Can Theistic Evolution belief make a Christian lose their salvation?

For those who don’t know what Theistic Evolution belief is. It’s where a person believes that God’s creation was controlled by natural forces. And that God used evolution to create all that we see. And that the Biblical time-line is a myth. Believing in Theistic Evolution has many problems. One of the main problems is they cannot answer when, in the evolution process, that man obtained a soul that could be saved. It even denies the first sin by denying the existence of the Garden in which Adam and Eve sinned. So along with everything else, the plan of redemption is denied because for what sin did Christ die for?

The danger the theistic evolutionist puts themselves into is called: To err from the truth.

James 5:19 Brethren, if any of you do err from the truth, and one convert him;
20 Let him know, that he which converteth the sinner from the error of his way shall save a soul from death, and shall hide a multitude of sins.

There are several key words here that would apply to a Theistic Evolutionist.
1) Brethren = believer.
2) If any of you = believer.
3) err from the truth = you have to know the truth before you can err from it.
4) Convert = having to be brought unto salvation again. What else do you convert the brethren to for erring from the truth?
5) Save a soul from death = the lake of fire.
6) Hide a multitude of sins = the brethren sin was no longer forgiven because they fell from salvation. So it has to be redone.

Why does this apply to Theistic Evolutionists? Because erring from the truth (what the bible says) means that they knew what the truth was. And since they preferred the lie instead, and called it truth. They were also indirectly calling God a liar as well. What is it that has to be said every time someone brings up: That’s not what the Bible says? What you say not only applies to the word, but also applies to God. That is why erring from the truth is bad, and puts the person who does it in danger of losing salvation.

Side note:Can you lose salvation? That is a whole different post subject, but one question will sum it up. In the Judgment Throne of Christ, who are the goats that get thrown into the fire? If you say: Unsaved sinners. Then find in God’s word where it ever refers to unsaved sinners as goats? And where did the goats come from to be judged? The goats being unsaved sinners is not there because the goats are the Christians who did not do what they were supposed to. Why do you think both sides were not being judged on whether they had salvation or not? It’s because they “all” already had it. So what the judgment was, was whether they did the kingdom works to help bring in the harvest.

Those who lost their salvation while on this earth are not at that judgment. This is because they are considered unsaved sinners because they no longer have the blood of Christ. This is the danger TE’s put themselves in by choosing to believe what the world says is true while still trying to have God and salvation. Salvation is not a have your cake and eat it too covenant. Also, If anyone can find the verse that says that unsaved sinners are goats, you are welcome to post it. I have no problem being corrected. To be corrected is to be closer to truth.

Still don’t think TE belief puts you in danger of losing salvation? Let’s put it in Biblical prospective. The Bible says:

mt 7:20 Wherefore by their fruits ye shall know them.

1) I have yet to see a unsaved sinner brought to salvation using the message of TE as a salvation message.
2) I have yet to see TE street preachers.
3) Where are the TE bible studies?
4) Where are the TE crusades for Christ?

Evolution cannot be a part of the plan of redemption, or it would have been already added and there would have been people saved by it. But the numbers are ZERO for a reason.

jn 6:44 No man can come to me, except the Father which hath sent me draw him: and I will raise him up at the last day.

Father God controls the drawing power unto the son for salvation. So if the Father does not approve, the drawing power won’t be there, and no one will get saved. This is why there are ZERO TE salvation testimonies from previous unsaved people. And all TE’s know better than to take their message and try and hold a crusade for Christ. Nothing will happen because God won’t be behind it. And if you are the type of person who has to see in order to believe. Go stand on a street corner and try to save people with the message of God using evolution to create. See how many people you can get to convert.

So what does TE belief really mean?
1) A Christian that wants to fit in with the world will convert to this.
2) A Christian who wants God on their own terms will convert to this.
3) A Christian who gets tired of being called stupid for their belief, will convert to this to look smart.
4) A Christian that wants to slowly leave their faith will convert to this, then atheism.

Maybe someone can post a list of what TE belief does for God? Anyone? But let’s be honest, Theory of Evolution has it’s roots in Paganism and Satanism as video below will show.

Is evolution based in Satanism?

To start off I am going to show a YouTube video on the subject. The person speaking is an Ex-Satanist Priest.

In order for the Theory of Evolution (TOE) to be a representation of Satanism (all that is evil). It would have to be the exact opposite of what the standard for good is. Which is God and all that represents God. So let’s test this and see.

