Why don't mainstream Christians come out against Young Earth Creationist

[Matthewj1985]

Young Earth Creationist are the laughing stock of the scientific community. They take perfectly valid science and reject it. They use half-truths and outdated science to prove their points and try and censor those who can easily debunk them. Search "Kent Hovind" on youtube and for every video you see of him you see 5 videos debunking his arguments and citing actual peer reviewed papers on the subject. It has almost become a sport to debunk young earth creationist on youtube. I mean even the Vatican has come out and said that evolution and the bible go just fine together and I was to say the last 3 Popes were pro-evolution.

The reason I bring this is up some of my European friends think all American Christians are like Kent Hovind and Ken Hamm. I know that is not the case and I know most Christians think science and religion can co-exist just fine. I just wonder why the bigger names in American Christianity have not come out against this minority who hurts the group as a whole.

 

[ebia]

Young Earth Creationist are the laughing stock of the scientific community. They take perfectly valid science and reject it. They use half-truths and outdated science to prove their points and try and censor those who can easily debunk them. Search "Kent Hovind" on youtube and for every video you see of him you see 5 videos debunking his arguments and citing actual peer reviewed papers on the subject. It has almost become a sport to debunk young earth creationist on youtube. I mean even the Vatican has come out and said that evolution and the bible go just fine together and I was to say the last 3 Popes were pro-evolution.

The reason I bring this is up some of my European friends think all American Christians are like Kent Hovind and Ken Hamm. I know that is not the case and I know most Christians think science and religion can co-exist just fine. I just wonder why the bigger names in American Christianity have not come out against this minority who hurts the group as a whole.

What would you have us do?

 

[Matthewj1985]

What would you have us do?

I thought I had it in the post. Why have major American Christians (Graham and Robertson maybe) not come out against young earth creationism like the pope has?

 

[ebia]

I thought I had it in the post. Why have major American Christians (Graham and Robertson maybe) not come out against young earth creationism like the pope has?

Ok - if it's a question about American church leaders then I'm not in a position to comment.

 

[Matthewj1985]

Ok - if it's a question about American church leaders then I'm not in a position to comment.

Ok, how about major church leaders across the world? The only reason I say "American" is because I would venture to say we have the most YEC. I have been doing some reading in the theology forums, specifically the "Theistic Evolution" sub forum (I am being a good boy and not posting because I know its a CO area) and I know there are rational voices on this forum. I know that the majority of Christians worldwide do not buy into the "Jesus rode a dinosaur" theory.

 

[ebia]

Ok, how about major church leaders across the world? The only reason I say "American" is because I would venture to say we have the most YEC. I have been doing some reading in the theology forums, specifically the "Theistic Evolution" sub forum (I am being a good boy and not posting because I know its a CO area) and I know there are rational voices on this forum. I know that the majority of Christians worldwide do not buy into the "Jesus rode a dinosaur" theory.

Around the world it isn't the hot issue that it is in the US. Church leaders do speak about it - you mentioned the Pope, Anglican Bishops talk about it,... But it's simply not the hot topic so it doesn't crop up often.

 

[seashale76]

I thought I had it in the post. Why have major American Christians (Graham and Robertson maybe) not come out against young earth creationism like the pope has?

I would venture to say that a lot of Evangelical Christian leaders (those you mentioned fall into this category) don't speak up against young earth creationism because they believe it themselves. There is an established history of mistrust of the established educational system, academia, and the scientific community- in particular- among Evangelicals. For other groups (Orthodox), the issue of YEC vs. anything else is a non-issue and has nothing to do with the salvation. For the rest, there is likely a general apathy- it isn't a malady for only budding agnostics.

 

[Matthewj1985]

I would venture to say that a lot of Evangelical Christian leaders (those you mentioned fall into this category) don't speak up against young earth creationism because they believe it themselves. There is an established history of mistrust of the established educational system, academia, and the scientific community- in particular- among Evangelicals. For other groups (Orthodox), the issue of YEC vs. anything else is a non-issue and has nothing to do with the salvation. For the rest, there is likely a general apathy- it isn't a malady for only budding agnostics.

