Is belief in the creation story a salvation issue?

[Speedwell]

And then the question boils down to: "Chance or design and manufacturing?"

A strange dichotomy, considering that processes using random variation and selection have a wide application in industrial design and manufacturing.

They just don't believe that procreated random mutations can write data for specialized organs.
It's never been observed either.
Obviously only the viable survive, but the changes are due to data corruption that don't get corrected.

And here we have some statements that reveal your complete ignorance of how the real theory of evolution is supposed to work.

Here is an answer I gave to a creationist who wanted me to explain how speciation occurs according to the real theory of evolution. He ignored it, of course, because it wasn't what he wanted to hear. Why don't you take a crack at it?
First, evolutionary biologists don't see speciation as a big deal. Species aren't pre-existing categories into which creatures evolve; they are descriptive, not prescriptive. When part of a population is subjected to different selection criteria than the rest, it will evolve to meet those new criteria. If it evolves enough that the two groups are no longer interfertile, a new species is said to have formed. But the process is slow and partial interfertility will last a long time. There is no "hard line" between species. That is why the determination of species is sometimes difficult and can be controversial.

How does it happen? No offspring is exactly the same as its parent. In each generation the population will present a range of variants to the environment for selection. For a given heritable trait, the length of a limb, say, the distribution of variation will be random (think "bell curve"). Most variation will be near the average, with outriders at either extreme, like a bell curve. If selection criteria are stable, the central group will survive to reproduce, the outriders not so much. However, if the selection criteria change, there will be already in the population at least a few individuals on the edges to take advantage of the situation. As they reproduce more successfully, generation by generation, than the individuals nearer the original central tendency and on the other side of it, the central tendency will shift in that direction, producing more outriders to take advantage of further shifts in selection criteria.

And so on. How long? Hard to say. It depends on the size and diversity of the gene pool and the degree of selection pressure. Maintaining the diversity of the gene pool is key to to successful evolution; a population of clones would generate little or no variation and would not be able to evolve. Gene pool diversity is also reduced by the normal action of natural selection. That's where mutations and other contributors of diversity come in.

 

[BobRyan]

Have you ever studied science? Have you ever read anything about evolution that didn't come from a Creationist propaganda mill?

Do you read objective reviews about evolution -- ever?

Do you stick with the atheist form of blind faith evolutionism - the one that goes to the extreme of even rejecting intelligent design?? Or do you distance yourself from that specific form of blind faith evolutionism?

 

[BobRyan]

You are not really studying the scriptures if you believe Genesis 2 is a different story and not a focused one.

That is true.

Rev 21 notice how this same pattern continues - expanding and increasing focus on some specific detail.

Vs 2 John sees the Holy City coming down from God out of heaven.
Vs 10 again we are told that he sees the city coming down from God out of heaven and then gives more detail.



==================================================================

Rev 21

1And I saw a new heaven and a new earth: for the first heaven and the first earth were passed away; and there was no more sea.
2 And I John saw the holy city, new Jerusalem, coming down from God out of heaven, prepared as a bride adorned for her husband.

3 And I heard a great voice out of heaven saying, Behold, the tabernacle of God is with men, and he will dwell with them, and they shall be his people, and God himself shall be with them, and be their God.
4 And God shall wipe away all tears from their eyes; and there shall be no more death, neither sorrow, nor crying, neither shall there be any more pain: for the former things are passed away.

5 And he that sat upon the throne said, Behold, I make all things new. And he said unto me, Write: for these words are true and faithful.
6 And he said unto me, It is done. I am Alpha and Omega, the beginning and the end. I will give unto him that is athirst of the fountain of the water of life freely.
7 He that overcometh shall inherit all things; and I will be his God, and he shall be my son.
8 But the fearful, and unbelieving, and the abominable, and murderers, and whoremongers, and sorcerers, and idolaters, and all liars, shall have their part in the lake which burneth with fire and brimstone: which is the second death.
9 And there came unto me one of the seven angels which had the seven vials full of the seven last plagues, and talked with me, saying, Come hither, I will shew thee the bride, the Lamb's wife.

10 And he carried me away in the spirit to a great and high mountain, and shewed me that great city, the holy Jerusalem, descending out of heaven from God,

11 Having the glory of God: and her light was like unto a stone most precious, even like a jasper stone, clear as crystal;

12 And had a wall great and high, and had twelve gates, and at the gates twelve angels, and names written thereon, which are the names of the twelve tribes of the children of Israel:

13 On the east three gates; on the north three gates; on the south three gates; and on the west three gates.

 

[Speedwell]

Do you read objective reviews about evolution -- ever?

Do you stick with the atheist form of blind faith evolutionism - the one that goes to the extreme of even rejecting intelligent design?? Or do you distance yourself from that specific form of blind faith evolutionism?

