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

[Sanoy]

That's an interesting question and I see two ways to read it: Do you mean to ask, did the universe come about through the action of (potentially determinable) natural forces and in accordance with (potentially determinable) natural laws? Or do you mean to ask, did the universe come into existence absent divine providence?

Either actually, so long as there is no divine providence, but we kind of ruled out any bootstrapping, or at least it's not making sense so far.

 

[Celticroots]

Oh for Pete's sake! Is he still going on with the "proof" thing? Why is it so hard to understand?

Because he doesn't want to understand.

 

[USincognito]

My argument was not that inductive reasoning wasn’t scientific , my argument is that those theories were not arrived at using the scientific method , ie through observation and repeatability. No one observed one species evolving into another. And no lab experiment has repeated that.

The problem is scientific observations are not limited to real time and before our eyes. You also are incorrect if you think that repeatability means the event must be repeated. That is false. The results of the observation must be repeated. For instance two different paleontologists doing analysis of the same fossil getting the same results is repeatability.

And actually, we have observed speciation.

 

[Hank77]

So are you saying that a person can't be a Christian and can't be saved if they don't believe that life forms were independently created?

I just want to be clear on what you are saying.

I think the way you presenting the question is not easily understood.
I think you are asking if someone believes that evolution is valid does that mean they are not a Christian and can never be a true believer.
Or if they don't believe in a literal 24 hr day, 6 day creation.

If it was mandatory for salvation the Apostles or the Lord surely would have told us so is my belief.

However, if one doesn't believe that God created the heavens and earth at all, then that is a problem for them. The Bible repeats this truth many times.

 

[Hank77]

Accepting salvation in the redemptive power of Christ requires faith and if you don't believe God can create in 6 days, you lack faith.

I believe that God can do anything He choose to, including creating the heavens and the earth in six, 24 hr days.
But the physical evidence that God Himself has left us says otherwise.

 

[Hank77]

How can you desire to become an American and not believe in the Constitution on which it's founded?

I can't desire to be a Christian and not believe in the New Covenant.

 

[Doveaman]

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

What did life on earth evolve from?

 

[Doveaman]

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

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.

In other words, the hypothesis is assumed to be true but never proven to be true despite the evidence that supports it.

Scientists have no idea what the truth is.

Got it.

 

[Bugeyedcreepy]

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.

....sooooo evolution by natural selection is ID?

see above. id can explain it too.

No, no it doesn't! For example, if you are right, then how does this 'designer' make changes? Why does this 'designer' make these changes? What changes can this 'designer' make, and should we be concerned? Why does this 'designer' look exactly like it doesn't take any part in the process, is it hiding from us? and Who is this 'designer' anyway?

Evolution on the other hand is a very well understood science which is practically applied every day to provide useful results and very real solutions to real world problems.

 

[Speedwell]

Either actually, so long as there is no divine providence, but we kind of ruled out any bootstrapping, or at least it's not making sense so far.

I'm not sure what you mean by "bootstrapping."

 

[pitabread]

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.

So you're saying that evolution = design and therefore you agree with evolution. Great!

 

[Eloy Craft]

To be saved one must believe

However it happened, God did it.

 

[USincognito]

Because he doesn't want to understand.

Obstinately ignorant.

 

[USincognito]

In other words...

^^^ So's Law in action by another name.

Scientists have no idea what the truth is.

Many scientists do. Science, itself, does not deal with "truth" however. This is the same issue as the guy who can't seem to comprehend that science doesn't prove anything.

 

[MaudDib]

Of course it does. Hypotheses made with respect to the ToE are formulated and tested all the time.

Furthermore, hypotheses don't need to be explicitly tested only via experimentation. The point of a hypothesis is to derive a prediction based on what one would expect to see if the hypothesis were true and then test that. In some cases, hypotheses can be tested experimentally; in others, it is through observation of gathered evidence.

Have you ever read any scientific literature on the theory of evolution?

I think you are confusing theoreticians with applied scientists.

