Can an Evolutionist be Saved?

Should I be surprised that all these posts originated with you.

Frankly I did not read them in detail but there is one problem with radiological dating. It assumes perfect knowledge of the original conditions. Also carbon -14 dating assumes an old earth and thus that C-14 has reached an equilibrium state.

As far as use of geologic strata as a means of establishing evolutionary stages the acceptance of a catastrophic history of the earth [at long last] has stood that theory on its head just as it did the geologic strata in some locales.

 

"Frankly I did not read them in detail but there is one problem with radiological dating. It assumes perfect knowledge of the original conditions. Also carbon -14 dating assumes an old earth and thus that C-14 has reached an equilibrium state."

But these guys are not trying to make a point that way. They are trying to make a point by misrepresetning what others have to say and misrepresenting the results of other's studies. That is the point. A claim was made that ICR was dishonest, the claim was challenged as not being supported, so I gave a few examples. The examples are outside any context of what you are asserting about C14. (Which you might wish to remember is only good for ages up to tens of thousands of years and is therefore not useful for determining the true age of the earth.)

 

Introduction to Chemical Engineering Thermodynamics, Smith and Van Ness, 4th Edition, 1987

"Must a child be indoctrinated in the vagaries of evolution in order for them to understand ... even high school biology?"
</font>[/QUOTE]I don't want to accuse you of disputing something about which you are uneducated, since that is what evolutionists have done on this topic, but the Second Law applies to all processes, not just the those involving heat.

There are at least three aspects or ways to express the Second Law:

1. As a measure of the increased unavailability of the energy of a system for useful work. [Classical Thermodynamics].
2. As a measure of the increased disorder, randomness, or probability of the arrangement of the components of the system. [Statistical Thermodynamics]
3. As a measure of the increasingly confused information in the transmission of the coded message through a system. [Informational thermodynamics]

 

Yes but number three is not in the same category. Informational theory is a different beast from thermodymanics.

So we are left with one and two. I stated the 2LOT as it related to number one. But my textbook also speak of number two.

What this means is that the thermodynamic entropy can be calculated for a system based on a statistical treatment of the order at the molecular level. For example, liquid water has higher entropy than water ice. This is because ice is in a crystal pattern and has relatively high order at the moleular level. Water has no such restraints as the molecules bounce around in the liquid state. But even at that, there will still be some interaction between the ionic parts of the molecules and a limited number of states that the water molecules will take. If you make steam, then you have much greater separation between the molecules and much higher energy. Their order will be further reduced.

The problem becomes when some try to apply this microscopic definition of entropy to macroscopic scales.

 

There is every evidence that these men and others are sufficiently educated to undertake this task.

You simply cannot fathom someone who understands evolution but rejects it. Your knee jerk reaction is to impugn them as ignorant, stupid, or even dishonest.

BTW, why didn't you respond to my charges against evolutionists? You know that evolution relies on many unproven assumptions. This does not prevent it from being potentially true. It does prevent any honest person from declaring it definitively true.

 

One of the problems with evolution, especially in biology, is when some try to stretch observed microevolution into a mechanism that resulted in macroevolution.

 

What charges?

"Radio isotope dating is still cited."

This is a charge? Tell us what factual arguments you have against dating techniques.

"Naturalistic assumptions still provide the foundation for all of evolution's arguments- but is never mentioned in textbooks nor classrooms."

This is a charge? All science rests on the assumption that processes occur naturally. I have never seen a chemistry experiment produce an anomalous result and someone assume that it must have been a supernatural influence. Science can only deal with what is natural else it looses all of it foundation. And, as it turns out, the natural occuring results are the most parsimonious.

"In fact, you are far more likely to hear evolutionists contend that the theory is "fact" than to acknowledge that its basis is an unscientific philosophy."

The theory explains the fact. Two different things. That it has and does occur is not even in contention anymore. The theory seeks to explain the mechanisms and processes. And there is nothing unscientific about it.

