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

[DogmaHunter]

Are you being sarcastic?

Because anyone who has spent more than a day here already knows what the word "theory" mean in the context of a scientific discussion.

...or should know what it means in that context ;-)

 

[DogmaHunter]

Good jab at those those unsophisticated barbarians called Young Earth Creationists.

Sorry, but I can't call someone that ignorant "sophisticated". It is almost the very definition of being unsophisticated to hold on to such obviously false beliefs.

The size of their error is comparable to saying that north america from coast to coast only measure 1 or 2 miles.

I don't think you even know what we are talking about.

Concerning what subject, specifically?

But I thank for for clearing up the ambiguity still left over in the Genetic Algorithm example.

What ambiguity?
It's not like GA's and their useages are a secret or something…
It's an optimization method.

Obviously when an engineer makes use of an optimization method, he does so to optimize some thing that already exists. That is its practical application.

Why do I have the feeling that you are talking about this as if you have scored some point or something?

 

[Speedwell]

Thanks, that is what I imagined.

Obviously.

Good jab at those those unsophisticated barbarians called Young Earth Creationists. I explained later what I meant by God's image.

It's not a matter of being capable, it's a matter of requiring it for knowledge.

I don't think you even know what we are talking about. But I thank for for clearing up the ambiguity still left over in the Genetic Algorithm example.

Still, many creationists we have argued with reject evolution on the grounds that because of it's contingent nature it could not be depended on to produce a humanoid mammal who resembled (was created in the image of) the Word incarnate as the human Jesus of Nazareth before the creation of the world. In fact, there are some on the forum now (AV1611 comes to mind) who believe that it was the incarnate Jesus of Nazareth, not God, who created the world. So it's always good to ask.

 

[AV1611VET]

Sorry, but I can't call someone that ignorant "sophisticated". It is almost the very definition of being unsophisticated to hold on to such obviously false beliefs.

Right … people come across like they know what a YEC is, and almost every one of them … if not every one of them … mistake me for a YEC.

If you guys know what a YEC is, then I'm Genghis Khan.

Before you call someone "ignorant," you might want to look in the mirror.

 

[Sanoy]

Sorry, but I can't call someone that ignorant "sophisticated". It is almost the very definition of being unsophisticated to hold on to such obviously false beliefs.

The size of their error is comparable to saying that north america from coast to coast only measure 1 or 2 miles.




Concerning what subject, specifically?



What ambiguity?
It's not like GA's and their useages are a secret or something…
It's an optimization method.

Obviously when an engineer makes use of an optimization method, he does so to optimize some thing that already exists. That is its practical application.

Why do I have the feeling that you are talking about this as if you have scored some point or something?

Are you sophisticated?

 

[Sanoy]

Still, many creationists we have argued with reject evolution on the grounds that because of it's contingent nature it could not be depended on to produce a humanoid mammal who resembled (was created in the image of) the Word incarnate as the human Jesus of Nazareth before the creation of the world. In fact, there are some on the forum now (AV1611 comes to mind) who believe that it was the incarnate Jesus of Nazareth, not God, who created the world. So it's always good to ask.

Edit. Nevermind. What I said (all creationists) was not in strict keeping with what you actually said ( some creationists). I apologise for misstating you.

Sophistication is a cultural reference to worldliness, not intellectual capacity. People want to be "sophisticated" for outward appearances that lead to elevated societal acceptance. I don't strive for sophistication, we are not called to be like the world but set apart from it.

 

[xianghua]

So, why do you think a supposed designer would be modding a design mid-existence like this? wasn't it well designed to start with? Why are these limbs even expressed during embryonic development at all anyway if they're not even used for the large part?

the simple answer to why this flipper is a vestigial will be because of a natural mutation. so it can be explain by design too.

Evolution explains it - an unseen, unknown designer that is apparently changing the design poses many, many more questions than it answers... especially one that seems to randomly tinker with design on the fly like this...

see above. id can explain it too.

 

[Speedwell]

Edit. Nevermind. What I said (all creationists) was not in strict keeping with what you actually said ( some creationists). I apologise for misstating you.

Sophistication is a cultural reference to worldliness, not intellectual capacity. People want to be "sophisticated" for outward appearances that lead to elevated societal acceptance. I don't strive for sophistication, we are not called to be like the world but set apart from it.

I think "sophistication" in this sense means going beyond the notion that there are only two possible interpretations of the Genesis creation stories: 100% accurate literal history or a lie, and that the incarnate Jesus of Nazareth (who wrote them) won't save you if you call him a liar.

 

[pitabread]

. id can explain it too.

ID explains nothing. Invoking the same explanation we already have isn't using ID to explain anything.

 

[Doveaman]

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

No, creationism is not required for salvation.

However, the belief in the virgin birth and the resurrection of Christ is required for salvation, both of which renders evolution theory completely inadequate in explaining the origin of human life.

The virgin birth and the resurrection proves that human life did not need to evolve from prehistoric apes.

The resurrection of Christ from his tomb proves that human life could have emerged from the dust of the ground in an instant, just as Genesis explains.

 

[Speedwell]

No, creationism is not required for salvation.

