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

[Kenny'sID]

That doesn't make any sense. Evolution is an observable biological process that occurs in populations. Saying it is a "made-up lie" is a bit like claiming ocean currents or plate tectonics are a made-up lie. It's nonsensical.

Nope it's nothing like that, we can see oceans currents in action. What a silly comparison, but that's good, you are giving me more of what I need to prove how ridiculous the claim is. Only someone desperate for proof for the unprovable would have to stoop to such a bad comparison.

You like comparisons? Yours is like falling to ones death and in desperation grabbing at thin air to hold themselves up.

The issue here is your continual refusal to use proper terminology.

Typical shift of blame.

Why is that an issue? Oh that's right, since you say there is no such thing as proof in science, and after I have proven that wrong by offering proof, then comes the part where you say I can't use the term proof so that means my whole experiment is faulty, and even if it was not, it's still not proof because some clown made the rule, and the desperate for an excuse ran with it..

Got it.

 

[pitabread]

Nope it's nothing like that, we can see oceans currents in action.

Just like we can see evolution in action. It's a continually occurring process in populations.

Typical shift of blame.

There is no "shift of blame" here because there hasn't been blame directed anywhere else.

You just aren't using terminology properly. That's all this is.

 

[AV1611VET]

Just like we can see evolution in action.

To a point.

Then it's only on paper.

 

[pitabread]

To a point.

Then it's only on paper.

The outcomes of processes that occur leave behind evidence of their occurrence. So no, it's not only "on paper".

 

[Kenny'sID]

Just like we can see evolution in action. It's a continually occurring process in populations.

Where can I view the evolution that ends in the humans of today...start to finish?

You just aren't using terminology properly. That's all this is.

You copped out on me when I tried to get to the bottom of what you "say" is proper terminology because you were losing ground, and now you claim I'm wrong about something I did the best I could to understand or prove you wrong? Something YOU put an end to for the reason I just mentioned?

Sorry, but you don't get to say it's a fact and walk away from the challenge when you cannot back up that "fact". Then on top of that, you expect me to just take your word for something that you copped out on trying to prove just prior to this because you couldn't prove it. To make that simple, you want me to believe something you yourself fell apart on, then chose not to debate further.

But I get it, had you stuck with the argument, you would have lost, and there goes the the excuse proof is not available in science.

So back to the same as before, you either hash it out or stop telling me there is no proof in science.....simple.

 

[Kenny'sID]

To a point.

Then it's only on paper.

Oh, so that's where evolution occurs. And here I was looking through gross stagnant water.

 

[pitabread]

Where can I view the evolution that ends in the humans of today...start to finish?

I don't know what you mean by "start to finish".

Evolution is a process that occurs in populations whereby the genetic makeup of that population varies over time. The process that occurs today is the same as the process that has been occurring since there has been life on this planet (~3.8 billion years).

You copped out on me when I tried to get to the bottom of what you "say" is proper terminology because you were losing ground, and now you claim I'm wrong about something I did the best I could to understand or prove you wrong?

You're trying to make something a fight that isn't a fight. There's no argument here. There is proper terminology and improper terminology. You are clinging to improper terminology.

I don't know why, since there really is nothing anyone gains from any of this. There is no winning of magical Internet points just because you don't want to use words properly. I don't get what you're trying to accomplish here.

 

[Speedwell]

Typical shift of blame.

Why is that an issue? Oh that's right, since you say there is no such thing as proof in science, and after I have proven that wrong by offering proof, then comes the part where you say I can't use the term proof so that means my whole experiment is faulty, and even if it was not, it's still not proof because some clown made the rule, and the desperate for an excuse ran with it..

Got it.

There was nothing wrong with your experiment. What it provided was what a scientist would call confirming evidence of your hypothesis. You want to call that confirming evidence "proof" for some strange reason. Go right ahead, if it pleases you, but you can't expect the rest of us to agree with you about it. It doesn't change what you discovered in your experiment, it's just an odd choice of words.

 

[Speedwell]

Making others aware it's a completely made up lie. I'm a bit surprised you have't picked up on that yet.

Why do you think it has to be a lie? Why can't it just be wrong? If it's a lie, there must be some motivation for telling it; what do you think it is?

 

[Jimmy D]

Making others aware it's a completely made up lie. I'm a bit surprised you have't picked up on that yet.

Yes we're all aware of that, unfortunately you've miserably failed.

Maybe you could present some evidence of your own to demonstrate why or how it's a lie.... I won't hold my breath.

 

[xianghua]

Why is it important to call them flippers anyway?

because they are not legs as evolutionists claim.

 

[Kenny'sID]

Yes we're all aware of that, unfortunately you've miserably failed.

Speaking for everyone? No surprise. Like I say, you people will try anything, even what you don't know is a fact or not.

Maybe you could present some evidence of your own to demonstrate why or how it's a lie.... I won't hold my breath.

Will you prove the non existence of Unicorns as well?

And by all means, hold your breath.

 

[Kenny'sID]

There was nothing wrong with your experiment. What it provided was what a scientist would call confirming evidence of your hypothesis. You want to call that confirming evidence "proof" for some strange reason. Go right ahead, if it pleases you, but you can't expect the rest of us to agree with you about it. It doesn't change what you discovered in your experiment, it's just an odd choice of words.