You see, theoreticians, like Stephen Hawking, make a theoretical claim about the world around them, and then hope like hell that one day they will be proven empirically by somebody.

This is why he never won the Nobel prize for physics, because his Hawking Radiation theory about black holes never got verified EMPIRICALLY.

I am well versed with Charles Darwins theory and how it came together through the work of his close friend Charles Lyell who was advancing inference as to the best explanation.

Your point about observation of gathered evidence is valid, it is reminiscent of star formation in cosmology for example, not something I would ever argue.
However, as I stated early on in this trail, is there evidence enough to suggest that the ToE can support the full weight of explaining all life on earth?

As William Lane Craig puts it:
The doctrine of common ancestry involves an enormous extrapolation, from observed limited cases of evolutionary adaptation to the whole of life, and very often in science these kinds of extrapolations fail.

To extrapolate from limited evolutionary change to a wholesale thesis of common ancestry is an extrapolation of just breath-taking proportions for which we really don't have any evidence. Even if you could show, Kevin, for example, that birds and reptiles are evolved from a common ancestor, do you realize all of that still takes place within the Chordata, that is to say within the vertebrates, which is just a tiny segment of the diversity of life. Even having evolutionary change of that sort is almost a triviality compared to saying that a bird and sponge evolved from a common ancestor, not to mention bacteria and the Archaea and other sorts of primitive life forms.

Evolutionists just seem to take it by blind faith that the thesis of common ancestry has been demonstrated by the data, when in fact for those who know the data know that's really not true.

Pita bread, I want you to understand that, when the above, which is a fact (whether you like it or not), is considered in the context of probabilistic resources(please read Signature in the Cell by Stephen Meyer if you are seeking truth), then your inference cannot possibly be that chance has the explanatory power to explain away all that we see around us in such a short time.

And not only that, when you consider the fine tuning of the universe and the probabilities there as well as the reasoning there, then its like the table was laid for a dinner that was just inevitably coming.

You see, I take inference very seriously, but I get the sense that not everybody understands it or takes it seriously, and this is where I am trying to help. Just as there is a cumulative force of evidence that can convict a criminal in court of law for a murder no one observed or could repeat, so there is a cumulative force of evidence to conclude that the origins of many things point to a mind, God's in fact.

This is why I am so confused that people honestly think that Christians do not hold a rational position. In my experience as a scientist, that is mostly precisely because of a lack of reason (or want to inquire) on the other side.

“This most beautiful system of the sun, planets and comets, could only proceed from the counsel and dominion of an intelligent and powerful Being.” - Isaac Newton.

 

[USincognito]

(please read Signature in the Cell by Stephen Meyer if you are seeking truth)...

In my experience as a scientist, that is mostly precisely because of a lack of reason (or want to inquire) on the other side.

What kind of scientist are you and what papers have you published?

 

[Jimmy D]

Common sense, Jimmy...common sense.

The article referenced in my post provides genetic evidence. Evidence that demonstrates that evolution is a fact. What is wrong with the SFS’s evidence? Where is the lie?

Common sense tells me that if you don’t understand the evidence then you have no business calling people liars.

I believe your boss calls it “bearing false witness”.

 

[Eloy Craft]

For a low state of life to become higher, a higher state of life must lift it up.

This truth about the transcendent procession of organic life becomes evident with the arrival of modern humans. A new day dawned when modern humans arrived and the power of intellect exploded onto the world.

 

[Sanoy]

I'm not sure what you mean by "bootstrapping."

Pulling oneself into existence.

 

[Eloy Craft]

For a low state of life to become higher, a higher state of life must lift it up.

This truth about the transcendent procession of organic life becomes evident with the arrival of modern humans. A new day dawned when modern humans arrived and the power of intellect exploded onto the world.

This Truth about the transcendent procession of organic life becomes fulfilled with the arrival of Jesus Christ. A New Day dawned when Jesus Christ arrived and the power of the Resurrection exploded onto the world.