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

[JackRT]

No it's not but evolution and big bang are stumbling blocks for people who want to believe in Yah , 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 then people become more open minded for arguing for existence of designer and creator .

In science, a "theory" is as good as it gets. Although "theory" in common parlance means nothing more than a guess, in science it means something very different. An idea rises to the level of theory in science only after numerous, independent tests have been performed and have yielded consistent data. A scientific theory offers insight into the natural world while making predictions about the structure of the natural world. Scientific theories permit us to make sense of random facts. Because science proceeds by disproof rather than proof, in other words because science is reliant on the concept of falsifiability, scientists must be open to the possibility that a commonly accepted theory might, at some time in the future, be replaced by a more finely tuned or more robust theory. But, being open to the possibility of future work modifying and improving our present theories is a far cry from saying that something is "just a theory" and thus not deserving of any special attention. When dealing with nature on a grand scale, such as the Big Bang Theory, a controlled experiment may be impossible but direct observation can do the same job.

Both the Big Bang Theory and the Theory of Evolution are very well established major theories, with enormous levels of verification and evidence. The ToE is stronger, probably, than the BBT, but it's sort of like saying 'steel is fairly strong but titanium alloy is stronger' - either one will serve for tableware with no danger of failure due to stress. At this point there are no known major issues with either theory. Details to be filled in? Yes. Serious difficulties? No.

 

[EastCoastRemnant]

Yes.

(see that's how you answer a question)



You're confusing listening to a preacher with being a layman interested in science who can actually investigate the claims himself. There are numerous dating methods and observations that show the earth and life on it is very, very old. You might be unfamiliar with those observations, but I am familiar with them.

And how do you know those methods of dating are accurate out to the time frames you are espousing. Does water or moisture ingress affect these instruments readings? How can you have a fossil with tissue attached that is that old? How about the never mentioned failed dating experiments? Seems science likes to cherry pick its findings to fit the narrative...

 

[Kenny'sID]

It's been quite well established on this forum that creationist beliefs offer no scientific value.

You mean scientific value as in "Poof!", and so it begins?

Why would creationists beliefs need to offer any more scientific value than it's alternatives?

Thus, is creationism* as a belief required to be a Christian? Is it required for salvation?

Curious why you would ask, are you considering a move i that direction?

 

[EastCoastRemnant]

Can't argue against what I wrote. Attacks me instead.

Good luck with that.

That's not an attack just a fact... maybe you could enlighten me on how you, an atheist, can understand spiritual things?

 

[pitabread]

Seems science likes to cherry pick its findings to fit the narrative...

No. Science is about building understanding of the natural world based on our observations thereof. It goes where the observations lead.

 

[EastCoastRemnant]

In science, a "theory" is as good as it gets. Although "theory" in common parlance means nothing more than a guess, in science it means something very different. An idea rises to the level of theory in science only after numerous, independent tests have been performed and have yielded consistent data. A scientific theory offers insight into the natural world while making predictions about the structure of the natural world. Scientific theories permit us to make sense of random facts. Because science proceeds by disproof rather than proof, in other words because science is reliant on the concept of falsifiability, scientists must be open to the possibility that a commonly accepted theory might, at some time in the future, be replaced by a more finely tuned or more robust theory. But, being open to the possibility of future work modifying and improving our present theories is a far cry from saying that something is "just a theory" and thus not deserving of any special attention. When dealing with nature on a grand scale, such as the Big Bang Theory, a controlled experiment may be impossible but direct observation can do the same job.

Both the Big Bang Theory and the Theory of Evolution are very well established major theories, with enormous levels of verification and evidence. The ToE is stronger, probably, than the BBT, but it's sort of like saying 'steel is fairly strong but titanium alloy is stronger' - either one will serve for tableware with no danger of failure due to stress. At this point there are no known major issues with either theory. Details to be filled in? Yes. Serious difficulties? No.

The foundation of modern day science is based on shifting sands... whats true today might not be true tomorrow. In contrast, the Bible has not changed... I'll stand on the Rock and watch the sinking sands show.

 

[pitabread]

Why would creationists beliefs need to offer any more scientific value than it's alternatives?

