Can an Evolutionist be Saved?

[UTEOTW]

Just a hypothetical question...

If evolution were demonstrated to you to be true, whatever that would take, would you give up Christianity or would you find a way to accept both?

 

[KenH]

Originally posted by UTEOTW:
Just a hypothetical question...

If evolution were demonstrated to you to be true, whatever that would take, would you give up Christianity or would you find a way to accept both?

Personally, I would give up Christianity if the theory of macro-evolution was proven true.

 

[UTEOTW]

An honest answer. Others?

 

[Mike Gascoigne]

Originally posted by UTEOTW:
Just a hypothetical question...

If evolution were demonstrated to you to be true, whatever that would take, would you give up Christianity or would you find a way to accept both?

I would put it another way. If it was proved that creation was not true, I would give up Christianity.

Mike

 

[James_Newman]

Thats quite a hypothetical. Hypothetically speaking, if the rapture happened and you got left behind, would you give up evolution? I used to believe in evolution, before I ever seriously entertained the idea that the Bible was literaly the word of God. There are many Christians in this country who don't read their bibles, and maybe aren't aware that there might be a problem with believing in the God of the Bible and evolution. Perhaps you could give an example of what kind of hypothetical proof you think would verify evolution.

 

[UTEOTW]

Mike,

Could you answer the question as phrased?

I believe that the creation is true but I think that you have an incorrect interpretation of God's means of creating.

So, if evolution were demonstrated to you to be true, whatever that would take, would you give up Christianity or would you find a way to accept both?

The equivocal answer suggests the second but is unclear.

 

[Johnv]

My faith would not change if the theory of macro-evolution was proven true, nor would it change if it was proven to be false.

 

[UTEOTW]

"Hypothetically speaking, if the rapture happened and you got left behind, would you give up evolution?"

There you go again...Doubting the salvation of someone on a matter of interpretation not central to salvation.

"Perhaps you could give an example of what kind of hypothetical proof you think would verify evolution. "

I have seen enough to be satisfied. Some of the things are the twin nested heirarchy, the independent phylogenies that point to the same thing, the known transitional series, the morphological and genetic vestiges, the atavisms, ontogeny, biogeography, the shared pseudogenes, the shared retroviral inserts, the shared transposons, the observed speciation events, molecular parahomology and anatomical parahomology.

Now the question, again treated in a vague manner is if evolution were demonstrated to you to be true, whatever that would take, would you give up Christianity or would you find a way to accept both?

We can later get into what that would take for you but we would be going off topic again. I consider this on topic because for some of us, this is a choice we have already been forced to face. I was YE for most of my life. Eventually (largely because of the YE leaders and their ideas which are left wanting) I became as convinced of the truth of evolution as you are of gravity. I could either give up something known to be true, which would be not being honest with myself, or I could find a way to permit both.

 

[KenH]

Originally posted by UTEOTW:
or I could find a way to permit both.

Shouldn't truth trump finding a way? It sounds as though you started believing in the theory of evolution but refused, so far, to take such belief to its logical conclusion - giving up your belief in God.

If the book of Genesis, while written as an historical narrative, is not true as written, then how can we possibly have any confidence that the rest of the Bible is true, including the doctrinal portions?

It sounds like you haven't decided whether to fish or cut bait.

 

[Scott J]

Originally posted by UTEOTW:
"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.

Yes it is... it is very, very different. In your job you cause what goes on inside the reactor.

What happens inside that reactor is by design and it is repeatable. You observe the inputs, the outputs, and everything that occurs between abides by known laws of science. There is no need to rely on any assumption- it is a proven, repeatable, practical application of science.

Evolution is not. Evolutionists do not observe the input. They do not cause the actions. They can't even design experiments that demonstrate that macroevolution and the emergence of new species are repeatable... and this is with considerable coaxing. The chances of it occurring with no direct, physical guidance at all are ridiculously low.

We cannot directly observe what happens over long periods of time.

Exactly. The result being that evolution is made up of assumptions that yield explanations of how things might have happened.

But we can seek what is the most parsimonious interpretation of the individual observations.