Another question is, why do Christians not speak out against lairs? I mean if a YEC states something, then he is corrected and the work is cited, if he continues to tell his fellow Christians this, is he bearing false witness?

 

[arunma]

Kent Hovind has issues besides young earth creationism, with the tax evasion and all...

To answer your question: I am not a young earth creationist, but I do not come out against them because they are my brothers in Christ. As a scientist I also have a certain allegiance to other scientists. But my fellowship with other Christians far outweighs any relation I have to the scientific community. Now, I have no problem stating that young earth creationism is wrong, and to the best of my abilities I do try to gently correct people who believe in a young earth. However, young earth creationists believe in this faulty theory because like myself, they believe that the Scriptures are inspired and inerrent, and it is only a small misinterpretation of certain passages that leads them to incorrect conclusions. Such an error is far more preferable than rejecting the Scriptures, and thus rejecting Jesus Christ to one's own eternal condemnation. While I do not support a scientific theory that I know to be incorrect, this does not result in any antipathy on my part towards young earth creationists.

Ultimately I know that I will be spending eternity worshiping the Lord in the company of all of my fellow Christians, many of whom are currently young earth creationists. Most of my fellow scientists, on the other hand, are either atheists or theistic non-Christians, and will suffer the eternal punishment for sin. With this eternal perspective in mind, why would I denounce other Christians?

 

[PastorJim]

Young Earth Creationist are the laughing stock of the scientific community. They take perfectly valid science and reject it. They use half-truths and outdated science to prove their points and try and censor those who can easily debunk them. Search "Kent Hovind" on youtube and for every video you see of him you see 5 videos debunking his arguments and citing actual peer reviewed papers on the subject. It has almost become a sport to debunk young earth creationist on youtube. I mean even the Vatican has come out and said that evolution and the bible go just fine together and I was to say the last 3 Popes were pro-evolution.

The reason I bring this is up some of my European friends think all American Christians are like Kent Hovind and Ken Hamm. I know that is not the case and I know most Christians think science and religion can co-exist just fine. I just wonder why the bigger names in American Christianity have not come out against this minority who hurts the group as a whole.

First, young Earth creationists are mainstream Christians.

The Bible is not dogmatic on the age of the Earth. I believe that it strongly suggests a young Earth, but have no problem with somebody who disagrees with that.

Christianity isn't based on the age of the Earth. The age of the Earth isn't even a doctrine within Christianity.

Like somebody else said, what would you have us do? I just can't see starting a fight over a peripheral and, frankly, trivial issue.

 

[PastorJim]

Another question is, why do Christians not speak out against lairs? I mean if a YEC states something, then he is corrected and the work is cited, if he continues to tell his fellow Christians this, is he bearing false witness?

No, that is not bearing false witness. Bearing false witness is stating something that is untrue with the intent to decieve.

These people simply have a different opinion and have come to different conclusions than you.

 

[Matthewj1985]

No, that is not bearing false witness. Bearing false witness is stating something that is untrue with the intent to decieve.

These people simply have a different opinion and have come to different conclusions than you.

So say I set a red ball on a table and say "this ball is red". You then look at the ball and tell someone else that the ball is blue. No matter what your reasoning for thinking the ball is blue, it is clearly red. Would that not be bearing false witness?

I mean the Earth being 6000 years old is a black and white issue. Many, many lines of evidence point to an old earth and not a single line points to a young earth (that can hold any water, you can parrot Hovind theories all day but I can shoot them down with real science as fast as you can put them up). I guess I just don't understand how repeating an argument that has been shown to you personally to be false to further your cause isn't deceptive.

I have always been into science and when I was a Christian I was an old earth "theistic evolution" guy and could defend my points, just like I can today. My arguments from that time really have not changed much other than the starting point.

 

[PastorJim]

So say I set a red ball on a table and say "this ball is red". You then look at the ball and tell someone else that the ball is blue. No matter what your reasoning for thinking the ball is blue, it is clearly red. Would that not be bearing false witness?