1) The Bible says that everything was created supernaturally 6,ooo years ago (short time period)… Evolution says that all came into being naturally 15 billion years ago (long time period).
2) The bible says that all life was created supernaturally fully formed and ready to reproduce (instant life)…Evolution says that life started from a single cell life form and formed naturally. And had to evolve into what we see now.
3) The Bible says that all life must reproduce after it’s kind (birds reproduce birds etc…)…Evolution says that given enough time you can get any life to evolve into another kind of life (Whales to cows, then cows back to whales).
4) The Bible says that God breathed life into man, and man become a living soul (a part that can go to Heaven)…Evolution says there is no soul. Once we die that’s it (no heaven, no Hell, no soul).
5) The Bible says that the earth existed before the sun…Evolution says that the sun existed before the earth.
6) The Bible says oceans before land…Evolution says land before oceans.
7) The Bible says light existed before the sun…Evolution says that sun existed before light.
8. The Bible says land plants were first…Evolution says marine life first.
9) The Bible says that the atmosphere was created whole and ready to use…Evolution says the atmosphere developed in stages.
10) The Bible says that God created man…Evolution says that man created God.
11) The bible says plants before sun…Evolution says plants after sun.
12) The Bible says bird before reptiles…Evolution says reptile before birds.
13) The Bible says fish before insects…Evolution says insect before fish.
14) The Bible says fruit tree before fish…Evolution says fish before fruit tree.
15) The Bible says that man brought death into the world through sin…Evolution says that death brought man into the world and sin does not exist.

And on and on it goes. How can something on the “same subject” be so opposite to something else unless that was the intention? And for Darwin to do this he would have to know a lot about the Bible, correct? Well having a theology degree would mean he had this knowledge. Plus, how could a person make up a theory that is the exact opposite of God when they knew nothing of God? You can make your own conclusions from that.

The idea of animals changing into humans has been around way before Darwin. Back during Egyptian times. They believed that all life came from the slime of the Nile River (abiogenesis). And that what animal you evolved from determined what race you are and you status in life. Their God’s were often half man half human. And they even depicted themselves on their walls with bird, wolf, dog, cat, heads etc… Each animal determined your lineage tree just like the evolution tree. Each god had it’s own animal mutation, and their mutations determined their powers over this life, and the afterlife.

So is evolution basically Satanism because it is the exact opposite of God and has it’s roots based in Paganism?

Granite Rock proves Creation.

Granite is currently known to only exist on earth where it is a major part of the continental crust. No one knows exactly how Granite Rock forms. Granite forming under natural conditions as other rocks form is almost impossible. Once Granite rock is melted, it is no longer considered Granite. This is because the composition that makes up granite rock breaks down so when it cools to become rock again, it’s no longer what it was to begin with. Granite Rock is hypothesized as a transition from metamorphic rock under extreme conditions.

Granite Rock comes in many different colors as shown above. The large quantities that exists in the continental crust is a source for much debate since it does not easily form. And no one knows the exact mechanism that would make it on this planet in such huge quantities that currently exist. There is a very little field evidence for any proposed mechanisms, so hypotheses are predominantly based upon experimental data (data not confirmed or empirical). And because there is such a huge amount of the granite rock on this planet, it is considered the foundation of every existing continent. And in God’s word, the foundations of the earth are referred to several times.

How were the foundation (Granite) made? In the Bible it says they were created:

job 38:4 Where wast thou when I laid the foundations of the earth? declare, if thou hast understanding.

ps 102:25 Of old hast thou laid the foundation of the earth: and the heavens are the work of thy hands.

ps 104:5 Who laid the foundations of the earth, that it should not be removed for ever.

Being created separate from normal creation would mean that the foundations (Granite) could not form naturally, therefore would pose a problem when man would try to duplicate the process synthetically. Which is what we see.

The Bible refers to this foundation (Granite) being moved during earthquake events.

ps 18:7 Then the earth shook and trembled; the foundations also of the hills moved and were shaken, because he was wroth.

There is even a reference to the foundations (Granite) of the earth being out of time.

ps 82:5 They know not, neither will they understand; they walk on in darkness: all the foundations of the earth are out of course.

Out of course is being out of time. Example: When you take a course of study, the course is actually a reference to how much time is required to complete the study. So what does this mean about the foundations of the earth? It means that the time (age) of the foundations of the earth will not line up with the Biblical time-line of everything being around 6,000 years old. So basically the Bible is admitting that the two will not line up because it was created that way.

Being created separately would also mean that they were created in an instant. This instant could catch other processes that would only have a very short half-life. Polonium halos with a half life of less than 3 minutes and are embedded in “all” granite rock. There were two types found as shown in the below picture. How do you get Polonium Halos, with a half life less than 3 minute, in granite rock that took millions of years to cool and form?