 

"One of the problems with evolution, especially in biology, is when some try to stretch observed microevolution into a mechanism that resulted in macroevolution."

Except that we observe change on this scale in the fossil record also. Apparently well enough that you recently hypothesized that the original whale "kind" could have been a land dwelling animal that changed through various amphibious stages, became marine, then split into the dolphins, toothed whales and baleen whales and then diversified into all the various species of these categories. In what, a period a few hundred years I'd guess. You believe in far more change and more rapidly than any scientist needs to invoke for evolution.

 

UT, Please for honesty's sake acknowledge that this is an interpretation of what is observed and not what is actually observed. There is no "change" observed in the fossil record. There are fossils that are similar to each other in one way or another. There are extinct animals that were similar to one another. This does not result in an observation of "change". There is no definitive proof that any of these animals are related in anyway except that God gave them similarities.

If domestic cats and bobcats were both extinct, there is no doubt that evolution would interpret one as the evolutionary ancestor of the other.

Or they could have been created exactly as they are for reasons only known to God Himself.

Yes. I most certainly believe that within only a few generations adaptation can change a whole population. This still occurs. All of the genetic info needed to accomplish the change was inherited. Within several more generations, the ability to reverse the adaptation may be lost.

Yes. And I provide a reasonable starting point that actually matches the results of adaptation in nature today to a large degree as well as scripture.

The assumption that ancient animals were more adaptable than their living descendents is not unreasonable. Thus change could occur much more rapidly and with wider variation depending on environment/location. My proof is no different than yours... the interpretation is.

 

It does not work beyond a few thousand years. Results beyond that period vary radically. So much so, that labs ask for geologic data so they can tell whether the results are "reasonable" or not.

You have most likely read accounts of materials from Mount St Helens being sent to different labs for dating. None of the results were even close to the true date... but worse, they disagreed with each other greatly.

Yes. It is a charge when you are dealing with origins. It is a charge when it excludes the supernatural as a possibility. It is a charge when it does not and cannot provide a prime cause.

Creation was not a science experiment. It was either an act of a creative God or else the random result of purely natural causes... this applies likewise to every supernatural event recorded in the Bible to include the one on which our salvation rests, the resurrection.

Even your own example, assumes a "creator" who puts all of the ingredients in place in order to force a result in a period of time that does not represent a natural occurrence. Rather than supporting evolution, your own example points to the necessity of a creator.

Assumptions are not a foundation. Science can do just fine dealing with what can actually be observed, created, and repeated. There is nothing necessary about evolutions philosophical assumptions to practical science.

That does not mean that you can call the theory fact. Creation explains the fact. Yet you object to us calling it fact.

Macroevolution is very much in contention. Adaptation through microevolution is not in contention even among creationists.

So do ID and creationism.

I plainly pointed out to you what is unscientific about it.

It rests on a premise that is not falsifiable. You cite this as a concrete reason that creation is not scientific- the assumption of God. I turn that around and make the same charge because evolution assumes no God. It relies on a string of logic that has no prime cause.

 

"UT, Please for honesty's sake acknowledge that this is an interpretation of what is observed and not what is actually observed. There is no "change" observed in the fossil record."

You are splitting hairs. I do engineering research for a living. I do not observe what goes inside of my reactors. I interpret the data. Paleontology is no different. We cannot directly observe what happens over long periods of time. But we can seek what is the most parsimonious interpretation of the individual observations.

"There is no definitive proof that any of these animals are related in anyway except that God gave them similarities."

False. For example the inheritance of the same genetic material. The genetic evidence I have cited for you that links whales with the camels and deer and other even toed ungulates takes the form of shared retroposons. There is NO REASON these non-coding DNA inserts should be shared exactly among such widely varied species, or between any species at all, unless they shared a common ancestor.

"If domestic cats and bobcats were both extinct, there is no doubt that evolution would interpret one as the evolutionary ancestor of the other."