Again, bearing false witness refers to stating something that is untrue for the purpose of decieving somebody.

A person may be color blind and be sincerely unable to tell what color it is. The ball may appear to be a different color when the light hits it in a certain way. Perhaps the ball was blue, but was later painted red and the person means that blue is the ball's true color, while it only appears to be red.

There are many different reasons two people can come to different opinions and conclusions. It doesn't mean that they're lying.

I mean the Earth being 6000 years old is a black and white issue. Many, many lines of evidence point to an old earth and not a single line points to a young earth (that can hold any water, you can parrot Hovind theories all day but I can shoot them down with real science as fast as you can put them up). I guess I just don't understand how repeating an argument that has been shown to you personally to be false to further your cause isn't deceptive.

But you see, I present the Gospel to people many times and provide evidence that I believe is irrefutable and yet, some people still say it isn't true. Does that mean that they're lying? No. It means that they know something or believe they know something or have had some experience that causes them to judge my evidence in light of other evidence. Sometimes, they don't have evidence at all, but just a preconcieved notion. That still doesn't mean that they're lying.

I'm sure that there is plenty of evidence to show that the world is millions of years old. However, just because I find other evidence, which shows that the Earth is signifigantly younger, to be true, does not mean that I'm lying. It simply means that I find one argument compelling, while I do not find your argument compelling.

 

[Matthewj1985]

Again, bearing false witness refers to stating something that is untrue for the purpose of decieving somebody.

A person may be color blind and be sincerely unable to tell what color it is. The ball may appear to be a different color when the light hits it in a certain way. Perhaps the ball was blue, but was later painted red and the person means that blue is the ball's true color, while it only appears to be red.

There are many different reasons two people can come to different opinions and conclusions. It doesn't mean that they're lying.



But you see, I present the Gospel to people many times and provide evidence that I believe is irrefutable and yet, some people still say it isn't true. Does that mean that they're lying? No. It means that they know something or believe they know something or have had some experience that causes them to judge my evidence in light of other evidence. Sometimes, they don't have evidence at all, but just a preconcieved notion. That still doesn't mean that they're lying.

I'm sure that there is plenty of evidence to show that the world is millions of years old. However, just because I find other evidence, which shows that the Earth is signifigantly younger, to be true, does not mean that I'm lying. It simply means that I find one argument compelling, while I do not find your argument compelling.

You are determined to cloud a black and white issue here. What evidence do you have? I would actually love to know. I mean if you have evidence that is real (not just for you, but REAL) then I would recommend writing a paper on it and sending it in to one of the major science journals. If it can make it past peer review I will be the first one to bow and and exclaim my love for God. Sadly not a single creationist has ever done this, which means than unless you are sitting on the find of the century there is no evidence for a young earth, at all.

Further more if your plan is to use the divinity of the bible as proof that the earth is young you are never going to make it past the first step of peer review. The only way to prove the divinity of the bible over other holy texts is by pointing to passages in the bible. I don't mean to insult you here but coming from a science standpoint that is how the cookies crumble.

As fas a science is concerned YEC has absolutely zero merit at all. The only way you can argue for it is to discount almost every single field of science and you the bible as a science book.

 

[PastorJim]

You are determined to cloud a black and white issue here. What evidence do you have? I would actually love to know.

I'm sure you would, but that isn't the point of this thread and, to be honest, I'm not here to convince you that the Earth isn't millions of years old, I'm just answering the question you asked in the OP.

Further more if your plan is to use the divinity of the bible as proof that the earth is young you are never going to make it past the first step of peer review. The only way to prove the divinity of the bible over other holy texts is by pointing to passages in the bible. I don't mean to insult you here but coming from a science standpoint that is how the cookies crumble.

That's odd, since the Bible supports science.

As fas a science is concerned YEC has absolutely zero merit at all. The only way you can argue for it is to discount almost every single field of science and you the bible as a science book.

I disagree but, like I said, that's another subject for another thread.

