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

[Doveaman]

Science, itself, does not deal with "truth" however.

No kidding.

This is the same issue as the guy who can't seem to comprehend that science doesn't prove anything.

I am well aware that science doesn't prove anything.

Science is simply a belief based on opinion, speculation, theory, supposition, conjecture, guesswork, etc etc etc.

 

[pitabread]

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?

This reads like a loaded question.

I will say this:

1) The Theory of Evolution is currently the only explanation (scientific or otherwise) for the diversity of life on Earth. Nothing creationists and/or ID proponents have put forth offers an explanation for life's diversity. Rather they simply argue against evolution and treat "DesignerDidIt!" as the null hypothesis (it isn't).

2) This doesn't mean our knowledge of the theory of evolution is complete or immutable. Like everything in science, there is always more to learn. But gaps in knowledge do not invalidate what we do know.

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.

Those who know the data best would be professional biologists. And they are in general agreement that the data supports common ancestry.

If this is your argument, then I'm going to have to go with the biologists.

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.

I'm familiar with Meyer's work. He's a hack promoting pseudoscience.

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.

Arguing over "fine tuning" or probabilities related to the universe as a whole isn't terribly meaningful considering we have a sample size of 1.

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.

If the standard of evidence for God was the same as the standard of evidence in a court of law (i.e. beyond a reasonable doubt), then everyone would be an atheist.

 

[AV1611VET]

Nothing creationists and/or ID proponents have put forth offers an explanation for life's diversity.

Are you seriously kidding me?

If not, please read Genesis 1.

 

[pitabread]

Are you seriously kidding me?

The key word is explanation.

If not, please read Genesis 1.

Creation mythology is not an explanation.

 

[AV1611VET]

The key word is explanation.

I've got an explanation that doesn't invoke evolution; that even a five year old can understand.

Creation mythology is not an explanation.

Creation mythology can take a hike.

I've heard enough of what academia believes; with their "solid domes" and "flat earth" and "theistic evolution" and other theories that originated outside of the United States.

Creation truth is what I'm interested in.

(And yes, it originated outside our borders as well. First comes truth, then come the lies that try to dilute the truth.)

 

[pitabread]

I've got an explanation that doesn't invoke evolution; that even a five year old can understand.

No, you don't.

And yes, I'm familiar with Genesis.

And no, it's not an explanation. It's a creation story/myth. There is a difference.

Creation mythology can take a hike.

Then I trust you won't be referencing the Bible any more.

 

[Eloy Craft]

• if 1/3 of the people on earth saw a big red ball in the sky all reasonable, sane and credible.
• another 1/3 believes it's there on account of those who see it.
• The last 1/3 is split 90% say it might be there but they can't believe it is since they can't see it.
• The remaining 10% say it isn't there because they can't see it.

Who are the least reasonable?

 

[AV1611VET]

And yes, I'm familiar with Genesis.

Uh-huh.

And I'm Genghis Khan.

 

[pitabread]

Uh-huh.

And I'm Genghis Khan.

Nice to meet you Mr. Khan.

 

[AV1611VET]

• if 1/3 of the people on earth saw a big red ball in the sky all reasonable, sane and credible.
• another 1/3 believes it's there on account of those who see it.
• The last 1/3 is split 90% say it might be there but they can't believe it is since they can't see it.
• The remaining 10% say it isn't there because they can't see it.

Who are the least reasonable?

The Japanese?

 

[Eloy Craft]

The Japanese?

They really do see a red ball in the sky. Something tells me they don't have the divisions of belief I posted.

 

[Kenny'sID]

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?

"Fact" that we all evolved, is that the evolution you are talking about?

Or are you getting tricky on me again and being deceptive in that you have a few little things that you consider evolution, hence the full scope of evolution is a fact?

Some of consider purposeful deception a lie.

 

[MaudDib]

This reads like a loaded question.

I will say this:

1) The Theory of Evolution is currently the only explanation (scientific or otherwise) for the diversity of life on Earth. Nothing creationists and/or ID proponents have put forth offers an explanation for life's diversity. Rather they simply argue against evolution and treat "DesignerDidIt!" as the null hypothesis (it isn't).

