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

[Speedwell]

Why is that suddenly a rule? You have no proof, and even attack the term "proof" as a way out. Until you have proof, it is a lie...period. Let's see, how can I help you here...I have a Gopher with 8 heads, now you may be so gullible you will simply believe that, or like most, you would ask me to show it to you, or prove it. I show you I have proof and have proven it, I don't, then I don't have proof, it was a lie.



I don't believe you, I think some call it proof, "I" called it proof, and I assure you, I'm not the first. Please quite leaning on your technical little rules that likely have no real validity, or amount to just about zilch in the scheme of things to begin with, and all to prove your bogus evolution. Your intentions are showing...badly

This is one of the silliest conversation I've ever run into here, it's all about desperation, because you have no proof of evolution...most can see that, and though that is 100% clear to me, what is not clear is why you all continue to do this to yourselves?

Besides, how do any of your claims on this change the fact you have no proof, or whatever you choose to call it for evolution.

Do you have evidence that confirms beyond reasonable doubt, evolution is a fact (proof)? And if you say you do, at what point do we stop calling that mere biased opinion? And that is exactly the confusion your silly argument of terminology brings on. It allows you to suggest evolution it a fact by playing word games, but in the end, you still have no proof, the very word that is not allowed.

Evolution is a complete joke...and keeps me laughing for several reasons.

No. Saying evolution is wrong is one thing. Calling it a "lie," an intentional falsehood, is a scurrilous accusation--quite another thing--and you had better back it up or back down.

 

[Kenny'sID]

I’m asking for evidence that scientists are lying about the ToE.

That’s what you claim isn’t it?

And I answered you

 

[Kenny'sID]

No. Saying evolution is wrong is one thing. Calling it a "lie," an intentional falsehood, is a scurrilous accusation--quite another thing--and you had better back it up or back down.

I called it a lie, as in a non truth, regardless of intent...you called it an intentional false hood.

 

[Speedwell]

I called it a lie, as in a non truth, regardless of intent...you called it an intentional false hood.

That is the meaning of the word "lie"--an intentional falsehood--and I believe that is what you meant

 

[Bugeyedcreepy]

because they are not legs as evolutionists claim.

they were, but not anymore. I tell you what, why don't we just call them limbs instead?

So, why do you think a supposed designer would be modding a design mid-existence like this? wasn't it well designed to start with? Why are these limbs even expressed during embryonic development at all anyway if they're not even used for the large part?

Evolution explains it - an unseen, unknown designer that is apparently changing the design poses many, many more questions than it answers... especially one that seems to randomly tinker with design on the fly like this...

 

[Jimmy D]

And I answered you

Sorry, I must have missed it, can you point me to the post?

 

[pitabread]

That is the meaning of the word "lie"--an intentional falsehood--and I believe that is what you meant

I feel like we should all chip in and purchase Kenny a dictionary.

 

[Kenny'sID]

That is the meaning of the word "lie"--an intentional falsehood--and I believe that is what you meant

I realize yo have been trying to get that out of me for awhile now but it hasn't happened.

 

[Kenny'sID]

Sorry, I must have missed it, can you point me to the post?

You aren't paying attention.

 

[Kenny'sID]

I feel like we should all chip in and purchase Kenny a dictionary.

Too bad you chose to back out of our debate to settle your little terminology problem once and for all.

So...between that and this....

Definition of proof
noun

1. evidence sufficient to establish a thing as true, or to produce belief in its truth.
2. anything serving as such evidence: What proof do you have?
3. the act of testing or making trial of anything; test; trial:

......I'd say you've just been proven wrong...again. I mean that is after all from the dictionary.

Amazing that they just keep coming back for more.

 

[Gene2memE]

There's a difference between colloquial and technical usage of certain words.

You can use proof as a synonym for evidence in everyday language with little or no problem.
If you do the same in a journal article, expect to get lambasted by your editors. If it gets through the editorial process, then expect to get lambasted by you peers.

 

[Kenny'sID]

There's a difference between colloquial and technical usage of certain words.

You can use proof as a synonym for evidence in everyday language with little or no problem.
If you do the same in a journal article, expect to get lambasted by your editors. If it gets through the editorial process, then expect to get lambasted by you peers.

That's odd because the top link in a search resulted in the following, where they had no trouble at all using the term prove or disprove.

Evolution

 

[Jimmy D]

You aren't paying attention.

I am.

Are you suggesting that the below is evidence that the people who study biology are lying?

Until you have proof, it is a lie...period. Let's see, how can I help you here...I have a Gopher with 8 heads, now you may be so gullible you will simply believe that, or like most, you would ask me to show it to you, or prove it. I show you I have proof and have proven it, I don't, then I don't have proof, it was a lie.

