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

[Silmarien]

Good thing TEs and PC (Progressive Creationists) dont' deny inerrancy.

Some TEs do, which is precisely what I'm saying. It's not true that no Christian rejects inerrancy. If you're familiar with Mainline Protestantism (and perhaps liberal Catholicism), you'll find many Christians who do in fact deny it. So let's not pull the No True Scotsman trick and say that no Christian rejects any part of the Bible. I understand why you did in this case, but you're playing by fundamentalist rules as soon as you imply that all Christians accept inerrancy.

The Bible is the work of men. Men inspired by God, but men nonetheless. Some seem to think that the Bible was dictated like the Koran was but no creed affirms such a view.

Precisely. Which is why a Christian can reject parts of the Bible. It is not supposed to be a magical book that fell out of the sky, so there is nothing that stops someone from thinking that the New Testament describes events that actually happened while simultaneously considering parts of the Old Testament mythology.

Sure, but all the TEs and PCs I know accept the entire Bible from "In" to "Amen".

Well, a TE doesn't even have to be a professing Christian at all.

 

[Kenny'sID]

Biological evolution is an observable process in nature by which populations of organisms change over time. The theory of evolution explains the process of evolution, is foundational to modern biology, and has real-world application.

Whether you believe this or not is irrelevant; it's what it is.

Speaking of irrelevant, your 'observable process" amounts to just about nothing in the scheme of things, and I have to say, a pretty pitiful attempt. You are actually saying that observance proves the big picture of evolution, as in we all evolved into being....are you?

If so, can you please show us how that worked? Surely you know there are some of us that are going to expect more, right? You're skipping so many details, that at the point you leave that with us, anything could be made out of the observance. Where did it start? where did it go, as in how did it make a human?

Since the subject was evolution/proof, I have to assume that was your attempt at proof, and if you cannot expand on that with a full picture, or proof, your claims of evolution are nothing but, and completely irrelevant to the thread.

 

[Speedwell]

I have to assume that was your attempt at proof...

No, you don't have to assume any such thing, since it is obviously not. Or maybe it is not so obvious to you. Most of us who have tried to "prove" evolution to you never get past explanatory introductory remarks before you start getting snarky. I'm not even sure what you think "proof" of evolution would look like.

 

[Kenny'sID]

No, you don't have to assume any such thing, since it is obviously not. Or maybe it is not so obvious to you. Most of us who have tried to "prove" evolution to you never get past explanatory introductory remarks before you start getting snarky. I'm not even sure what you think "proof" of evolution would look like.

As I already said, you will blame it on me, and instead of just proving it, you grab at some of the most ridiculous distractions there are, like this one for instance:

"You're snarky, I'm not going to prove evolution to you."

Please. If you had proof you'd get past the snarkeyness with no problem at all.

And yes, I do assume, and had every reason to believe his little observation was something he is trying to present as, or hoped would, catch on as proof, since that was the subject of what was replied to. Seriously, go back and read...see for yourself.

 

[mark kennedy]

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.)

Have you ever read the Nicene creed? All Christians are creationists and the scientific merits of creationism is largely a matter of interpretation.

 

[Speedwell]

As I already said, you will blame it on me, and instead of just proving it, you grab at some of the most ridiculous distractions there are, like this one for instance:

"You're snarky, I'm not going to prove evolution to you."

Please. If you had proof you'd get past the snarkeyness with no problem at all.

And yes, I do assume, and had every reason to believe his little observation was something he is trying to present as, or hoped would, catch on as proof, since that was the subject of what was replied to. Seriously, go back and read...see for yourself.

No, "proof" is going to consist of evidence, but the evidence is going to require explanation and some effort on your part to understand it.

For example, there are many hundreds of tons of fossils in universities and museums, fossils which exhibit developmental sequences consistent with the theory of evolution. Are you prepared to evaluate those fossils for yourself without explanation and without picking up some understanding of paleontology? You need to not only examine the proof, but understand why scientists think it is proof.

 

[USincognito]

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

 

[Kenny'sID]

No, "proof" is going to consist of evidence, but the evidence is going to require explanation and some effort on your part to understand it.

Pleas stop telling me that and do it. It's a stall because you have nothing better.

For example, there are many hundreds of tons of fossils in universities and museums, fossils which exhibit developmental sequences consistent with the theory of evolution.

You need to not only examine the proof, but understand why scientists think it is proof.

So you're saying, because I don't go look at and examine all these fossils then I have no reason to claim evolution is is invalid.