If you know the difference between an assertion and an argument, then please give us an argument against Christianity or ID theory.

Assertions are a sign of ignorance.

2) This doesn't mean our knowledge of the theory of evolution is complete or immutable. Like everything in science, there is always more to learn. But gaps in knowledge do not invalidate what we do know.

Blind faith in science?

These unobjective stances reflect scientism, a self defeating world view.

Those who know the data best would be professional biologists. And they are in general agreement that the data supports common ancestry.

If this is your argument, then I'm going to have to go with the biologists.

I never dismissed both theses of evolution, only the 2nd one of random mutation and natural selection as the explanation for the vast level of biodiversity and biological complexity that we observe in our world. The thesis of descent with modification is evident, thank goodness we don't look like each other, id look like bread! please don't straw man me.

I'm familiar with Meyer's work. He's a hack promoting pseudoscience.

Another informal fallacy committed, ad hominem.
Again, show us with reason that his science is pseudoscience?

Arguing over "fine tuning" or probabilities related to the universe as a whole isn't terribly meaningful considering we have a sample size of 1.

This never stopped you from being so confident?

If the standard of evidence for God was the same as the standard of evidence in a court of law (i.e. beyond a reasonable doubt), then everyone would be an atheist.

Read the following with YOUR God in place, the ToE:

The standard of evidence for the ToE is the same as the standard of evidence in a court of law... Now why isn't everyone a Christian?! Works both ways!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

You claim Nature to be your God, and it relies on the same principles re evidence: inference as to the best explanation with appeals to science from time to time, just like our arguments.
Except you have no theory for the origin of biological information?

Except we also have EYE WITNESS testimony, many people saw the risen Christ.
And we also have subjective evidence, we have personal relationships with God Himself!

Please refrain from responding with blithe assertions and committing so many fallacies going forward.

I prefer an intellectual conversation.

 

[Kenny'sID]

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

No, in essence we are talking about how evolution cannot be proven and you need all the excuses you can come up with not to do so.

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.

Proving or disproving.

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.

Of course they are, and this is where you ere, they are proven until disproved, simple as that.

But either way, can you offer "confirming evidence" evolution, as a whole, is fact?

Or is that going to take us down the exact same road and all this going on trying to disprove the term proof was just a stall that changes nothing, something you could have easily gotten around and moved on with showing your confirmation/proof (had you had any) or whatever you want to term it as?

Of course it's a stall, as it makes no sense whatsoever you would go on so about something that, in affect is completely irrelevant.

 

[USincognito]

No kidding.
I am well aware that science doesn't prove anything.

Science is simply a belief based on opinion, speculation, theory, supposition, conjecture, guesswork, etc etc etc.

lol

 

[Jimmy D]

"Fact" that we all evolved, is that the evolution you are talking about?

Or are you getting tricky on me again and being deceptive in that you have a few little things that you consider evolution, hence the full scope of evolution is a fact?

Some of consider purposeful deception a lie.

Where is the lie in the article (that presents evidence for common ancestry)?

Would you like me to provide a link to it again?

 

[Kenny'sID]

Where is the lie in the article (that presents evidence for common ancestry)?

Would you like me to provide a link to it again?

No thanks, but I'll provide one for you since you now you claim "evidence" when before, you claimed fact:

The article referenced in my post provides genetic evidence. Evidence that demonstrates that evolution is a fact.

 

[pitabread]

If you know the difference between an assertion and an argument, then please give us an argument against Christianity or ID theory.

Christianity is a religion. I generally don't argue against it because I see little point and have no interest in whether or not people are Christian so long as their beliefs don't harm others or impact public policy making in a negative manner.

As for ID, it's not so much that I need to argue against it but rather that ID proponents have yet to put forth anything overly compelling. I've read and am familiar with a lot of ID proponent literature (Behe, Dembski, Denton, etc).

The big issue I have with ID literature is they are completely all over the map. You have people like Behe appear to accept common descent, but make other arguments from a molecular biology perspective. On the other hand, I've read ID literature arguing for design with respect to higher order taxa including birds which didn't begin appear until the Jurassic.