In your simplistic example your failure to provide any evidence of the gopher would suggest that you're lying. Wouldn't prove it though would it? Maybe the gopher has run off. I wouldn't believe you though, if I knew you to be an honest person I'd suspect that you were mistaken, if not I'd think you were a liar.

In other words the absence of evidence is not necessarily proof that you were lying.

But you asserted that scientists are lying...

Because people lie in order to make it appear true.

I don't like to drag anyone else into this, but the only professional scientist I can think of who works in the field and regularly posts on this forum is SFS, are you saying he is lying when he says...

"I can find abundant genetic evidence for evolution. Is it possible that some of us know more about genetics than you do? Here is a small part of what I think is genetic evidence. Why isn't it?"

Are you prepared to examine his evidence and demonstrate that he is lying?

 

[DogmaHunter]

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

GA's in engineering are used to optimize existing systems according to some defined parameters.

GA's aren't used to create things from scratch. You could, but there would be no point. When using such algorithms in engineering, one is trying to take something that already exists and then make it better.

GA's are quite exceptionally good at that. Using them usually results in better solutions then actual humans could come up with.

I say man like beings because we could turn out like Grey aliens under the randomness you describe

Only if there is a selection pressure pushing towards such. If physical appearance that moves in that direction somehow provides an advantage over peers (either in reproductive success or in survival or both).

I would normally include the image of God here but I am not sure what that would even mean under these conditions.

In my experience, the more sophisticated theists (so, the opposite of literalists like YEC's) usually understand the "in god's image" part as being a spiritual description and not a physical one. Spiritual in the sense of with reasoning capabilities, with moral understanding, etc.

I don't believe that either as an atheist, off course... But at least such a view doesn't fly in the face of scientific knowledge.

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.

I would think that a "maximally great being", would be more then capable of setting up a system where such creatures are produced by the system.

Consider this…
Which engineer would you think is most impressive?

The one who builds a finished complex machine?
Or the one who builds a self assembling complex machine ?

I'ld say that the one that builds the self-assembling machine, is a LOT more impressive then the one who directly builds the machine.

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.

Are you aware that most christians in the world, actually have no problems with evolution theory?

 

[DogmaHunter]

I realize yo have been trying to get that out of me for awhile now but it hasn't happened.

Can you please explain the difference between "lying" and "being mistaken"?
Because it sounds like you don't know….

 

[pitabread]

Too bad you chose to back out of our debate

That's part of the problem. I wasn't debating.

Not everything has to be a fight.

In the case of using terminology incorrectly in the context of the discussion, that's not going to change no matter how much you argue it. It's just being obstinate for the sake of being obstinate.

 

[pitabread]

That's odd because the top link in a search resulted in the following, where they had no trouble at all using the term prove or disprove.

Evolution

Did you skip past the very first sentence?

Darwin's theory has been supported by a lot of evidence.
​

The only time they mention "proof" is in relation to the disproving of Lamarckian evolution, which is of course demonstrably wrong.

They don't say that Darwinian evolution has been proven or proven true.

 

[AV1611VET]

Darwin's theory has been supported by a lot of evidence.

That's why it's call a "theory" … right?

 

[pitabread]

That's why it's call a "theory" … right?

Are you being sarcastic?

Because anyone who has spent more than a day here already knows what the word "theory" mean in the context of a scientific discussion.

 

[Sanoy]

GA's in engineering are used to optimize existing systems according to some defined parameters.

GA's aren't used to create things from scratch. You could, but there would be no point. When using such algorithms in engineering, one is trying to take something that already exists and then make it better.

GA's are quite exceptionally good at that. Using them usually results in better solutions then actual humans could come up with.




Only if there is a selection pressure pushing towards such. If physical appearance that moves in that direction somehow provides an advantage over peers (either in reproductive success or in survival or both).




In my experience, the more sophisticated theists (so, the opposite of literalists like YEC's) usually understand the "in god's image" part as being a spiritual description and not a physical one. Spiritual in the sense of with reasoning capabilities, with moral understanding, etc.

I don't believe that either as an atheist, off course... But at least such a view doesn't fly in the face of scientific knowledge.




I would think that a "maximally great being", would be more then capable of setting up a system where such creatures are produced by the system.

Consider this…
Which engineer would you think is most impressive?

The one who builds a finished complex machine?
Or the one who builds a self assembling complex machine ?

I'ld say that the one that builds the self-assembling machine, is a LOT more impressive then the one who directly builds the machine.



Are you aware that most christians in the world, actually have no problems with evolution theory?

Thanks, that is what I imagined.

Obviously.

Good jab at those those unsophisticated barbarians called Young Earth Creationists. I explained later what I meant by God's image.

It's not a matter of being capable, it's a matter of requiring it for knowledge.

I don't think you even know what we are talking about. But I thank for for clearing up the ambiguity still left over in the Genetic Algorithm example.