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

[pitabread]

I have given several reasons in the past why I don't chase links. Have I not made that clear to you?

I honestly don't recall. But if you are unwilling to read outside material, then that only further speaks of you not being interested in the subject of evolution.

Go ahead and use those resources to prove your evolution, all I ask is you bring it here, for one reason, so you are responsible for exactly what you claim is proof.

What it seems to me is you are trying to turn this into a debate as opposed to merely a quest for knowledge.

I have zero interest in debating biological evolution. Been there, done that, got the T-shirt. Likewise, I have zero interest in trying to convince others of its validity. If you accept it as valid? Great! If you completely reject it as a made-up fairytale? Also great! It doesn't matter.

What you personally think about the science of evolution doesn't matter with respect to the science itself. It is what it is.

All I have done is point out some resources whereby if you have an interest in learning, you can peruse them at your leisure. If you don't want to, then don't. It's your choice.

So I have to now go back to us trying to sort out the proof thing, and recall your ignoring the parts of my posts that you were unable to answer too.

All I'm trying to do is point out correct use of terminology. For reasons that are utterly inexplicable to me, this seems to be a sticking point for you. I don't get it.

What do you have against correct terminology?

 

[Kenny'sID]

I honestly don't recall. But I will say that if you are unwilling to read outside material, then that only further speaks to your not being interested in the subject at hand



What it seems to me is you are trying to turn this into a debate as opposed to merely a quest for knowledge.

I have zero interest in debating biological evolution. Been there, done that, got the T-shirt. Likewise, I have zero interest in trying to convince others of its validity. If you accept it as valid? Great! If you completely reject it as a made-up fairytale? Also great! It doesn't matter.

What you personally think about the science of evolution doesn't matter with respect to the science itself. It is what it is.

All I have done is point out some resources whereby if you have an interest in learning, you can peruse them at your leisure. If you don't want to, then don't. It's your choice.



All I'm trying to do is point out correct use of terminology. For reasons that are utterly inexplicable to me, this seems to be a sticking point for you. I don't get it.

What do you have against correct terminology?

I read the first couple of paragraphs and got the idea you weren't going to straighten things out so we could move on, and just post a bunch of words to try to cover up that fact.

Let me know if you decide to do that, anything else is a waste of time.

 

[pitabread]

I read the first couple of paragraphs and got the idea you weren't going to straighten things out so we could move on, and just post a bunch of words to try to cover up that fact.

Let me know if you decide to do that, anything else is a waste of time.

Like I said, I'm not interested in debating the subject. If you have a genuine interest in learning, I'd be willing to have a discussion about it.

If you're only here for the former, then you are right, it is a waste of time.

 

[Kenny'sID]

Like I said, I'm not interested in debating the subject. If you have a genuine interest in learning, I'd be willing to have a discussion about it.

If you're only here for the former, then you are right, it is a waste of time.

I'm here to have evolution proven, nothing more, and if the only thing standing in the way of that is "it can't be proven by it's very nature" then we need to get past that/see if it's really true. But it seems since I offered a very logical solution, you have now lost interest.

Logical conclusion, you can't prove it, end of story.

 

[juvenissun]

But earlier you claimed it was "unfortunate" that there are Christians that aren't creationists. If it's not essential to be a Christian, why is it unfortunate? You're implying there are consequences, but what are the consequences for those who aren't creationists?

Ha, your careful thinking brings you to see an interesting point in Christian theology. Good for you.

Christians are to receive awards in the Heaven. Those whose theology is not correct WILL receive less or much less award. The deny of creationism (i.e. the advocation of evolutionism) "should" be a serious one which would cause a lot loss to the award. All people in the camp of TE are in that category.

This is not a wild guess. This theological content is clearly founded in the Bible.

 

[pitabread]

I'm here to have evolution proven, nothing more

Why? What is your interest in the subject?

Logical conclusion, you can't prove it, end of story.

Nothing in science is ever strictly "proven". You've set up an impossible condition to be fulfilled. I suspect there is a reason for that, but I'll let you elaborate.

 

[DogmaHunter]

If you belive God , my question is this

Why not belive God? What's the problem with it?

Now God said he created all things in 6 days then rested on the 7th

When you say he did not do this, you are saying you dont belive in his power.

When I say I don't believe that, I am saying that it's creation myth I-lost-count that humans have come up with over the millenia.

There's no reason at all to give this particular story any more credibility then any of those other stories. None of them are rooted in evidence. All of them fly in the face of scientific reality.