Since you claim evolution validity, please tell me of your examination of those fossils, and of your understanding of why scientists think it's proof. Surely you've done all that if you are telling me I must, and you already have those answers, or at the very least what you think are the answers and what I need in order to be convince or not.

Wouldn't that be much simpler than my doing something that you know almost all of us are not going to do, and then saying because I don't do that which almost all of us are not going to do, then we cannot claim evolution is false.

Do you even see what you are doing there? You are choosing the toughest way possible for me, knowing full well that's not going to happen, and the easy way out for you, as in now you can say, I can't claim otherwise because I didn't look into it. If that were not the case, you'd a jumped directly to doing what I already suggested, since you evidently have gone through that "toughest" process yourself.

So, again, please enlighten me, so I don't have to hunt down all these fossils for myself. And because I will not, I surely have no business stating an opinion until I understand all YOU say I must understand...Or in short, what I have been asking all along...make me understand, and stop letting silly nothings like snark get in your way...I promise you, the Snark cannot hurt you, in any way.

 

[Kenny'sID]

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

Are you people listing to yourselves, how dare I ask for proof.

Of course it is clear you all buy into it for no good reason at all so, I guess it shouldn't surprise me that needing actual proof surprises you.

 

[USincognito]

Common misconceptions about science I: “Scientific proof”

Contrary to popular belief, there is no such thing as a scientific proof.

Proofs exist only in mathematics and logic, not in science. Mathematics and logic are both closed, self-contained systems of propositions, whereas science is empirical and deals with nature as it exists. The primary criterion and standard of evaluation of scientific theory is evidence, not proof. All else equal (such as internal logical consistency and parsimony), scientists prefer theories for which there is more and better evidence to theories for which there is less and worse evidence. Proofs are not the currency of science.

Proofs have two features that do not exist in science: They are final, and they are binary. Once a theorem is proven, it will forever be true and there will be nothing in the future that will threaten its status as a proven theorem (unless a flaw is discovered in the proof). Apart from a discovery of an error, a proven theorem will forever and always be a proven theorem.

In contrast, all scientific knowledge is tentative and provisional, and nothing is final. There is no such thing as final proven knowledge in science.​

 

[USincognito]

There's No Such Thing As Proof In The Scientific World - There's Only Evidence

None of the things listed above as “proof” would be accepted as such in science — even the simple observation of two people sat in a room with your own eyes!

“Proof” implies that there is no room for error — that you can be 100% sure that what you have written down on the piece of paper is 100% representative of what you are talking about.

And quite simply, that doesn’t exist in the real world.​

 

[Kenny'sID]

Contrary to popular belief, there is no such thing as a scientific proof.

Hope you folks are watching this, it's classic, as in something they have been trying to pull off ever since they realized they had no proof.

 

[USincognito]

Where's the proof in science? There is none

As an astrophysicist, I live and breathe science. Much of what I read and hear is couched in the language of science which to outsiders can seem little more than jargon and gibberish. But one word is rarely spoken or printed in science and that word is “proof”. In fact, science has little to do with “proving” anything.

These words may have caused a worried expression to creep across your face, especially as the media continually tells us that science proves things, serious things with potential consequences, such as turmeric can apparently replace 14 drugs, and more frivolous things like science has proved that mozzarella is the optimal cheese for pizza.

Surely science has proved these, and many other things. Not so!​

 

[USincognito]

Dr. Jay Wile, Creationist
Science Can’t Prove Anything

After all, science has proven all sorts of things, hasn’t it?

Of course it hasn’t. In fact, it is impossible for science to prove anything, because science is based on experiments and observations, both of which can be flawed. Often, those flaws don’t become apparent to the scientific community for quite some time. Flawed experiments and observations, of course, lead to flawed conclusions, so even the most secure scientific statements have never been proven. There might be gobs and gobs of evidence for them, but they have not been proven.


Dr. Douglas Theobald, not a Creationist
29+ Evidences for Macroevolution: Scientific "Proof", scientific evidence, and the scientific method

What is meant by scientific evidence and scientific proof? In truth, science can never establish 'truth' or 'fact' in the sense that a scientific statement can be made that is formally beyond question. All scientific statements and concepts are open to re-evaluation as new data is acquired and novel technologies emerge. Proof, then, is solely the realm of logic and mathematics (and whiskey). That said, we often hear 'proof' mentioned in a scientific context, and there is a sense in which it denotes "strongly supported by scientific means". Even though one may hear 'proof' used like this, it is a careless and inaccurate handling of the term. Consequently, except in reference to mathematics, this is the last time you will read the terms 'proof' or 'prove' in this article.

 

[Kenny'sID]

None of the things listed above as “proof” would be accepted as such in science — even the simple observation of two people sat in a room with your own eyes!

