Is believing in creationism (e.g. that lifeforms were independently created) required for salvation?

[Speedwell]

That is essentially the condition of the given example. The genetic algorithm is conditioned with a purpose in mind, it is designed to include fitness, as predefined, and exclude unfitness. Without that it is not a useful service.

It's not a matter of inefficiency, but limitation. We use genetic algorithms because it is more efficient than our own contemplation. God should not require a genetic algorithm to acquire knowledge about which variables will increase fitness. If God requires this, it's not God.

I see no reason to suppose that God requires any such thing.

 

[pitabread]

Of course it does, live with it and stop using it as an excuse.

Here ya go, lets do an experiment to prove my water with ice in it is colder than before. With an 80F ambient room temperature/80F water, let's pour a glass of that water, add ice, wait 5 minutes, then put a thermometer in the water, and prove that water is colder with ice added.

Is that not a science experiment? Is that not proof of my claim that water will be colder than before?

It's not strictly speaking "proof" in a scientific sense. What you have is evidence to support your hypothesis based on the steps followed and the measurement taken.

Part of the reason it wouldn't be absolute "proof" is because there could be other variables at work that aren't being tested in this particular experiment.

For example, if you did the same experiment but got the opposite result (i.e. the temperature of the water increased) would this prove that ice increases the temperature of water? Or maybe there is another reason, such as a faulty thermometer.

Similarly if you did the same experiment with chilled water (say 33F) and the water temp rose after adding the ice, would this indicate that ice raises water temperature? Or would there be another variable at work, such as the ambient room temperature?

 

[Sanoy]

I see no reason to suppose that God requires any such thing.

That's good. So we both agree that randomness and design (purpose) can be included in the same system per your example of genetic algorithms in Engineering. The purpose being to acquire knowledge and God has no need of that service.

But the issue of unconstrained randomness is still the possible failure of man like beings. The example of the "genetic algorithm" is randomness constrained by a designed filter. That filter is designed to output fitness such that examples of fitness cannot fail. Without that filter it would just result in a state of what's possible, including unfitness.

I could be wrong, but it seems to me that it would be logically impossible for a random condition that includes the possibility of nonexistence to not have the actual potential of nonexistence apart from an internal superveneing design. And it seems contrary to God's nature to fail at accomplishing what He intends (except over free will). And it seems contrary to His nature and definition not to certainly create life. So much of those problems are avoided via contingent TE, where everything is certainly brought about like a string of dominoes exactly when God wants it to. The only issue for TE with that is that one takes on some burden of design but that seem far better than subtracting from God and having no burden.

 

[RDKirk]

Not all interpretations of Genesis are equal. We shouldn't pander our intellectual egos to believe less than we should.

It's not necessary for salvation even to know any interpretation of Genesis.

 

[HereIStand]

It's not necessary for salvation even to know any interpretation of Genesis.

Strictly speaking, true. Church attendance also isn't required. That doesn't mean not going is fine.

 

[pitabread]

A theology has a lot of contents. Some are essential and some items are more critical than some others. So, a theologically wrong idea may not be critical to the faith. In fact, a Christian may have many recognitions that are incompatible with the Christian theology. But he is still a Christian because his essential belief is theologically correct.

But earlier you claimed it was "unfortunate" that there are Christians that aren't creationists. If it's not essential to be a Christian, why is it unfortunate? You're implying there are consequences, but what are the consequences for those who aren't creationists?

 

[Kenny'sID]

It's not strictly speaking "proof" in a scientific sense.

Of course it is. Can you prove it wrong? Or are you going to now claim, no, science proves nothing...which would be, IMO, absolutely hilarious double talk that only the extremely agenda driven will buy.

Part of the reason it wouldn't be absolute "proof" is because there could be other variables at work that aren't being tested in this particular experiment.

What variables, name them all and we'll experiment till we satisfy them. Oh, but now there will be the spooky little unknown variables, right, the ones we don't know about? lol Then until they arise, and are more than just an excuse, I've proved my point.

Tell you what, the experiment proves everything I said, and if proof otherwise arises, then we can take another look at it, but until then it's proof, and I'd even go so far as to say, you cannot disprove it...can you?

For example, if you did the same experiment but got the opposite result (i.e. the temperature of the water increased) would this prove that ice increases the temperature of water? Or maybe there is another reason, such as a faulty thermometer.

You do that, and let me know what the temperature of your water does under the same conditions.

Similarly if you did the same experiment with chilled water (say 33F) and the water temp rose after adding the ice, would this indicate that ice raises water temperature? Or would there be another variable at work, such as the ambient room temperature?

Same as the last comment, let me know if your water gets warmer with ice added, and we can go from there, but until then, I have my proof and nothing but illogical what ifs to disprove it. Common sense also comes into play here, something I highly recommend for you, as some of your arguments/possibilities there are lacking in that area...and badly.

 

[pitabread]

Or are you going to now claim, no, science proves nothing...which would be, IMO, absolutely hilarious double talk that only the extremely agenda driven will buy.