It's a perfect choice of words, and how much proof do you people need before you realize I'm unchangeable on that?

Proof:

1. evidence sufficient to establish a thing as true, or to produce belief in its truth.
2. anything serving as such evidence: What proof do you have?
3. the act of testing or making trial of anything; test; trial: to put a thing to the proof.

Let's, for the sake of keeping it simple, take just the definition on top, and read it very slowly, and that's definition number 1 if there is any confusion. OK, we on the same page so far? Now answer this, in the post of yours that I just quoted, are you saying my evidence was sufficient to establish the thing I was trying to establish as true?

Now, if you still think my reason is "strange", I would have to say you are pretending to be clueless in order to make it appear I've done something wrong when I'm 100% correct.

I will give you this, no one else has even admitted it was confirming evidence, of which it most assuredly is, while no one here has proven the findings wrong.

 

[Kenny'sID]

Why do you think it has to be a lie? Why can't it just be wrong?

Because people lie in order to make it appear true. People also call it fact which is lie. Why do I even need to explain that to you?

 

[Speedwell]

Because people lie in order to make it appear true. People also call it fact which is lie. Why do I even need to explain that to you?

What you need to explain is the motivation for the lie.

 

[Speedwell]

It's a perfect choice of words, and how much proof do you people need before you realize I'm unchangeable on that?

Proof:

1. evidence sufficient to establish a thing as true, or to produce belief in its truth.
2. anything serving as such evidence: What proof do you have?
3. the act of testing or making trial of anything; test; trial: to put a thing to the proof.

Let's, for the sake of keeping it simple, take just the definition on top, and read it very slowly, and that's definition number 1 if there is any confusion. OK, we on the same page so far? Now answer this, in the post of yours that I just quoted, are you saying my evidence was sufficient to establish the thing I was trying to establish as true?

Of course it was. But what we re trying to tell you is, that as a matter of common usage in the scientific community, such evidence is called "confirmation" not "proof."

 

[Heissonear]

I've long tried to figure out the point of creationist beliefs. It's been quite well established on this forum that creationist beliefs offer no scientific value. And given that all the organizations promoting creationism are inherently religious in nature, the only reason for creationist beliefs seems to be theological.

Thus, is creationism* as a belief required to be a Christian? Is it required for salvation?

Is anyone who is not a creationist doomed to go to Hell?

*(For the purpose of this thread, I am defining creationism as the belief that life forms on Earth were independently created by a supernatural being and not a result of biological evolution.)

The answer in respect to Salvation is no.

Salvation is receiving what Jesus did at the Cross.

What did He do with your sins? Jesus bore them on the Cross. Who took the punishment for them? Jesus did at the Cross.

 

[Jimmy D]

Speaking for everyone? No surprise. Like I say, you people will try anything, even what you don't know is a fact or not.



Will you prove the non existence of Unicorns as well?

And by all means, hold your breath.

I’m asking for evidence that scientists are lying about the ToE.

That’s what you claim isn’t it?

 

[Heissonear]

Except that evolution and the BB *are* science (and based on the observations of our world and universe). It's nonsensical to suggest they aren't, especially in light of the fact that it's been established that creationism has no benefit to the sciences.



That seems to be the prevailing sentiment here.

You use conjecture to say such things are facts.

Like many, you have bowed down to Science for Reaility of this Creation, and its history. You are led by the Scientific Method to understand all there is to know.

Many in the Last Days have Idolized Science. They have placed it as foremost to follow and learn by.

The result are people full of Scientism and Naturalism. Earthly minded in their walk and talk.

 

[Kenny'sID]

What you need to explain is the motivation for the lie.

Why is that suddenly a rule? You have no proof, and even attack the term "proof" as a way out. Until you have proof, it is a lie...period. Let's see, how can I help you here...I have a Gopher with 8 heads, now you may be so gullible you will simply believe that, or like most, you would ask me to show it to you, or prove it. I show you I have proof and have proven it, I don't, then I don't have proof, it was a lie.

Of course it was. But what we re trying to tell you is, that as a matter of common usage in the scientific community, such evidence is called "confirmation" not "proof."

I don't believe you, I think some call it proof, "I" called it proof, and I assure you, I'm not the first. Please quite leaning on your technical little rules that likely have no real validity, or amount to just about zilch in the scheme of things to begin with, and all to prove your bogus evolution. Your intentions are showing...badly

This is one of the silliest conversation I've ever run into here, it's all about desperation, because you have no proof of evolution...most can see that, and though that is 100% clear to me, what is not clear is why you all continue to do this to yourselves?

Besides, how do any of your claims on this change the fact you have no proof, or whatever you choose to call it for evolution.

Do you have evidence that confirms beyond reasonable doubt, evolution is a fact (proof)? And if you say you do, at what point do we stop calling that mere biased opinion? And that is exactly the confusion your silly argument of terminology brings on. It allows you to suggest evolution it a fact by playing word games, but in the end, you still have no proof, the very word that is not allowed.

Evolution is a complete joke...and keeps me laughing for several reasons.