If you randomly through the necessary fuels and materials for a nuclear reactor in a pile would you ever expect them to somehow randomly result in a functioning reactor... That is exactly how ridiculous the notion that the order we see in nature is the result of the materials and even sufficient energy being thrown into a pile.

"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.

True. The materials used in your nuclear reactor can be used for other applications that have nothing to do with the production of power. The fact that similar materials are used point to a common knowledge of materials and to nothing else.

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.

Except that we claim they were created by a common creator.

"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?

For the exact same reason they say extinct horse like animals were stages in evolution rather than extinct animals that were not part of any evolutionary tree.

"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?

No. We see insects survive pesticides through the loss of genetic traits. The end result may very well be that they lost adaptability in order to survive a threat.

Your question is better asked of you (except exchange millions for "few hundred") since evolution depends on this much more than I do... of course when they espouse unobserved conjecture as fact you deem it infallible truth.

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.

Please cite the standard used to support the assertion that it is accurate on ages more than 2 million years. You have just made things much worse for yourself, not better. You have started on that circular path that will eventually show that all of the methods of dating by evolutionists are based on the assumption of great age and circular reasoning... not a single supporting observation or fact.

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.

If it is possible that creationists are cheating the system by giving samples that won't date "correctly"... then it is likewise possible, and even likely, that evolutionists will pick and choose samples that yield the desired result.

"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.

Please cite the assumption I must make to accurately measure any of these things including the last one if given the correct tools. I don't have to make an assumption. These measurements are concrete and testable in the real world.

This is simply not true for radio isotope dating or the geologic column often used to "verify" it.

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

You first have have an objective standard. Radioactive measurements don't have one.

Just who do you think you are talking to?

If I am not mistaken, someone who affirmed that they would always prefer a naturalistic explanation over a supernatural one.

I don't think you ever answered my question though: What supernatural event recorded in the Bible including the resurrection does not have a naturalistic explanation?

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.

No. Actually, we are not. I am discussing as much as possible what underlying assumptions provide the basis for evolution when compared to biblical creationism or ID.

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

The theory and the fact are separate.

Then when I made that point earlier, why didn't you just say "Yes, evolutionists are wrong for calling the theory fact?"

"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.

That is false in the extreme. You work in an area of practical science. It operates on laws that govern processes. Everything we observe in nature can be said to operate according to natural law without extending that observation into a philosophical statement about whether there have ever been supernatural events or addressing their magnitude.

 

[UTEOTW]

I said I would try to not go down that path anymore in this thread, but there is one side thing here someone might find interesting.

"If you randomly through the necessary fuels and materials for a nuclear reactor in a pile would you ever expect them to somehow randomly result in a functioning reactor... That is exactly how ridiculous the notion that the order we see in nature is the result of the materials and even sufficient energy being thrown into a pile."

We do know of natural reactors. Not that this is really germane. BUt some might find it interesting.

http://www.curtin.edu.au/curtin/centre/waisrc/OKLO/index.shtml

To get back a little closer to the topic, what do you think of the question posed. If evolution were demonstrated to you to be true, whatever that would take, would you give up Christianity or would you find a way to accept both?

 

[UTEOTW]

Can't..help...myself...

One more.

"Please cite the standard used to support the assertion that it is accurate on ages more than 2 million years. You have just made things much worse for yourself, not better. You have started on that circular path that will eventually show that all of the methods of dating by evolutionists are based on the assumption of great age and circular reasoning... not a single supporting observation or fact."

Because the half life of potassium-40 has been measured to 1.3 billion years. By knowing the minimum amount of argon your lab can reliably detect, you can know the minimum age that could be dated with that technique. Tests on rocks known to be young can cement what conditions are necessary to remove all of the argon from the sample. Which is what they were doing in Hawaii.

 

[James_Newman]

I'm not doubting your salvation, I believe in a partial rapture

You could easily be saved, just not pleasing the Lord by teaching your interpretation of scripture. Whoever believes on the Lord will be raised up on the last day.

Nu 23:19
God is not a man, that he should lie; neither the son of man, that he should repent: hath he said, and shall he not do it? or hath he spoken, and shall he not make it good?