However, the belief in the virgin birth and the resurrection of Christ is required for salvation, both of which renders evolution theory completely inadequate in explaining the origin of human life.

The virgin birth and the resurrection proves that human life did not need to evolve from prehistoric apes.

The resurrection of Christ from his tomb proves that human life could have emerged from the dust of the ground in an instant, just as Genesis explains.

It may not have needed to, but what if it did?

 

[MaudDib]

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.)

Hi pita bread,

You say that creationist beliefs offer no scientific value. Well science does not have anything to say about the origin of life. Creationism is the best explanation for how we got from non life to life, not science. Science is pretty useless at explaining origins in general, like the origin of the universe as well as the origin of life. What I also notice in the bible is that on the 7th day God rested, and that He has been ever since, so that evolution comes into play now (this is a rather large topic for another topic lol).

To answer your question as to whether anyone who is not a creationist is doomed, the answer is, well, no. Clemency is on God's terms, and his terms are that you believe in His Son Jesus Christ. Not that you be an old earther or young earther or creationist etc...

Hope this helps!

T

 

[pitabread]

Well science does not have anything to say about the origin of life.

Of course it does. See here: Szostak Lab: Home

Creationism is the best explanation

"Goddidit" is not an explanation. Sorry.

 

[Kenny'sID]

Wouldn't prove it though would it?

To anyone with half a brain it would. see you need to use a little common sense there....why would he not show the gopher if he had it, as it's to his advantage to do so. so yeah, at that point, until something else comes along IF something else comes along, he would be lying in my view.

Didn't I already say that?

But you asserted that scientists are lying...

Exactly, it they aren't telling the truth they are lying, and that's my answer to the last part of your post as well.

Didn't I already say that too? If I don't answer some of your following posts just know why, like here, it appears you are trying to waste our time.

 

[Kenny'sID]

Can you please explain the difference between "lying" and "being mistaken"?
Because it sounds like you don't know….

LOL, of all the people to ask me that.

 

[Kenny'sID]

That's part of the problem. I wasn't debating.

Sure you were until you realized you just couldn't stand.

We seem to be spatting on what is a lie now so FWIW, I consider that one. You know perfectly well you were debating, or are you gong to now tell me no, "I was just discussing it, there is a difference" and try to use that as an excuse? If your going to start just flat out fibbing in order to get out of the holes you are digging for yourself, we won't be debating, or discussing much longer. I've already told a few of you all about your lying, and in detail, it simply ruins a debate for one, it wastes our time, and if you have to lie in order to win your debate, for the umpteenth time you show you have no leg to stand on to begin with.

Did you skip past the very first sentence?

No.

The only time they mention "proof" is in relation to the disproving of Lamarckian evolution, which is of course demonstrably wrong.

They don't say that Darwinian evolution has been proven or proven true.

So, they use the term proof in science, and that's just one example.

Excuses/double talk and trying to spin your way out of that hole I see.

Your trying to do away with "proof" as a term is as hilarious as evolution itself. What's more, your reasoning for doing so, is so obvious it's pitiful.

 

[Kaon]

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.)

It is problematic.

You would need to believe in the Redeemer to be saved (and follow His Father's commandments), but He created everything.

 

[Kaon]

^^

I am not a creationist.

 

[pitabread]

Sure you were until you realized you just couldn't stand.

We're talking about how words get used and an understanding of the meaning of those words in a given context.

So, they use the term proof in science, and that's just one example.

This ties into how hypotheses are tested. The hypothesis is started out with the assumption that it is true and then the experiment is conducted to either refute it or offer evidence to confirm it.

Using your prior example with the water and the ice, you would go into the experiment making the assumption the hypothesis is true and the test the hypothesis with the results either confirming or disaffirming it.

Now is there is a view that some hold that a hypothesis can never be truly proven only disproven. This is why you generally don't see people trumping evidence confirming a hypothesis as being "proof". The idea in science is that any confirming evidence is provisional. This could be due to other variables influencing the experiment or that the experimental results only occur in certain conditions.

I realize this does sound paradoxal, but it does make some sense within the context of what a hypothesis is and how it is tested.

It also helps distinguish confirming evidence within scientific investigation as compared to formal proofs in mathematics, which are another thing altogether. Hence, why you often here the phrase "proof is for math and alcohol".

 

[Gene2memE]

That's odd because the top link in a search resulted in the following, where they had no trouble at all using the term prove or disprove.

Evolution

1) That's not a technical scientific paper or even a journal article. It's a position statement from the New England Complex Systems Institute.

2) It doesn't use the word 'proof', and only uses 'proven' as a negator (ie 'proven wrong').

3) Using 'proven wrong' or 'disproven' is fine. In both formal technical language AND colloquial usage. This is because of the epistemological stance of the sciences. Scientific explanations are always tentative and open to being replace with superior explanations that are better supported by the available evidence.
Thus, concepts like perfectly circular planetary orbits, Lamarkian inheritance, spontaneous generation, a flat earth or a young earth can and are disproven by the sciences, because they contradict the available evidence. However, their replacement ideas are still not "proven" - they remain open to modification or replacement themselves, when some better idea or better evidence comes along.