 

[Matthewj1985]

I'm sure you would, but that isn't the point of this thread and, to be honest, I'm not here to convince you that the Earth isn't millions of years old, I'm just answering the question you asked in the OP.



That's odd, since the Bible supports science.



I disagree but, like I said, that's another subject for another thread.

Again, there has yet to be a paper get through the peer review process and get into a real scientific journal so that settles it right there. If you want to cling to the notion that the argument holds water you need to back up your positions. If not you have no standing in this debate.

 

[arunma]

Matthew, there are some points in one of your posts which I think are worthy of some discussion.

You are determined to cloud a black and white issue here. What evidence do you have? I would actually love to know. I mean if you have evidence that is real (not just for you, but REAL) then I would recommend writing a paper on it and sending it in to one of the major science journals.

It is noteworthy that Bible-believing Christians fully support the notion of absolute truth. Any Christian who believes in the Scriptures would cringe at hearing the statement, "it may be true for you, but it isn't true for me." We believe that truth is absolute, that faith in Jesus Christ apart from false religions is the only way to salvation, regardless of the individual's personal beliefs.

Now as to the evidence for a young earth, I am in a rather interesting position, since I agree with you that there is no evidence that would withstand the test of scientific scrutiny. This, I think, would make young earth creationists incorrect in their assessment on the age of the earth. It does not, however, make them liars or bearers of false witness. The issue here is that they do not fully understand the evidence for an old earth. So, you might ask, why do I not educate my fellow Christians in this regard? The problem is that convicing oneself about the age of the earth requires a fair degree of specialized knowledge. A common example is the issue of radiometric dating. There are many people who say that radiometric dating in general, and carbon dating in particular, are faulty. Usually YEC people will suggest something to the effect that we can't know the decay rate of various isotopes with any degree of accuracy. Now what's interesting is that if some reasonable assumptions are made, certain decay rates can actually be calculated using quantum mechanics. Surely such an argument would be convincing to most people. The problem is that to understand this argument one must be familiar with linear algebra, differential equations, and the formalism of quantum mechanics. Of course I encourage anyone who is willing to acquire such an education. The problem is that this would take too long for me to effectively use the argument in a short discussion. And at some level, I don't really care how old people think the earth is. It is more important that people believe in the Gospel of Jesus Christ, because anyone who does not believe in Christ will surely go to hell.

To one who isn't a professional scientist, it's necessary to trust scientists. And sadly, most scientists don't give believing Christians a reason to trust them. Most scientists are not Christians themselves. I find that often times, scientists will teach accurate science, and in the same breath or stroke of the pen make statements about Jesus Christ and the Scriptures that are patently false. In some sense I don't blame YEC adherants for distrusting scientists.

If it can make it past peer review I will be the first one to bow and and exclaim my love for God. Sadly not a single creationist has ever done this, which means than unless you are sitting on the find of the century there is no evidence for a young earth, at all.

Here is another important point to be made. I would like to ask you to take a moment and ask yourself: though you might believe in God on the basis of a sound argument for a young earth, would this argument also cause you to believe in Jesus Christ as Lord and trust him for your salvation? Remember that belief in a creator deity never saved anyone. There will be plenty of Jews, Muslims, Hindus, Buddhists, and nominal Christians in hell who believed that there was a holy and just God, but who will suffer eternally because they did not trust that God had provided a propitiation for sin in his Son Jesus. This is another reason that I am rather apathetic about the issue of YEC, and creationism in general. Belief in Biblical creation is a purely intellectual matter, but belief in Jesus Christ is a matter of the will and of the heart. People don't reject Jesus because of evolution or the age of the earth. These are usually smokescreens for deeper issues.

Further more if your plan is to use the divinity of the bible as proof that the earth is young you are never going to make it past the first step of peer review. The only way to prove the divinity of the bible over other holy texts is by pointing to passages in the bible. I don't mean to insult you here but coming from a science standpoint that is how the cookies crumble.

As fas a science is concerned YEC has absolutely zero merit at all. The only way you can argue for it is to discount almost every single field of science and you the bible as a science book.