"Accepted as such in Science"? That comment makes no since at all, unless you are actually trying to interject something that makes no sense.

Please, stop trying to make it sound like it's not just people who "accept" or don't accept, and that because you use the term "science" there, you are referring to some rock solid rule, or something that is 'science" is not arguable. when science is nothing more than our view of the natural. We decide what happens "in science".

IOW, now that you have been educated on the reality of that, you should now be able t understand, all you're really saying is none of those things are proof in your opinion, and chanting science or Abra Cadavera is not going to magically make your opinion necessarily correct.

 

[Kenny'sID]

In fact, science has little to do with “proving” anything.

Science, or our opinion of the natural, has everything to do with proving everything natural.

IOW, no, black is not white, it's black no matter how you slice it.

 

[Speedwell]

Pleas stop telling me that and do it. It's a stall because you have nothing better.





So you're saying, because I don't go look at and examine all these fossils then I have no reason to claim evolution is is invalid.

No, I am not saying that. What I am saying is that if you don't look at them yourself, or learn enough about them to understand what they show, you are to to have to take somebody's word for it, to some degree or another. You are going to have to be satisfied with looking at pictures and reading paleontologists descriptions and conclusions. Those are the alternatives.

Since you claim evolution validity, please tell me of your examination of those fossils, and of your understanding of why scientists think it's proof. Surely you've done all that if you are telling me I must, and you already have those answers, or at the very least what you think are the answers and what I need in order to be convince or not.

No, I haven't personally examined all of the fossils and I don't personally have all the answers. What I do is take scientists at face value, without any notion that they are trying to put something over on me.

Wouldn't that be much simpler than my doing something that you know almost all of us are not going to do, and then saying because I don't do that which almost all of us are not going to do, then we cannot claim evolution is false.

Yes, you either have to examine and understand the evidence for yourself or read about it, trusting that what you are reading is not a lie.

Do you even see what you are doing there? You are choosing the toughest way possible for me, knowing full well that's not going to happen, and the easy way out for you, as in now you can say, I can't claim otherwise because I didn't look into it. If that were not the case, you'd a jumped directly to doing what I already suggested, since you evidently have gone through that "toughest" process yourself.

All of us have read about it. A few of us have examined the evidence for ourselves, in various fields of science which have to do with evolution.

So, again, please enlighten me, so I don't have to hunt down all these fossils for myself. And because I will not, I surely have no business stating an opinion until I understand all YOU say I must understand...Or in short, what I have been asking all along...make me understand, and stop letting silly nothings like snark get in your way...I promise you, the Snark cannot hurt you, in any way.

What do you want? All the proof of evolution in a short post, written in a layman's vocabulary?

 

[USincognito]

What do you want? All the proof of evolution in a short post, written in a layman's vocabulary?

No, he doesn't.
The evidence for evolution for Kenny'sID thread

 

[Kenny'sID]

No, I am not saying that. What I am saying is that if you don't look at them yourself, or learn enough about them to understand what they show, you are to to have to take somebody's word for it, to some degree or another. You are going to have to be satisfied with looking at pictures and reading paleontologists descriptions and conclusions. Those are the alternatives.

I'll decide if I want to take your word for it or not. Thus far no one has produced anything but opinions, the very place their proof falls apart.

No, I haven't personally examined all of the fossils and I don't personally have all the answers. What I do is take scientists at face value, without any notion that they are trying to put something over on me.

And you are saying that's what I have to do?

Yes, you either have to examine and understand the evidence for yourself or read about it, trusting that what you are reading is not a lie.

You've read about it, tell me what convinced you evolution is a fact. Oh that's right, you can't do that, entirely to reasonable/simple.

All of us have read about it. A few of us have examined the evidence for ourselves, in various fields of science which have to do with evolution.

Then what convinced you? You people have a great tendency to find a way to make the simple, not doable. Just tell me in spite of your excuses not to, and lets see how it goes. The rules you are making up here to prevent you from doing that aren't written in stone, or rules at all for that matter. But they are mighty important to you now since you at least think they excuse you from proving evolution.

What do you want? All the proof of evolution in a short post, written in a layman's vocabulary?

The length doesn't matter, at this point I'll take anything I can get, and yes, do it in layman's vocabulary. You sound as if it's an unreasonable expectation to ask one do it in layman's terms when that's done all the time...what's the problem?

I'll tell you the problem, or have you by now picked up on what you are doing, making the simple impossible/not doable...again.

That whole post was you wiggling out of a simple and reasonable request, surely you see it??

 

[pitabread]

nm.