False assertion. Why would they do so? They would liekly be viewed as related, though we also take that view today. Support your asertion that they would be viewed as an ancestor / descendent pair.

"Yes. And I provide a reasonable starting point that actually matches the results of adaptation in nature today..."

YOu see changes occuring today that we have observed where a land dwelling animal changes into a fully aquatic animal along with all the morphological change that includes in periods of a few hundred years? Shocking! Where can I see this?

"It does not work beyond a few thousand years. Results beyond that period vary radically."

You will have to support that assertion. It sounds false.

"You have most likely read accounts of materials from Mount St Helens being sent to different labs for dating. None of the results were even close to the true date... but worse, they disagreed with each other greatly."

Is this what you are talking about?

http://www.creationism.org/articles/swenson1.htm - link to YEC article on "Dr. Steven Austin and others from the Institute for Creation Research" collecting rocks from Mt. St. Helens and having them dated.

This is a typical example of the trickry involved with some YEC claims. The dating method involved was K-Ar and the guys at ICR claim that excess argon caused the rocks that were only a few years old to date to millins of years old. Big problem for radioisotope dating, right. WRONG. As it turns out, the rate of decay to Ar is so slow that it is not possible to date things less than about two million years old, older if you want better accuracy. They submitted the material to a lab which states up front that they cannot date things younger than 2 million years. They submitted it without telling what it was. And of course the dates came back within the noise of the method. The actual age was much less than the accuracy of the method so the given dates are just noise. The problem is not that radioisotope dating does not work, it is that it was misapplied in this case. I find it disturbing that the ICR would deliberately put out misinformation in their quest. Unfortuneately, there are YECers out there who are experts at picking samples that they know will not date correctly and dishonestly passing that off as problems with geology.

"So much so, that labs ask for geologic data so they can tell whether the results are "reasonable" or not."

Hey, I need your help in determining a distance for me. When can you come over? Now I am not going to tell you ahead of time if it is the width of a hair, the width of a room, the diameter of a proton, the distance to my work or the distance to Alpha Centauri. Just make sure you bring a single measuring device that is flexible enough to do all.

In determining any measurement, you have to choose the appropriate measuring stick. Radioative measurments are no different.

"Yes. It is a charge when you are dealing with origins. It is a charge when it excludes the supernatural as a possibility. "

Like we saw with the whale data, the supernatural does not provide a parsimonious explanation of why whales have the genetics, the atavism and the vestiges that are observed. Your only solution was to suppose that all whales and dolphins could have speciated from a recent land dwelling animal in an extremely short period of time. YOu believe in far more rapid and impressive evolution than any biologist.

"Even your own example, assumes a "creator" who puts all of the ingredients in place in order to force a result in a period of time that does not represent a natural occurrence. Rather than supporting evolution, your own example points to the necessity of a creator."

Just who do you think you are talking to? Of course I believe there was a creator. Excuse me, a Creator. But what we are discussing is hwat His creation shows us about how He created. Well, actually we are well off the subject of this thread, so I plan to bow out after this post unless something just really lights a fire under me to respond.

"That does not mean that you can call the theory fact."

The theory and the fact are separate. The observations of change are not doubted. The mechanisms that explain all of the data are what are sought.

"Macroevolution is very much in contention."

Where? Give me an example of scientists who doubt that evolution has happened that do not first believe that it goes against their own interpretation of scripture. You see plenty of Christians who accept an old earth.

"So do ID and creationism."

You may want to be careful there as many IDers accept the fact of evolution but doubt that the theory is capable of explaining it. See Behe, for example, who accepts the common descent of man with the other apes.

"It rests on a premise that is not falsifiable."

Your assertion means that there is no science anywhere because all science rests on the explanation of observations through natural means.

 

Mike, it is interesting how that happens. The evolution argument has to be supported from extra-biblical sources, and rather than discuss the biblical implications of the idea of evolution, or answer the scriptures with scriptures, they would rather attack the scientific authority of the bible and prove that the new revelation of evolution is to be trusted over the biblical account of creation.