Actually I think that you may be misunderstanding the scientific process by analyzing Scripture "from science standpoint." Alas this is another discussion. In any case, I haven't perceived any of your comments as insulting; on the contrary I see how someone viewing this issue from your perspective would come to the conclusions that you have reached. But once again: it is the Gospel that saves people, not creationism. This is why the issues isn't always regarded as very important, even to many of us who believe in the infallibility of the Scriptures.

 

[Matthewj1985]

Matthew, there are some points in one of your posts which I think are worthy of some discussion.



It is noteworthy that Bible-believing Christians fully support the notion of absolute truth. Any Christian who believes in the Scriptures would cringe at hearing the statement, "it may be true for you, but it isn't true for me." We believe that truth is absolute, that faith in Jesus Christ apart from false religions is the only way to salvation, regardless of the individual's personal beliefs.

Now as to the evidence for a young earth, I am in a rather interesting position, since I agree with you that there is no evidence that would withstand the test of scientific scrutiny. This, I think, would make young earth creationists incorrect in their assessment on the age of the earth. It does not, however, make them liars or bearers of false witness. The issue here is that they do not fully understand the evidence for an old earth. So, you might ask, why do I not educate my fellow Christians in this regard? The problem is that convicing oneself about the age of the earth requires a fair degree of specialized knowledge. A common example is the issue of radiometric dating. There are many people who say that radiometric dating in general, and carbon dating in particular, are faulty. Usually YEC people will suggest something to the effect that we can't know the decay rate of various isotopes with any degree of accuracy. Now what's interesting is that if some reasonable assumptions are made, certain decay rates can actually be calculated using quantum mechanics. Surely such an argument would be convincing to most people. The problem is that to understand this argument one must be familiar with linear algebra, differential equations, and the formalism of quantum mechanics. Of course I encourage anyone who is willing to acquire such an education. The problem is that this would take too long for me to effectively use the argument in a short discussion. And at some level, I don't really care how old people think the earth is. It is more important that people believe in the Gospel of Jesus Christ, because anyone who does not believe in Christ will surely go to hell.

You bring up a very good point. The majority of creationist I encounter are woefully ignorant of science. They talk about the "Evolutionary theory of astronomy" or tell me they don't believe in evolution because "the big bang is nothing exploding and creating everything". You and I both see that as a confusion between biology (evolution) and cosmology and astronomy. Also I hear a lot of creationist say they disbelieve evolution because "life can't come from non-life".

I guess I really just don't get the point about what would constitute a lie. In every day life if I walk up to a co-worker and say "Did you know Barack Obama was sworn in on the Koran?" and the co-worker replies "actually he was sworn in on the Bible and is a Christian, here, look let me show you on snopes". If I see this, then turn around to another co-worker and say "did you know Barack Obama was sworn in on the Koran?" that would be a lie. For political reasons I am trying to deceive people. I think we would both agree that this would be bearing false witness and would be considered sin in the bible. I mean would it be any different if I REALLY believed that he was sworn in on the Koran? Would you say that I look at the same facts (pictures of him being sworn in on a bible) and interperate that it really was a Koran?

I am sorry for being thick I am just really not getting the difference. I mean if Christians believe in absolute truth then why is it ok to spread untruths?

To one who isn't a professional scientist, it's necessary to trust scientists. And sadly, most scientists don't give believing Christians a reason to trust them. Most scientists are not Christians themselves. I find that often times, scientists will teach accurate science, and in the same breath or stroke of the pen make statements about Jesus Christ and the Scriptures that are patently false. In some sense I don't blame YEC adherants for distrusting scientists.

Ya but I don't ask my doctor to fix my car either.

Here is another important point to be made. I would like to ask you to take a moment and ask yourself: though you might believe in God on the basis of a sound argument for a young earth, would this argument also cause you to believe in Jesus Christ as Lord and trust him for your salvation? Remember that belief in a creator deity never saved anyone. There will be plenty of Jews, Muslims, Hindus, Buddhists, and nominal Christians in hell who believed that there was a holy and just God, but who will suffer eternally because they did not trust that God had provided a propitiation for sin in his Son Jesus. This is another reason that I am rather apathetic about the issue of YEC, and creationism in general. Belief in Biblical creation is a purely intellectual matter, but belief in Jesus Christ is a matter of the will and of the heart. People don't reject Jesus because of evolution or the age of the earth. These are usually smokescreens for deeper issues.