No science doesn't "prove" anything. Rather it's about formulating testable hypothesis and deriving evidence which either support or refute those hypotheses.

You seem to be still stuck on this issue of terminology, but using incorrect terminology and having an incorrect understanding of science doesn't change how science works or how the terminology is used.

Tell you what, the experiment proves everything I said, and if proof otherwise arises, then we can take another look at it, but until then it's proof, and I'd even go so far as to say, you cannot disprove it...can you?

The correct use of terminology would be that you have strong supporting evidence for your hypothesis. The word "proof" would typically not be used for the reason I spoke about.

Common sense also comes into play here, something I highly recommend for you, as some of your arguments/possibilities there are lacking in that area...and badly.

Appeals to thinks like common sense or intuition or whatever ultimately appear to be appeals to emotion in the face of reason. More often it seems like a cover for the bias of the individual making the argument. Unfortunately, intuition is not always a good predictor for how a scientific experiment may play out the reality of things may be highly unintuitive.

The whole point of science is to examine reality and derive the best understanding thereof. This means leaving aside our own intuition and bias where possible.

 

[pitabread]

I see, how it "works" but no proof it exists? Sneaky.

I suspect if you made an honest effort to study the subject and learned what the Theory of Evolution is and how it works, you'd likewise find the evidence you seek along the way. It's all up to you whether you want to make that honest effort.

You should know enough about Christianity to know, only God knows the heart, and he alone decides who Goes to Hell and why.

Sure, but that doesn't mean I can't survey Christians to see what their views are. That's the point of this thread: what do creationists believe regarding creationisms and its necessity to the idea of salvation.

Why? because they chose to believe man over God, or more simply put, they chose not to believe God. And since God wants us to have faith in him, a lack of belief would amount to a lack of faith, and in this case putting more faith in man than God. But you need to read up and figure this out for yourself, and on a side note with a more important question, lack of belief in the God of the bible will most certainly end one up in hell.

An earlier posted made the same argument to suggest that those who aren't creationists therefore aren't Christians. Is this your view as well?

If you want to learn how God works, there are entirely free bibles/study tools on the subject:

Read and Study the Bible Online - Search, Find Verses

Oh, I'm aware. I own a couple Bibles myself and occasionally pull them out for reference in these discussions.

 

[Kenny'sID]

No science doesn't "prove" anything. Rather it's about formulating testable hypothesis and deriving evidence which either support or refute those hypotheses.

You seem to be still stuck on this issue of terminology, but using incorrect terminology and having an incorrect understanding of science doesn't change how science works or how the terminology is used.



The correct use of terminology would be that you have strong supporting evidence for your hypothesis. The word "proof" would typically not be used for the reason I spoke about.



Appeals to thinks like common sense or intuition or whatever ultimately appear to be appeals to emotion in the face of reason. More often it seems like a cover for the bias of the individual making the argument. Unfortunately, intuition is not always a good predictor for how a scientific experiment may play out the reality of things may be highly unintuitive.

The whole point of science is to examine reality and derive the best understanding thereof. This means leaving aside our own intuition and bias where possible.

Is all that to cover up the fact you cannot prove otherwise? making my conclusion standing proof? Did you try the things I asked you to try? Why not? we both know the answer to that.

And of course you can pretend not to see what is right in front of you, that was already predicted, but that's a personal issue I'd rather not get into.

 

[pitabread]

Is all that to cover up the fact you cannot prove otherwise? making my conclusion standing proof? Did you try the things I asked you to try? Why not? we both know the answer to that.

And of course you can pretend not to see what is right in front of you, that was already predicted, but that's a personal issue I'd rather not get into.

I'm simply pointing out the way terminology is used with relation to science. You can continually use incorrect terminology all you want, but that only makes these kinds of discussions more difficult.

See: Scientific evidence - Wikipedia

 

[Speedwell]

That's good. So we both agree that randomness and design (purpose) can be included in the same system per your example of genetic algorithms in Engineering. The purpose being to acquire knowledge and God has no need of that service.

No, as I see it, the purpose is to produce functional entities.

But the issue of unconstrained randomness is still the possible failure of man like beings.

Man like?

The example of the "genetic algorithm" is randomness constrained by a designed filter. That filter is designed to output fitness such that examples of fitness cannot fail. Without that filter it would just result in a state of what's possible, including unfitness.

There are two "filters." The first is the inherent limit on the standard deviation of the random distribution of variants. The second is natural selection.

I could be wrong, but it seems to me that it would be logically impossible for a random condition that includes the possibility of nonexistence to not have the actual potential of nonexistence apart from an internal supervening design.

Do you mean the extinction of a species through failure to adapt to changing conditions?

And it seems contrary to God's nature to fail at accomplishing what He intends

And His intention is? If it is to create a functioning and persistent biosphere He seems to have done the job.

And it seems contrary to His nature and definition not to certainly create life.

The creation of life doesn't come into it. This is evolution we are talking about now.