Do you mean "intelligent design" as the general idea that God is responsible for the design of the universe? Or Intelligent Design as a specific proposal of the Discovery Institute?

 

[BobRyan]

intelligent design as in what we see in Romans 1.. you know... the obvious in this case... Paul says it is sooo incredibly obvious that even godless pagans with no Bible at all - can "clearly see it".

My question for you is - do you unwittingly take the atheist route on that while claiming to be Christian - to deny what even the godless pagans can clearly see?

Or do you hold to the Christian view of Romans 1??

 

[Archie the Preacher]

And it goes on. YEC 'experts' like those posting here steadfastly deny anyone but them are Christians; ignoring any form of evidence to the contrary of their beliefs and a rather unbelievable inability to even suspect their own self-righteous arrogance and wrong-headedness.

YEC is not a key to salvation. Belief in God and the Atonement of Jesus Christ is the key, the only key. When YEC supporters equate belief in YEC with belief in God, they cannot reason. Let this be a lesson to all who love God and have any sort of connection to reality.

 

[Speedwell]

And it goes on. YEC 'experts' like those posting here steadfastly deny anyone but them are Christians; ignoring any form of evidence to the contrary of their beliefs and a rather unbelievable inability to even suspect their own self-righteous arrogance and wrong-headedness.

YEC is not a key to salvation. Belief in God and the Atonement of Jesus Christ is the key, the only key. When YEC supporters equate belief in YEC with belief in God, they cannot reason. Let this be a lesson to all who love God and have any sort of connection to reality.

I am coming to believe that their purpose is to "purify" Christianity by driving from it all those who will not subject themselves to the discipline of Fundamentalist Bible doctrine by trying to convince them that faith in Christ is impossible without it.

 

[Archie the Preacher]

I am coming to believe that their purpose is to "purify" Christianity by driving from it all those who will not subject themselves to the discipline of Fundamentalist Bible doctrine by trying to convince them that faith in Christ is impossible without it.

Or just make everyone else's life miserable and thereby feel superior. Does the title "pharisee" ring a bell?

 

[Archivist]

But we are not talking about Uncle Sam are we. We are talking about the Son of God and the apostles chosen by God. There is no evidence that they were talking or ever do talk as if it's an allegory. None.

According to your interpretation.

 

[Archivist]

Prove its an allegory and do so scripturally.

I don't need to prove that it is an allegory. That is my belief. I'm not the one claiming that it is a salvation issue, which is he topic of discussion in this thread. If you want to believe that the Genesis creation stories are factual history that is fine. But don't tell me that I'm not saved because I don't believe it, which is what some in this thread are saying.

 

[Archivist]

You are not really studying the scriptures if you believe Genesis 2 is a different story and not a focused one.

Get real. It doesn't take much study to see that the order of creation differs between the two stories.

 

[BobRyan]

And it goes on. YEC 'experts' like those posting here steadfastly deny anyone but them are Christians;

Utter nonsense. Never have I claimed that I am the only Christian on this board.

As for the fact that self-confessed atheists do come to CF and post the same anti-Bible anti-Bible-creation arguments that others will unwittingly embrace - well that too is pretty obvious.

 

[BobRyan]

Get real. It doesn't take much study to see that the order of creation differs between the two stories.

Get real - there is only one time-boxed chronological sequence in Genesis 1-2 and that is the Genesis 1-2:4 sequence.

Beyond that we have only "details" added that are not in the chronological sequence already given.

And this follows the same summary-enlarge-expand model as almost all Hebrew writing.

Obviously.

 

[BobRyan]

Atheists often don't mind "admitting" to what the Bible says - they simply reject what it says. As in rejecting the virgin birth, the bodily ascension of Christ, the miracles of the bible and in this example they freely admit to what the Bible says - while rejecting it as 'truth'.

Professor James Barr, Regius Professor of Hebrew at the University of Oxford, has written:

‘Probably, so far as I know, there is no professor of Hebrew or Old Testament at any world-class university who does not believe that the writer(s) of Genesis 1–11 intended to convey to their readers the ideas that: (a) creation took place in a series of six days which were the same as the days of 24 hours we now experience (b) the figures contained in the Genesis genealogies provided by simple addition a chronology from the beginning of the world up to later stages in the biblical story (c) Noah’s flood was understood to be world-wide and extinguish all human and animal life except for those in the ark. Or, to put it negatively, the apologetic arguments which suppose the "days" of creation to be long eras of time, the figures of years not to be chronological, and the flood to be a merely local Mesopotamian flood, are not taken seriously by any such professors, as far as I know.’

=======================

That is the opinion of professors not at all inclined to accept the 7 day creation week that we find in Gen 1:2-2:3 yet they can still 'read' and point to the author's intent - whether they agree with the author or not.