My atheism is a bit of a paradox. If these were the end times and prophesies started being fulfilled left and right I would be more pias than most here. Now, I am not talking about very vague stuff, I am talking about the oceans turning to blood. The paradoxical part is that short of the end times, for some major proof like that to happen would make Christianity not require faith, which is a major tenet.

I understand that it doesn't matter who you are or what you did, as long as you accept Jesus you are ok. I mean as long as Hitler accepted Jesus before he pulled the trigger he might well be in heaven (depending on your denomination and suicide of course).

Actually I think that you may be misunderstanding the scientific process by analyzing Scripture "from science standpoint." Alas this is another discussion. In any case, I haven't perceived any of your comments as insulting; on the contrary I see how someone viewing this issue from your perspective would come to the conclusions that you have reached. But once again: it is the Gospel that saves people, not creationism. This is why the issues isn't always regarded as very important, even to many of us who believe in the infallibility of the Scriptures.

I am referring to various parts of the bible that point away from its divinity and towards being man made. These parts as well as the same types of parts in the Koran and Torah are what took me from Christianity to atheism.

 

[Taloraan4]

The thing that confuses me is why you're bothered by this:

I am sorry for being thick I am just really not getting the difference. I mean if Christians believe in absolute truth then why is it ok to spread untruths?

What does it matter to you? Why should you as an atheist think that there is anything wrong with spreading lies or untruths?

 

[arunma]

You bring up a very good point. The majority of creationist I encounter are woefully ignorant of science. They talk about the "Evolutionary theory of astronomy" or tell me they don't believe in evolution because "the big bang is nothing exploding and creating everything". You and I both see that as a confusion between biology (evolution) and cosmology and astronomy. Also I hear a lot of creationist say they disbelieve evolution because "life can't come from non-life".

Yes, I freely confess that ignorance as to the vocabulary of science is an issue. It's a point that I am aware of, since my PhD research relates to stellar evolution (not to be confused with the idea of biological evolution).

I guess I really just don't get the point about what would constitute a lie. In every day life if I walk up to a co-worker and say "Did you know Barack Obama was sworn in on the Koran?" and the co-worker replies "actually he was sworn in on the Bible and is a Christian, here, look let me show you on snopes". If I see this, then turn around to another co-worker and say "did you know Barack Obama was sworn in on the Koran?" that would be a lie. For political reasons I am trying to deceive people. I think we would both agree that this would be bearing false witness and would be considered sin in the bible. I mean would it be any different if I REALLY believed that he was sworn in on the Koran? Would you say that I look at the same facts (pictures of him being sworn in on a bible) and interperate that it really was a Koran?

I am sorry for being thick I am just really not getting the difference. I mean if Christians believe in absolute truth then why is it ok to spread untruths?

No need to apologize, but allow me to explain. It is true that young earth creationists are often presented with the evidence for an old earth, and then continue using arguments for a young earth. The issue here is not willful deception on their parts; rather the issue is that the people in question do not believe that the evidence for an old earth is accurate. It's much harder to disbelieve a video of Barack Obama being sworn in on the Bible than it is to deny radioactive decay models, cosmological redshift, stellar nuclide abundances, etc. Given the complexity of these theories, there are times when I doubt them, and I'm an astrophysicist.

Ya but I don't ask my doctor to fix my car either.

Nevertheless, foolish comments by scientists on how the Bible contradicts itself, why the Big Bang disproves the existence of God, why science precludes the idea of resurrection, etc., does very little to instill trust in scientists. Indeed I have found that I distrust scientists in matters of faith and religion, and I'm one of them! This is because I see first-hand how even the most intelligent of scientists make statements about the Bible that I know to be patently false. If your doctor espoused a belief that internal combustion engines were powered by fairy dust, you might be less willing to trust him to practice medicine. At some level, your mind is telling you that the way your doctor thinks about technology (including cars) will indirectly influence the way he practices medicine). Likewise, I am more reluctant to believe scientists who say that the Big Bang is a result of a collapsed wavefunction since I know that this theory is motivated by an atheistic presupposition.