If creationists seek to have creationist beliefs replace certain areas of science (e.g. the theory of evolution), then creationism needs to offer equal or superior explanatory power and application thereof of the sciences it would be replacing. But it doesn't. In fact, I never seen any example of creationism is supposed to be of any use scientifically whatsoever.

Curious why you would ask, are you considering a move i that direction?

Nope. I'm just trying to find out the point of creationism (specifically belief in independently created organisms). It's not useful scientifically. And if it's not a theological requirement for Christianity, then I don't understand the point of it.

So far only one poster has suggested that it is a requirement to be a Christian. Everyone else has said it isn't.

 

[EastCoastRemnant]

No. Science is about building understanding of the natural world based on our observations thereof. It goes where the observations lead.

Interesting "theory"... how do you know what a triceritops looks like? Based on observation of a few bones collected? Or is it in the imaginations of man? When a single bone is found, how do they know what animal it's from if we don't have those animals alive today to "observe"?

 

[USincognito]

Interesting "theory"... how do you know what a triceritops looks like? Based on observation of a few bones collected?

Not to be insulting, but if you think only "a few bones" have been discovered for triceratops, then don't know enough about the subject to have an opinion on it. This specimen was 75% complete and it's just one of many.

Or is it in the imaginations of man? When a single bone is found, how do they know what animal it's from if we don't have those animals alive today to "observe"?

If you really think scientists are so stupid they cannot recognize even a single bone as being similar to the bones of other extinct or extant species then you don't know enough about paleontology to have an opinion on it. Or at least an opinion worth listening to.

 

[USincognito]

And how do you know those methods of dating are accurate out to the time frames you are espousing.

I have never understood why Creationists think asking a bunch of questions they could take ten seconds to answer by doing their own homework is an effective debate or discussion tactic. It's almost as if they have zero understanding of subjects they want to criticize and zero intellectual curiosity to find out the answers for themselves.

Does water or moisture ingress affect these instruments readings?

No.

How can you have a fossil with tissue attached that is that old?

Fossils don't have tissue attached to them. Do you even know what a fossil is? Unless it's been permineralized, it's not a fossil. If you're referring to Christian paleontologist Dr. Mary Schweitzer's discovery with MOR-1125, it wasn't "tissue". It was fragments of collagen.

How about the never mentioned failed dating experiments?

There are none.

Seems science likes to cherry pick its findings to fit the narrative...

How would you know?

 

[pitabread]

Interesting "theory"... how do you know what a triceritops looks like? Based on observation of a few bones collected? Or is it in the imaginations of man? When a single bone is found, how do they know what animal it's from if we don't have those animals alive today to "observe"?

How do paleontologists identify fossils?

And as USincognito pointed out, there are fossil finds of near-complete dinosaur skeletons and even ones with skin impressions intact. Some of the most complete dinosaur fossil skeletons have over 90% of their bones recovered.

 

[Speedwell]

Maybe because it didn't happen that way? Beware the word of man over the Word of God.

No, because the Bible is about something else altogether.

 

[EastCoastRemnant]

1 Corinthians 2:14,19
But the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God: for they are foolishness unto him: neither can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned.
For the wisdom of this world is foolishness with God. For it is written, He taketh the wise in their own craftiness.

 

[Kenny'sID]

If creationists seek to have creationist beliefs replace certain areas of science (e.g. the theory of evolution), then creationism needs to offer equal or superior explanatory power and application thereof of the sciences it would be replacing. But it doesn't. In fact, I never seen any example of creationism is supposed to be of any use scientifically whatsoever.

If you mean evolutionary science as what it's replacing, Like I already indicated, evolution has nothing on creation as far as the science goes... since evolution doesn't/has never been proven to exist, neither does the science that you may claim backs it up.

I guess you forgot about that part. Or your back on that thing where you expect us to take your word for it, something that would not be easy to do fro reasons I've mentioned before.

And why would we need to seek to have anything replace anything...you got nothing to replace but a fairy tale... at best.

On the other hand, I'm always open for proof, something I've tried to get several times, but since all I ever get fro my efforts are excuses, and turning the blame on me because no one can present that proof, so I'm assuming nothing has changed, hence my point... creation needs no more science to prove it, than you have to prove evolution..

Seems a perfectly logical conclusion to me anyway.

 

[pitabread]

since evolution doesn't/has never been proven to exist

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.