 

[DogmaHunter]

As Jesus is the only one who can save you from sin and hell then yes you was asking about Jesus

You just did not know it at the time my friend.

In your heart you know the way to be saved but reject it so this is not God, its your own choice.

JESUS IS THE ONLY WAY TRUTH AND LIGHT.

you seem to be doing your very best to avoid answering the question you are actually asked to answer.

 

[DogmaHunter]

No it's not but evolution and big bang are stumbling blocks for people who want to believe in Yah

Did you know that big bang theory was authored by a cosmologist who was also a catholic priest?

Isn't it kind of strange to say that a scientific theory that was developed by a catholic priest, apparently serves as a stumbling block to hold christian beliefs?

, found out that when you show to people that these things are actually not proven and not science ( not proven by repeatable , observable scientific experiment ) but are just theories

www.notjustatheory.com

Please read that page so that you may correct your very basic error.

Minimum requiments to be saved is :
1) Believing that God exist
2) Believing that you are sinner and need saviour
3) Put faith in God and his son Jesus Christ which was sacrifice to atone for your sins

So "belief" is the requirement.
Not what you do, how you behave, how you treat people… nope. Just "belief".

You can live your life murdering, maiming, raping,... just meet those 3 requirements and boom, eternal bliss.

But live your life volunteering in charity, never hurt anyone,... but don't belief things on bad evidence and boom: eternal suffering.

This makes sense to you?

I know there are people who believe that Christ died for thier sins but they also believe in evolution and big bang made by God .
This is contradiction to the bible because evolution makes death appear before sin , while Bible tells us there was no death before man sin .

Those people don't read that book in literal ways - which is why they can marry their religious beliefs with 21st century scientific knowledge.

 

[Sanoy]

No, as I see it, the purpose is to produce functional entities.

Man like? There are two "filters." The first is the inherent limit on the standard deviation of the random distribution of variants. The second is natural selection.

Do you mean the extinction of a species through failure to adapt to changing conditions?And His intention is? If it is to create a functioning and persistent biosphere He seems to have done the job.The creation of life doesn't come into it. This is evolution we are talking about now.

Do genetic algorithms used in engineering produce products or information about products?

I say man like beings because we could turn out like Grey aliens under the randomness you describe. I would normally include the image of God here but I am not sure what that would even mean under these conditions.

Does the first "filter" include the possibility of nonexistence? That is, the failure of man like beings to come about. Itself is not a filter, we can just call that a scope or range of possibilities.

It seems to me a maximally great being would have the intentions of creating beings to which He can express His love and beings that can return that love. I am just blown away that you would think His nature is fulfilled simply by creating a functioning biosphere rather than Children.

Under your view of Christianity did God create life? How would you say life came about, naturally or supernaturally? I am completely lost by where you are coming at as a Christian here.

 

[Speedwell]

Do genetic algorithms used in engineering produce products or information about products?

Both.

I say man like beings because we could turn out like Grey aliens under the randomness you describe. I would normally include the image of God here but I am not sure what that would even mean under these conditions.

I don't think you know what it means under any conditions. Do you think that God is an erect bipedal mammal?

It seems to me a maximally great being would have the intentions of creating a creature to which He can express His love and that creature can express it back. I am just blown away that you would think His nature is fulfilled simply by creating a functioning biosphere rather than Children.

Did I say "just?" You are beginning to become offensive.

Under your view of Christianity did God create life? How would you say life came about, naturally or supernaturally? I am completely lost by where you are coming at as a Christian here.

And now you trot out that tired old creationist false dichotomy. The answer to your question is yes. I am not a creationist; I do not have to pretend that identifying a natural cause for an event or phenomenon rules out a divine cause.

 

[Sanoy]

Both.

I don't think you know what it means under any conditions. Do you think that God is an erect bipedal mammal?



Did I say "just?" You are beginning to become offensive.

And now you trot out that tired old creationist false dichotomy. The answer to your question is yes. I am not a creationist; I do not have to pretend that identifying a natural cause for an event or phenomenon rules out a divine cause.

What form of engineering uses a genetic algorithm to directly produce a product?

Correct, God is not a bipedal human. Being in the image of God refers to his nature, and I don't know how that comes about through randomness. Seems like we could come about in the "image" of all sorts of things under randomness.

Correct, you didn't say "just", but you did back as far away from the question as possible. So to avoid offending you, let me ask does God have the intention to certainly create life, or maybe create life? Or not create life. And is that answer consistent with a MGB? Imo only the first is consistent.