I obviously believe in science. But I believe the Scriptures to be inspired and inerrent, and I believe that knowledge obtained from the Bible to be of greater trustworthiness than scientific knowledge. Therefore I cannot in good conscience support the conclusions of scientists which disagree with God's revelations in his written words.

My atheism is a bit of a paradox. If these were the end times and prophesies started being fulfilled left and right I would be more pias than most here. Now, I am not talking about very vague stuff, I am talking about the oceans turning to blood. The paradoxical part is that short of the end times, for some major proof like that to happen would make Christianity not require faith, which is a major tenet.

Thank you for elaborating on this. Might I suggest, however, that oceans of blood might not suffciently convince you of your sin and your need for the salvation that only comes in Jesus Christ. When the prophet Moses did the works of God to bring plagues on Egypt, the response was rejection of the Lord God rather than faith in him. As it says,

Moses and Aaron did as the LORD commanded. In the sight of Pharaoh and in the sight of his servants he lifted up the staff and struck the water in the Nile, and all the water in the Nile turned into blood. And the fish in the Nile died, and the Nile stank, so that the Egyptians could not drink water from the Nile. There was blood throughout all the land of Egypt. But the magicians of Egypt did the same by their secret arts. So Pharaoh's heart remained hardened, and he would not listen to them, as the LORD had said. Pharaoh turned and went into his house, and he did not take even this to heart. (Exodus 7:20-23)
​

If a river of blood would not convince the Egyptians of the superiority of the Lord over the false gods of Egypt, would an ocean of blood convince anyone? Most likely not. On the contrary, Christ has taught that one who will not hear the word of God will also not believe even if someone should return from the dead to bear witness that Christ's words are true,

And he said, 'Then I beg you, father, to send him to my father's house-- for I have five brothers--so that he may warn them, lest they also come into this place of torment.' But Abraham said, 'They have Moses and the Prophets; let them hear them.' And he said, 'No, father Abraham, but if someone goes to them from the dead, they will repent.' He said to him, 'If they do not hear Moses and the Prophets, neither will they be convinced if someone should rise from the dead.'" (Luke 16:27-31)
​

Indeed someone cannot be convinced of their sin and their need of Jesus Christ by miracles alone, but only by the Holy Spirit working through the Word of God.

I understand that it doesn't matter who you are or what you did, as long as you accept Jesus you are ok. I mean as long as Hitler accepted Jesus before he pulled the trigger he might well be in heaven (depending on your denomination and suicide of course).

Actually this is not correct, but is an unfortunate consequence of American Biblical illiteracy. The phrase "accept Jesus" is found nowhere in Scripture. There are many different phrasings of the means of salvation found in Scripture. It says that one may be saved if he confesses that Jesus is Lord, and believes that God raised him from the dead (Romans 10:9). It says to "believe in the Lord Jesus" (Acts 16:30). It also says that one may be saved by believing that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God (John 20:31). Ultimately these all have a single meaning: in order to be saved one must believe that Christ died for our sins and was raised for our justification (Romans 4:25), and one must trust in Christ for the forgiveness of sin. The key issue here is trust as opposed to mere intellectual belief. Intellectual belief alone is impotent to save apart from a genuine confession of sin and love for the Lord.

So to answer the hypothetical question: could a decidedly evil person be saved? Most certainly yes. If a person genuinely regretted his sin, confessed it before God, and trusted in Christ as the propitiation for his sin, then one can be forgiven even for murder (as King David was). But this would involve a genuine transformation of the person's soul. A person cannot "confess" Christ out of a fear of hell and expect to be saved. I say this because the quintessential Hitler question always involves the implicit assumption that the confession of faith is merely verbal.