==================

T.E's have found a "tiny island" for themselves and Bible believing Christians are not going there with them - neither are the atheists and agnostics apparently. (I don't see many Hindus or Buddhists arguing that the Bible is true - except it is bent to preach darwinism)

 

[BobRyan]

Notice that in the emotional posts that follow this factual statement - every fact is ignored.

intelligent design as in what we see in Romans 1.. you know... the obvious in this case... Paul says it is sooo incredibly obvious that even godless pagans with no Bible at all - can "clearly see it".

My question for you is - do you unwittingly take the atheist route on that while claiming to be Christian - to deny what even the godless pagans can clearly see?

Or do you hold to the Christian view of Romans 1??

 

[Archie the Preacher]

Utter nonsense. Never have I claimed that I am the only Christian on this board.

You may not have claimed you were the only Christian on this board , but you have suggested - like Hieronymus - that anyone who does not believe the Genesis One account just exactly as you believe it does not believe in God. Therefore, all non-YEC types are not Christian.

If that was not what you meant, say so: Spell it out in those terms. When you don't, I will not be shocked.

 

[Archivist]

Get real - there is only one time-boxed chronological sequence in Genesis 1-2 and that is the Genesis 1-2:4 sequence.

Beyond that we have only "details" added that are not in the chronological sequence already given.

And this follows the same summary-enlarge-expand model as almost all Hebrew writing.

Obviously.

Get real.

In Genesis 1 the order (after the first couple days) is plant life, then the sun moon and stars, then animal life then man (male and female). In Genesis 2 the order is plants, man (male only), animals then woman. People come up with all sorts of ways to try to explain this, but the fact is that the order is different.

Obviously.

 

[BobRyan]

Get real.

In Genesis 1 the order (after the first couple days) is plant life, then the sun moon and stars, then animal life then man (male and female). In Genesis 2 the order is plants, man (male only), animals then woman. People come up with all sorts of ways to try to explain this, but the fact is that the order is different.

Obviously.

Get real - there is no time frame at all in Genesis 2 and there is no air no dry land created no fish no sun...

The Genesis 1 chronological sequence is the only timeboxed chronological sequence in which add the "details" of Genesis 2 not in Genesis 1 -- details about marriage, about the garden, about the tree of life about the Sabbath etc.

Please be serious just for a few posts at least.

 

[BobRyan]

You may not have claimed you were the only Christian on this board , but you have suggested - like Hieronymus - that anyone who does not believe the Genesis One account just exactly as you believe .

Your fiction that someone has to be a Bible-believing Christian such as me to see what the glaringly obvious story of Genesis is on the subject of 7 day literal creation - summarized as such by God in Exodus 20:11, was already fully debunked here -- and we both know it.

It is yet "another example" of a post where every detail is ignored in the emotional responses that follow.

=============================

Atheists often don't mind "admitting" to what the Bible says - they simply reject what it says. As in rejecting the virgin birth, the bodily ascension of Christ, the miracles of the bible and in this example they freely admit to what the Bible says - while rejecting it as 'truth'.

Professor James Barr, Regius Professor of Hebrew at the University of Oxford, has written:

‘Probably, so far as I know, there is no professor of Hebrew or Old Testament at any world-class university who does not believe that the writer(s) of Genesis 1–11 intended to convey to their readers the ideas that: (a) creation took place in a series of six days which were the same as the days of 24 hours we now experience (b) the figures contained in the Genesis genealogies provided by simple addition a chronology from the beginning of the world up to later stages in the biblical story (c) Noah’s flood was understood to be world-wide and extinguish all human and animal life except for those in the ark. Or, to put it negatively, the apologetic arguments which suppose the "days" of creation to be long eras of time, the figures of years not to be chronological, and the flood to be a merely local Mesopotamian flood, are not taken seriously by any such professors, as far as I know.’

=======================

That is the opinion of professors not at all inclined to accept the 7 day creation week that we find in Gen 1:2-2:3 yet they can still 'read' and point to the author's intent - whether they agree with the author or not.

==================

T.E's have found a "tiny island" for themselves and Bible believing Christians are not going there with them - neither are the atheists and agnostics apparently. (I don't see many Hindus or Buddhists arguing that the Bible is true - except it is bent to preach darwinism)

 

[BobRyan]

intelligent design as in what we see in Romans 1.. you know... the obvious in this case... Paul says it is sooo incredibly obvious that even godless pagans with no Bible at all - can "clearly see it".

My question for you is - do you unwittingly take the atheist route on that while claiming to be Christian - to deny what even the godless pagans can clearly see?

Or do you hold to the Christian view of Romans 1??

Another reminder of an example of a post where the emotional responses that follow - ignore every detail in the post.