 

[Silmarien]

You seem to be confusing "interprets differently" with "rejecting". No Christian rejects any part of the Bible. That's is a libelous and borderline CF rule violating falsehood that Creationists spread.

I don't know about that. Anyone who denies inerrancy actually is rejecting the authority of Scripture to a certain extent. This does go beyond interpreting it differently--you actually do think that the Bible is the work of men and in some aspects incorrect, even if what it depicts is God's genuine self-revelation.

You can accept inerrancy and not be a Creationist, but you can also be a Christian and genuinely reject parts of the Bible.

 

[juvenissun]

Why "unfortunately"? If belief in independent creation of biological forms isn't required for salvation and to be a Christian, then why does it matter?

Because it is theologically incorrect.

 

[USincognito]

I don't know about that. Anyone who denies inerrancy actually is rejecting the authority of Scripture to a certain extent.

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

This does go beyond interpreting it differently--you actually do think that the Bible is the work of men and in some aspects incorrect, even if what it depicts is God's genuine self-revelation.

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.

You can accept inerrancy and not be a Creationist, but you can also be a Christian and genuinely reject parts of the Bible.

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

 

[Bugeyedcreepy]

Maybe because it didn't happen that way? Beware the word of man over the Word of God.

Well, the Bible you have access to today was at best inspired by your God, and not written by him directly, but rather written, copied and translated by all those unnamed fallible men between him and us.

Creation on the other hand (if it is creation, that is) IS your God's handiwork, and surely that would be a better source for showing us what he did and how he did it, no? Science is single-handedly the best way we have to find out things about it accurately and reliably, by far.

And how do you know those methods of dating are accurate out to the time frames you are espousing. Does water or moisture ingress affect these instruments readings? How can you have a fossil with tissue attached that is that old? How about the never mentioned failed dating experiments? Seems science likes to cherry pick its findings to fit the narrative...

You can look into it yourself, even had @USincognito not already pointed out the obvious.

You seem to be confusing "interprets differently" with "rejecting". No Christian rejects any part of the Bible. That's is a libelous and borderline CF rule violating falsehood that Creationists spread.

You are speaking for Christians now as an atheist? That's rich.... you can't misinterpret the creation account in Genesis. You can reject it or seek to alter it in your own intellectualism but the Word is plain as written. "And the evening and the morning were the 1st day"

The foundation of modern day science is based on shifting sands... whats true today might not be true tomorrow. In contrast, the Bible has not changed... I'll stand on the Rock and watch the sinking sands show.

So, you're a Flat-earther then?

 

[Sanoy]

Salvation comes from trusting in Christ to ransom you from your sins. That is essentially what faith is, trust, not blind belief. Although Christ is all throughout the Old Testament, where creation is derived, we only learn about salvation from the New Testament. So the content of creationism is not required. There are people who believe in Theistic Evolution which maybe @Speedwell can describe better than I.

But you know it's not even required that you believe in Theistic Evolution to be saved. Salvation is just putting your trust in Christ to ransom you from your sins. Truth be told there will be Buddhists, Muslims, Hindus, Agnostics, and "possibly" even some Atheists (so long as it is not willful) in heaven because of what Paul describes as Gods general revelation. Part of that General revelation is the moral landscape of objective values and duties, of which Paul says in Romans 2, that those people under God's general revelation will be judged based on how they responded to the revelation of God that they had. Did they do what they knew was right, or did they do what they knew was wrong. Whenever they did what was right they did it for God. Grace is then applied to them through Christ's sacrifice.

I don't think that we should look at value purely in regards to whether it furthers science. There is so much more of value and profit than science in this world. Mathematics, Philosophy, Art, Beauty, Humor, Individuals, happiness, the fate of our ancestors and our own fate. Science isn't metaphysics, it doesn't ask the important question of "What is out there". It asks the narrow question of "What is out there that is Natural".

I don't think one has to be unscientific to be a creationist. I don't consider myself unscientific, and because I study the ancient near east, and been so interested in studying Genesis critically I have come to find there is no hard conflict with modern science. The conflict comes from anachronisms, and trying to read things in there that aren't definitively stated. The biggest example is what is meant by a day. Genesis is far less specific than it's made out to be. Creationism is a big camp of people.