory A Boyd | | Back to Top | | |
|
BJS
Registered Member
Date Joined Dec 2001
Total Posts : 587
| Posted 5/25/2002 10:33 AM (GMT -6) | | What's up, faithful? I've never heard you so riled up. . .
Brett
"Siste viator et memento mori." | | Back to Top | | |
|
Matthew Timothy Short
Huh?
Date Joined Apr 2002
Total Posts : 635
| Posted 5/25/2002 12:39 PM (GMT -6) | | Dear faithfullservent,
Rhetoric can either mean an artificial eloquence; a fine harangue or declamation without conviction or earnest feeling, or somewhat the opposite, which is the power of persuasion or attraction; that which allures or charms. Although, I might be wrong, I believe you mean the former.
However, when you post, "…seeing how wrong it, [meaning evolution] is, [this] proves they are not a scientist--that they don't know the first thing about evolution; and if they do, it is probably misrepresented…"
Then you post, "I don't care what you believe or don't believe".
I believe you are suggesting what does not appear to be true, about my not knowing a thing about evolution. Since I have said, "I believe evolutionary change does occur and the detailed mechanism behind that change is fact and not theory".
Nevertheless, I believe,
Gen 1:1 In the beginning God created…
Gen 1:21 And God created…every living creature…
Gen 1:27 So God created man in his [own] image…
Gen 2:3 …God created and made.
Gen 5:2 Male and female…and called their name Adam…
Rather than, "…that we derive genetically over periods of many millions of years from animals and so on is a fact about us…" - Polkinghorne
Furthermore, if you care or do not care about what you believe so strongly; then why tell me you do not care at all; because my rhetoric is not without conviction or earnest feeling, perfectly the opposite.
In God’s Love,
Tim
| | Back to Top | | |
|
Matthew Timothy Short
Huh?
Date Joined Apr 2002
Total Posts : 635
| Posted 5/25/2002 12:46 PM (GMT -6) | | Man, we posted at the same time, cool Huh! God bless you also, Good buddy.
Edited by - Tim on 05/25/2002 5:49:09 PM | | Back to Top | | |
|
Starkman
Registered Member
Date Joined Oct 2001
Total Posts : 1747
| Posted 5/25/2002 6:10 PM (GMT -6) | | From an article in Answers in Genesis:
It is vitally important that words should be used accurately and consistently. Without this, any discussion is meaningless, so this must be addressed before anything else. And this is a major failing with Lerner’s paper — he never defines ‘evolution’ and he doesn’t use the term consistently.
The theory that Lerner and other materialists are really promoting, and which creationists oppose, is the idea that particles turned into people over time, without any need for an intelligent designer. This ‘General Theory of Evolution’ (GTE) was defined by the evolutionist Kerkut as ‘the theory that all the living forms in the world have arisen from a single source which itself came from an inorganic form.’1
However, many many evolutionary propagandists are guilty of the deceitful practice of equivocation, that is, switching the meaning of a single word (evolution) part-way through an argument. A common tactic is simply to produce examples of change over time, call this ‘evolution’, then imply that the GTE is thereby proven or even essential, and Creation disproven. For example, Lerner writes:
‘What do we mean by evolution, and what is its place in the sciences? The universe is a dynamic place at every scale of space and time. Almost all science is the study of the evolution of one system or another — systems as large as the universe itself or as small as a neutrino; systems whose time scales are measured in billions of years or in attoseconds.
‘Thus, evolution is an indispensable concept across all the sciences. But biological evolution in particular has come to occupy a peculiar position in American education.’
Also, throughout Lerner’s paper are concepts that students should know. However, many of them are simply examples of change over time, so are not disputed by creationists. But the implication throughout is that without the GTE, it would be impossible to understand that:
* All living things reproduce.
* Offspring are similar to but not exactly like their parents.
* Offspring have to grow up (or change; e.g., metamorphose) before reproducing themselves.
* There is a fit between individuals, or species, and their environment (e.g., terrestrial, aquatic, aerial). …
* Natural selection determines the differential survival of groups of organisms.
But understanding these concepts does not depend on the GTE.
What is the real problem with evolution?
The main scientific objection to the GTE is not that changes occur through time, and neither is it about the size of the change (so we would discourage use of the terms micro- and macro-evolution). The key issue is the type of change required — to change microbes into men requires changes that increase the genetic information content, from over half a million DNA ‘letters’ of even the ‘simplest’ self-reproducing organism to three billion ‘letters’ (stored in each human cell nucleus). Nothing in Lerner’s paper (or anywhere else) provides a single example of functional new information being added. To claim that mere change proves information-increasing change can occur is like saying that because a merchant sells goods, he can sell them for a profit. The origin of information is a major problem for the GTE.
End of article.
It is important to remember science, by definition, is repeatable, controlled experimentation in a controlled environment. Evolution cannot be tested like this. Evolution has no "scientific" proof in this manner. Neither are there any fossles or any other evidence in existance to display change with new, added information. It simply doesn't exist.
For the six days of creation,
Starkman (almost wrote Starkmam . . . I'm loosing understanding of my own identity, for pete's sake!)
| | Back to Top | | |
|
writerdad
Registered Member
Date Joined Jun 2001
Total Posts : 448
| Posted 5/26/2002 6:38 PM (GMT -6) | | Faithful: I was not meaning to be offensive (sorry, if I was) but your statement seemed to me to imply that only scientists could know the truth (or falsehood) of evolution and only scientists (who truly know, I suppose) can discuss it on a competent level (I would venture only those who agree with you about the truth of evolution as well, I suppose). And from your latest remarks I would guess that any scientist (and perhaps they are not scientist in your mind since, regardless of degree they don't believe in evolution) who doesn't agree with you is disqualified. But if only scientists can competently discuss this, how does that apply to other fields? Would that mean that only car mechanics discuss problems with cars? And only theologians discuss God? And on and on...
As much as many scientists (particularly those who are hostile to all forms of theism, which is another subject that amazes me...how Christians can hold these guys up as "objective") want the rest of "non-scientific" types to believe it, evolution is not the air tight explanation for the world that they so want to hang their hats on. As Greg Kouhl once said, all beliefs have problems.
| | Back to Top | | |
| Forum Information | Currently it is Monday, November 09, 2026 3:21 PM (GMT -6)
There are a total of 97,718 posts in 6,040 threads.
In the last 3 days there were 0 new threads and 0 reply posts. View Active Threads
|
Forum powered by dotNetBB v2.42EC SP3
dotNetBB © 2000-2026 |
|
|