I don't think there is any proof that could disuade me from my belief in a creator, nor could I be disuaded from my belief in the Holy Bible as the revealed Word of that Creator. No matter what proof you could produce, if it didn't agree with the Bible, I wouldn't believe it. Now that may make me a fool in the worlds eyes, but I can think of no reward the world may offer that could outweigh the rewards offered by my Heavenly Father to those who trust and obey Him.

2Co 11
13 For such are false apostles, deceitful workers, transforming themselves into the apostles of Christ.
14 And no marvel; for Satan himself is transformed into an angel of light.
15 Therefore it is no great thing if his ministers also be transformed as the ministers of righteousness; whose end shall be according to their works.

Mt 24:24
For there shall arise false Christs, and false prophets, and shall shew great signs and wonders; insomuch that, if it were possible, they shall deceive the very elect.

Satan is a counterfeiter. He has been counterfeiting things for at least 6000 years, and he is very good at deceiving people. I only know of one sure way to make sure I am not being deceived, and that is to hear it straight from the Lord. I will not trust my own eyes over the word of God.

Pr 16:25
There is a way that seemeth right unto a man, but the end thereof are the ways of death.

I pray that your faith in God might be increased UTEOTW. It was a long painful lesson that I went through to come to the conclusion that I have come to. I pray that God would allow you to see the truth without having to take the route I took. But no matter how God brings us to Him, it is always peaceable in the end.

I am sure many more people will come to some form of 'theistic evolution' before the Lord returns. I beleive we are in the midst of the falling away, and the Antichrist must soon make an appearance. You may not believe in a literal second coming, I don't know. I only see you talking about evolution on this board. But I know it is true, just as surely as you know that evolution is true. But I get my information from the God of the Bible. Where do you get yours from?

 

[Mike Gascoigne]

Originally posted by UTEOTW:
Mike,

Could you answer the question as phrased?

... if evolution were demonstrated to you to be true, whatever that would take, would you give up Christianity or would you find a way to accept both?

If evolution was proved to be true, I would consider the existence of God to be a great misfortune. I would not want to worship a God who created nature red in tooth and claw, with animals eating each other alive, and pre-Adamic humanoids annihilating each other in a process called "natural selection", eventually to produce an advanced race called humans who continue to annihilate each other in the most brutal manner in a process called "war".

Mike

 

[Deacon]

This is so sad!
I don't have faith in my underatanding of things; I have faith in God!
Whatever He did, however He did it, it was good enough for Him, it's good enough for me.

I may be wrong in my understanding of scriptures in some points, but it is by FAITH that we are saved, not our restless reasonings.

I will still worship the God of all creation.

Rob

 

[Craigbythesea]

I will still worship the God of all creation.

Amen! I'm not God—He is!

 

[OldRegular]

Originally posted by UTEOTW:
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.

Gravity can be demonstrated, macro-evolution cannot.

 

[OldRegular]

Originally posted by UTEOTW:
Yes but number three is not in the same category. Informational theory is a different beast from thermodymanics.

You can't dismiss #3 out of hand. The Second Law still applies: Information is increasingly confused in the transmission of the coded message through a system.

 

[OldRegular]

Some have assumed in this discussion that educated men believe in evolution, the ignorant and uneducated believe in creation.

First, may I point out that the athiest must of necessity believe in evolution whether he is educated or ignorant.

Second, may I also point out, as I have earlier, that there is a common misconception that evolution is the fruit of modern science, beginning with the publication of Origin of the Species. Actually belief in spontaneous generation of life and evolution is almost as old as recorded history and was included in the belief systems of most pagan civilizations. The Hebrews were apparently unique in their belief in divine creation.

 

[Mike Gascoigne]

Originally posted by Deacon:
This is so sad!

No, not sad at all. The question was purely hypothetical, and evolution will never be proved because you can't use science to prove anything about the distant past. All you can do is make speculations about what might have been possible. To find out what actually happened, you need history, not science. The Bible is the only reliable history book that tells us how the world began. My faith is founded on the infallible Word of God, including the first eleven chapters, not on the wild speculations of man.

Mike