 

[Kenny'sID]

I suspect if you made an honest effort to study the subject and learned what the Theory of Evolution is and how it works, you'd likewise find the evidence you seek along the way. It's all up to you whether you want to make that honest effort.

Right, if I don't buy into evolution, I must not have made an honest effort. I think I've given you plenty of opportunity to help me understand but saw nor real effort at all, honest or otherwise, only stalling. And I have every reason to believe that is because you can't prove a thing, I mean what in the world are you going to do about that, when, by your own admission, you can't prove it, regardless of your excuses on why you cannot? People are going to require proof just the same so.

Sure, but that doesn't mean I can't survey Christians to see what their views are.

I don't believe I objected to that.

An earlier posted made the same argument to suggest that those who aren't creationists therefore aren't Christians. Is this your view as well?

You need to read the rues of this site on that, and you'll need to look them up for yourself or take my word for the fact I'm not allowed to answer that honestly. Or were you already aware of that?

 

[Kenny'sID]

I'm simply pointing out the way terminology is used with relation to science. You can continually use incorrect terminology all you want, but that only makes these kinds of discussions more difficult.

See: Scientific evidence - Wikipedia

While you skipped my requests and still do? Nope, I think I was right the first time and still do.

 

[Speedwell]

People are going to require proof just the same so.

No, if they understand anything about science they will require confirming evidence, not proof.

You need to read the rues of this site on that, and you'll need to look them up for yourself or take my word for the fact I'm not allowed to answer that honestly. Or were you already aware of that?

I think we have a pretty good idea of what your answer would be. Sad, that you would write off nearly two billion faithful believers who are convinced of their salvation through the life, death and physical resurrection of Jesus Christ, not to mention countless others who have gone before.

 

[pitabread]

Right, if I don't buy into evolution, I must not have made an honest effort. I think I've given you plenty of opportunity to help me understand but saw nor real effort at all, honest or otherwise, only stalling.

I am more than willing to have a discussion with a person about the subject, but it depends on the apparent sincerity of the person doing the asking. I gave you a number of resources to start including free courses, web sites, and recommendations for books that I have personally read on the subject.

And I have every reason to believe that is because you can't prove a thing, I mean what in the world are you going to do about that, when, by your own admission, you can't prove it, regardless of your excuses on why you cannot? People are going to require proof just the same so.

Let's try this a different way. Say I came up to you and said I wanted to be a Christian. But at the same time, I'd never read the Bible, never been to church, never heard of Jesus and didn't know the basic requirements for Christianity.

What would your advice to me be in that circumstance?

You need to read the rues of this site on that, and you'll need to look them up for yourself or take my word for the fact I'm not allowed to answer that honestly. Or were you already aware of that?

I've looked up the rules but I haven't seen anything specifically prohibiting a person from outlining what they believe is a requirement to be a Christian. There's even a "Controversial Christian Theology" subforum on this site.

That said, I will interpret your answer to mean that yes, you do believe that one must be a creationist in order to be a Christian.

 

[Kenny'sID]

No, if they understand anything about science they will require confirming evidence, not proof.

And if they understand anything about bologna, they won't, they will require proof in spite of what they are told they should believe.

 

[Kenny'sID]

I am more than willing to have a discussion with a person about the subject, but it depends on the apparent sincerity of the person doing the asking. I gave you a number of resources to start including free courses, web sites, and recommendations for books that I have personally read on the subject.

That's just you blaming anyone but yourself..again. Hardly worth responding to.

Let's try this a different way. Say I came up to you and said I wanted to be a Christian. But at the same time, I'd never read the Bible, never been to church, never heard of Jesus and didn't know the basic requirements for Christianity.

I think even you can read between the lines.

 

[pitabread]

That's just you blaming anyone but yourself..again. Hardly worth responding to.

Well, what did you do with the resources I listed?

I think even you can read between the lines.

Humor me.

 

[Kenny'sID]

Well, what did you do with the resources I listed?

I have given several reasons in the past why I don't chase links. Have I not made that clear to you?

Go ahead and use those resources to prove your evolution, all I ask is you bring it here, for one reason, so you are responsible for exactly what you claim is proof. On the other hand if you are sill saying proof is not available, then you are out of luck in getting me to believe something that already sounds like nonsense to me.

So I have to now go back to us trying to sort out the proof thing, and recall your ignoring the parts of my posts that you were unable to answer too.

IOW, you chose not to settle that once and for all, for the reason, you didn't want it settled, and why didn't you want it settled? Because once it's proven proof does exist, the only thing you now have to rely on flies out the window, and you are left with no more excuses (as if you have any to begin with.

So, in the end, nothing will be settled until that is, and no, I'm not going to waste my time pointing your evasions out when I already did my part, besides, it's easy to find, it'll just take you a bit of time..

So, you'll need to go back, answer those parts you evaded, then we can resume that argument, get it straight first, and then move on to the rest with solid understanding proof is or is not available.

It's the only logical way to approach this.