I suspect that a lot of different views of ID are also shaped by individual religious beliefs. If one's belief leads them to believe a designer was hand-crafting various species on the planet, that is going to result in a dramatically different perspective than someone who believes the designer kick-started the first life on Earth but left it alone after that.

The fact that religious politics have been mixed up with ID doesn't help matters.

Blind faith in science?

These unobjective stances reflect scientism, a self defeating world view.

I have no idea how you took that from what I wrote. I was pointing out the exact opposite: that we shouldn't have blind faith in science because scientific knowledge is incomplete.

I never dismissed both theses of evolution, only the 2nd one of random mutation and natural selection as the explanation for the vast level of biodiversity and biological complexity that we observe in our world. The thesis of descent with modification is evident, thank goodness we don't look like each other, id look like bread! please don't straw man me.

Again, I'm not following your responses here. You claimed that "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."

I simply pointed out that those most familiar with the data are biologists and that biologists generally agree with common descent.

Another informal fallacy committed, ad hominem.

I don't care. I still think he's a hack.

Again, show us with reason that his science is pseudoscience?

Depends on what specific material of his you are talking about. But there are umpteen rebuttals to his work on the Internet; you can easily search for such.

For example:

Meyer's Hopeless Monster
Meyer's Hopeless Monster, Part II
Meyer's Hopeless Monster, Part III
Quintessence of Dust: Signature in the Cell

And so on...

This never stopped you from being so confident?

I don't know what this means.

Read the following with YOUR God in place, the ToE:

The standard of evidence for the ToE is the same as the standard of evidence in a court of law... Now why isn't everyone a Christian?! Works both ways!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

You claim Nature to be your God, and it relies on the same principles re evidence: inference as to the best explanation with appeals to science from time to time, just like our arguments.
Except you have no theory for the origin of biological information?

Except we also have EYE WITNESS testimony, many people saw the risen Christ.
And we also have subjective evidence, we have personal relationships with God Himself!

Please refrain from responding with blithe assertions and committing so many fallacies going forward.

I prefer an intellectual conversation.

I never claimed that the ToE or nature is my "god". For someone complaining about strawman, blithe assertions, and fallacies, you might want to take your own advice. My perspective is that:

a) Science is the best mechanism we have for learning about the natural world/universe; and it represents the best body of knowledge we have on that subject.
b) The Theory of Evolution is the best and only explanation we currently have for the diversity of species on the planet. Maybe someone will come along with something better in the future, but that hasn't happened yet.
​

You brought up the court analogy, not me. I simply extended it. Furthermore a lot of Christians would disagree with you on that point. I've had Christians tell me that faith is a requirement for belief/salvation of Christ and therefore one would not expect being a Christian to have the same standard of evidence as say, convicting a murderer in a court of law.

 

[pitabread]

Proving or disproving.

You really can't let this go can you?

Why is using the term "prove" or "proof" such an issue for you?

I have never seen anyone be this stubborn about use of terminology (well, maybe mark kennedy and his private definition of "Darwinism").

No, in essence we are talking about how evolution cannot be proven and you need all the excuses you can come up with not to do so.

I can't help but wonder if your stubborn insistence over the use of the word "prove" is tied to a degree of absolution with respect to the way proof or prove is often used. And therefore, anyone posting anything that you deem less than absolute "proof" of something, you could just handwave away as you have in the past.

After all, "evidence for" or "evidence to confirm" doesn't carry quite the same weight as "proved" does it?

 

[USincognito]

You really can't let this go can you?

Why is using the term "prove" or "proof" such an issue for you?

I have never seen anyone be this stubborn about use of terminology (well, maybe mark kennedy and his private definition of "Darwinism").



I can't help but wonder if your stubborn insistence over the use of the word "prove" is tied to a degree of absolution with respect to the way proof or prove is often used. And therefore, anyone posting anything that you deem less than absolute "proof" of something, you could just handwave away as you have in the past.

After all, "evidence for" or "evidence to confirm" doesn't carry quite the same weight as "proved" does it?

It's moved beyond obstinate to pathological at this point. You'd think one would realize, when numerous sources have been posted and everyone else is telling you the same thing that the error is on their part.