Good, so you do believe that God created life. The only way out of a dichotomy is to make a third horn. So what is the thrid horn? A supernatural constraint on randomness? But that would mean life could come about without God, since God is merely restraining the possibilities. If God created the natural, and acts on the natural to produce life that seems to be supernatural as well. I just don't see how this can be balanced as purely natural but God still brought it about. I could be missing something here, which is why I'm asking for the third horn.

 

[xianghua]

....doesn't really look like a flipper to me

realy? you should look closer:

The dolphin with extra fins, 2 years on

 

[Speedwell]

What form of engineering uses a genetic algorithm to directly produce a product?

The electronics industry. Been making components that way for years.

Correct, God is not a bipedal human. Being in the image of God refers to his nature, and I don't know how that comes about through randomness.

What does "random" mean to you? In the case of evolution it refers to the random (think "bell curve") distribution of reproductive variants.

Correct, you didn't say "just", but you did back as far away from the question as possible. So to avoid offending you, let me ask does God have the intention to certainly create life, or maybe create life? Or not create life. And is that answer consistent with a MGB? Imo only the first is consistent.

You guys really don't get why these "catechisms" are offensive to other Christians? What you are saying, in effect, is "Even though you say you are a Christian and claim to belong to a recognized religious denomination with a well known body of doctrine, You don't believe what I believe so I have to assume that you might not even believe in God." What's an MGB besides a sports car?

Good, so you do believe that God created life.

I'm sure that comes as a relief to you. With Anglicans you can never tell, right? I might just as well believe the Devil created life instead.

The only way out of a dichotomy is to make a third horn. So what is the thrid horn? A supernatural constraint on randomness? But that would mean life could come about without God, since God is merely restraining the possibilities. If God created the natural, and acts on the natural to produce life that seems to be supernatural as well. I just don't see how this can be balanced as purely natural but God still brought it about. I could be missing something here, which is why I'm asking for the third horn.

You are missing the simultaneous action of different forms of causality. The natural causality investigated by science is only one of them. Didn't I tell you to start with Aristotle?

 

[Sanoy]

The electronics industry. Been making components that way for years.

What does "random" mean to you? In the case of evolution it refers to the random (think "bell curve") distribution of reproductive variants.

You guys really don't get why these "catechisms" are offensive to other Christians? What you are saying, in effect, is "Even though you say you are a Christian and claim to belong to a recognized religious denomination with a well known body of doctrine, You don't believe what I believe so I have to assume that you might not even believe in God." What's an MGB besides a sports car?

I'm sure that comes as a relief to you. With Anglicans you can never tell, right? I might just as well believe the Devil created life instead.You are missing the simultaneous action of different forms of causality. The natural causality investigated by science is only one of them. Didn't I tell you to start with Aristotle?

What in the electronics industry has the product line directly hooked up to the output of a genetic algorithm?

I'm merely concerned of the range of possibilities included in the random state of affairs and whether it includes the possibility of failure for man like beings. You leave me continually wondering whether man like beings could have failed to occur.

I don't know what catechisms you are referring too. I'm speaking philosophically. God is either maximally great, or not. It's a rule for how to think about God coherently. And I don't see how some of the things you are suggesting are coherent with an MGB. Important question...Do you believe God is an MGB or a less than a MGB? If you believe He is then what you say about Him should coherent to that.

I don't know anything about Anglicans. I am non denominational so whatever perceived denominational conflict there is is merely a false perception.

If you would like to use Aristotelian causes then I think that would be great. So maybe you could lay out where God fits into the four causes. Though I can't imagine how you will place God as the agent and a natural formal cause. Which is essentially the issue that we have been talking about for the last few exchanges.

 

[Speedwell]

What in the electronics industry has the product line directly hooked up to the output of a genetic algorithm?

Directly? I believe so, but my experience in the electronics industry is forty years out of date. Back then, there was no "directly" although the principle of random variation and selection was employed even then.

I'm merely concerned of the range of possibilities included in the random state of affairs and whether it includes the possibility of failure for man like beings. You leave me continually wondering whether man like beings could have failed to occur.

An unanswerable question in our present state of knowledge. As I said, it is possible that evolution converges on intelligent beings.

I don't know what catechisms you are referring too. I'm speaking philosophically. God is either maximally great, or not. It's a rule for how to think about God coherently. And I don't see how some of the things you are suggesting are coherent with an MGB. Important question...Do you believe God is an MGB or a less than a MGB? If you believe He is then what you say about Him should coherent to that.