 

I agree that this has gone way off topic and which is why I said above that I plan to stop posting along those lines in this thread though I do reserve the right to respond if I wish.

The problem is that for a lot of us, your original question is the equivelent of asking if a gravitationalists or a quantum chromodynamists can be saved.

By even raising the question, you are opening the possibility that such acceptance may lead to some thinking that we are not Christian. Though we think that the young earthers are as wrong as you think we are, you never see an old earther even bring up the question of whether someone as wrong (from our perspective. Maybe I should narrow that to "my" perspective so as not to presume to speak for others.) as a young earther might or might not be saved.

The short of it is that it is not a doctrine essential to salvation. Such questions seek to divide us and take focus from the Creator. You believe one way and I believe another. But we agree on the important parts. We will see each other in Heaven. One of us, maybe both of us, will be shown to be wrong. And it will not matter any longer. If I am wrong, well I can accept that.

But you should not be surprised that when you even open the question of the true salvation of someone on such a topic that you will bring out a strong defence of such. And I also think that this is a division that needs to be sorted out. And it will one day, just as eventually most everyone agreed that accepting Copernicus and re-interpreting scripture in that light was acceptable.

 

You miss the point.

You would not doubt the salvation of someone who accepts current theories about gravity or quantum chromodynamics. It does not even make sense to speak of gravitationalists or a quantum chromodynamists in the sence of someone who accepts these things.

In mainstream science, evolution is as well accepted, or better, than these theories or many others that could be named. I accept the current formulation of gravity but you do not call me a gravitationalist.

By the same token, evolution is an accepted and well supported areas of science. It is demeaning to even consider questioning someone's salvation because of this.

I must ask if you have read some of the biographies or history surrounding Copernicus or Galileo? The parallels are astounding. But Christians eventually found a way to incorporate their ideas and to re-interpret scripture such that there was harmony. The same will happen with this subject.

You say the issue is death before sin? Does this mean you equate the death of, say, a worm or a frog with the death that is the result of sin? I have to disagree. IMHO, the death spoken of is the death of the soul, the separation from God. God said that on the day they ate from the tree they would die. And they did. God kicked them out of the garden, out of His presence.

I am not even sure I understand the purpose for the thread. You accept in the first post that people who accept evolution can be saved. Even if you think that such acceptance is acceptance of a false doctrine, there are many issues out there where good Christians disagree on what is correct. Should a KJVO ask if someone can remain a non-KJVOist after being saved? Calvinism and Arminianism? Pre-min, post-min, a-min? It might appear to some that the purpose was to give a link to your book.

 

Sidenote: If one believes in a hyperliteral Genesis 1 and 2, and that nothing living died until after Eve ate the fruit, then one must accept that evolution took place after the fall of man. Most carnivours alive today are not cabable of ingesting vegetation. Hence, in order to accept a hyperliteral view of Genesis 1-2, then it must be accepted that animals evolved to the point where they could no longer ingest a herbivorous diet.

 

I don't think that a person who believes in evolution cannot be saved. God sent His son to die for the most wretched sinners, even evolutionists. But I sure don't believe that someone who thinks half the Bible is an allegory is going to be able to live an overcoming Christian life, and be found pleasing to the Lord. Unbelief is a sin, brother. Maybe you have come to a saving knowledge of Jesus Christ, but exactly what has He saved you from?

Was Adam the first 'true' man? Or was he the first monkey that was able to understand simple commands (Bad monkey! No fruit! Bad!)? The Bible says God created Adam from the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life. Adam walked in the garden with God! By his sin, all of mankind is fallen, because we are all of his seed. Do you suppose the second Adam had to evolve as well? That is a very eastern philosophy that has been espoused by many false teachers. Maybe someday we too might evolve to be gods, like Jesus. Evolution is a lie, just like the first lie in the garden. You looked at it and saw that it was good, and a theory to be desired, but you're naked, brother.