The "Do you believe in God?" kind of questions. That's what I mean. I notice as well that you rarely answer my questions. What's an MGB?

I don't know anything about Anglicans.

You should. You should know something about the theology of all of the branches of Christianity, even if you think they're wrong. It guards against the beliefs of other Christians being misrepresented to you, as unscrupulous creationist clergymen are so fond of doing.

If you would like to use Aristotelian causes then I think that would be great. So maybe you could lay out where God fits into the four causes. Though I can't imagine how you will place God as the agent and a natural formal cause. Which is essentially the issue that we have been talking about for the last few exchanges.

I said start with Aristotle. In that scheme, God is the Final cause. But Christian theology has moved on since then. The real question is why you think that if God sustains a natural process with a randomizing element it somehow diminishes His majesty. You must really disapprove of quantum mechanics.

 

[Sanoy]

Directly? I believe so, but my experience in the electronics industry is forty years out of date. Back then, there was no "directly" although the principle of random variation and selection was employed even then.

An unanswerable question in our present state of knowledge. As I said, it is possible that evolution converges on intelligent beings.

The "Do you believe in God?" kind of questions. That's what I mean. I notice as well that you rarely answer my questions. What's an MGB?

You should. You should know something about the theology of all of the branches of Christianity, even if you think they're wrong. It guards against the beliefs of other Christians being misrepresented to you, as unscrupulous creationist clergymen are so fond of doing.

I said start with Aristotle. In that scheme, God is the Final cause. But Christian theology has moved on since then. The real question is why you think that if God sustains a natural process with a randomizing element it somehow diminishes His majesty. You must really disapprove of quantum mechanics.

Man like beings are either a metaphysical neccesity, which no one believes, or they could have failed to come about. Which do you believe under your view of Christianity?

An MGB stands for maximally great being. So do you believe God is an MGB or less than an MGB?

I don't care much about denominations, we are all one body and that is all I see. If you have something to teach me about the Anglican church I will listen and hope to be blessed. Just like you I am not going to research every denomination. I am a Berean when it comes to what I believe, not a clergy receptacle.

I think you might be confused with Aristotelian causes. God would not be the final cause. "Final" isn't meant as the biggest cause here but the sake for which it's brought about. There is no way to isolate God as some floating final cause, because that would entail that He did something. You say to start with Aristotle, so here we are. I am waiting for you to show how Aristotelian causes gives this delimma a third horn. I'm still trying to get you to explain what "God sustains a natural process with a randomizing element" even means and if it's coherent with His nature. If you don't have a clear third horn then just say so. I'm not trying to disprove Theistic Evolution, and there are other models you could take. I just worry about the way you are thinking about this version of it.

 

[Bugeyedcreepy]

realy? you should look closer:

The dolphin with extra fins, 2 years on

I'm looking closer and they still look like stubby little atavistic leg nubs, they're not flat and streamline like flippers & dorsal fins - but sure, if you want to call them flippers then let's call them flippers. Do you think they're advantageous? You're also aware that's a carry-over from when they were land mammals? Their ancestors had them as they reduced in size, now they barely get expressed during embryonic development.

Why is it important to call them flippers anyway?

 

[Kenny'sID]

Why? What is your interest in the subject?

Making others aware it's a completely made up lie. I'm a bit surprised you have't picked up on that yet.

Nothing in science is ever strictly "proven". You've set up an impossible condition to be fulfilled. I suspect there is a reason for that, but I'll let you elaborate.

Wrong, I just gave very simple and straight forward proof of that. And thanks for helping me to make the just mentioned case, BTW...anyone can see what you are claiming now is a lie, and I have showed them proof, whether they choose to see it or not is up to them, but I would ask that they prove me false before deciding. Now all they need to know is that, and other lies, are the little pieces that make up the whopper we refer to as evolution.

In short it helps if people can see the true process of evolution in action, and thanks again.

 

[pitabread]

Making others aware it's a completely made up lie. I'm a bit surprised you have't picked up on that yet.

That doesn't make any sense. Evolution is an observable biological process that occurs in populations. Saying it is a "made-up lie" is a bit like claiming ocean currents or plate tectonics are a made-up lie. It's nonsensical.

Wrong, I just gave very simple and straight forward proof of that. And thanks for helping me to make the just mentioned case, BTW...anyone can see what you are claiming now is a lie, and I have showed them proof, whether they choose to see it or not is up to them, but I would ask that they prove me false before deciding.

The issue here is your continual refusal to use proper terminology.