Here are what the halos look like (under a microscope):

Dr. Gentry looking through his microscope at the evidence. He is a creation scientist that brought this evidence to light. It was rejected because it did not conform to supported old earth and evolution. But instead it supports creation.

Pangea in the bible?

The Pangea (link) is the idea that all of the land masses were one, and there was no separation of the continents at one time. Over a period of time the continents did separate to what we see today. The only problem with this idea is what would allow the land masses to move so far away from one another, and does this mean they will collide again in the future killing almost all life?

In every illustration you see on how Pangea works, our planet stays the same in size meaning there was another force doing this. Science claims that it was subduction that caused this. What if the Bible actually gives us a mechanism that makes Pangea work? Neil Adams (link) actually had the right idea while trying to explain this but was trying to make it fit the old earth (4.5 billion years old) time-line. Here is an example of his idea in this animation he created. He also narrates it.

As you watch this, the mechanism that makes it work is the shrinking and expanding of our planet. You will notice this, as you watch the video, by looking at the stars nearest to earth. As the planet shrinks, and the land masses come together, more stars appear. As the planet expands, and the land masses separate, some of the stars disappear. So what would cause the planet to be smaller in the beginning, then larger in the end? Water. Even in the old earth explanation, water did not always exist on earth. Now not only do we have oceans of water, we have water underneath the crust as well.

Is there enough water under the earth’s crust to cause such a huge expansion of the continents? We have all been taught that the only water that exist under the crust is little compared to the oceans above. But what is not being told is a discovery of enough water that would equal 30 of our oceans.

Suddenly, there was somewhere to put water deep inside the mantle. “You can have oceans and oceans of water stored in the transition zone,” says Jay Bass of the University of Illinois in Urbana-Champaign. “It’s sopping wet stuff.” Researchers think wadsleyite can hold as much as 3·3 per cent water by weight. It may not sound like much, but there could be an awful lot of wadsleyite.

According to Smyth, models of the mantle’s composition suggest that at the depths where wadsleyite is stable, between half and three-quarters of the material is the right stuff for making this mineral. “If the region between 400 and 525 kilometers were, say, 60 per cent wadsleyite, and that phase was saturated at 3·3 weight per cent, that’s ten oceans of water,” says Smyth. But Dan Frost, an experimental petrologist at the Carnegie Institution of Washington’s Geophysical Laboratory in Washington DC, thinks the mantle could contain even more water.

Frost says that solidified lava that has erupted at mid-ocean ridges contains glass that can be analyzed for water content. His research team has calculated how much water the lava’s parent material in the mantle must have contained. “It ends up being between 100 and 500 parts per million,” he says. And if the whole mantle contained 500 parts per million of water, Frost calculates that would be the equivalent of 30 oceans of water.

Reference:Ldolphin-deepwaters

Scientists scanning the deep interior of Earth have found evidence of a vast water reservoir beneath eastern Asia that is at least the volume of the Arctic Ocean.
The discovery marks the first time such a large body of water has found in the planet’s deep mantle.

Reference: Live Science

A seismologist at Washington University in St. Louis has made the first 3-D model of seismic wave damping — diminishing — deep in the Earth’s mantle and has revealed the existence of an underground water reservoir at least the volume of the Arctic Ocean. It is the first evidence for water existing in the Earth’s deep mantle.

Reference: Physorg

A seismologist has made the first 3-D model of seismic wave damping, or diminishing, deep in the Earth’s mantle and has revealed the existence of an underground water reservoir at least the volume of the Arctic Ocean.

Reference: Washington University in St Louis

Showing that there is enough water under the crust, and knowing that the earth did not always have water, means subduction did not do this. To fit 30 oceans of water under the crust = the planet earth “has to expand” to receive it. Unless someone wants to ignore the laws of physics.

To sum it up so far:
1) We have the idea of Pangea and how the earth’s landmasses separated. Which includes subduction. But no evidence that subduction did this only the idea that it did. And why do they only teach it as the only possibility? Because it supports the “current accepted theory”. Water doing this supports the worldwide flood, the Bible, and creation, that does not conform to evolution and all of it’s supporting ideas.
2) We have the idea of water making the landmasses expand. And their is “evidence” that enough water to do this actually exists (30 oceans worth) under the earth’s crust. And that it’s “already there” proves that it did expand because of the water not because of subduction.

So now we get to the Bible supporting all this:First expansion: In Genesis 1:2 And the earth was without form, and void; and darkness was upon the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters… It is showing that water covered the whole earth. How do we know that it covered the whole earth? Because of what Genesis 1:9 And God said, Let the waters under the heaven be gathered together unto one place, and let the dry land appear: and it was so… You see something does not have to “appear” if it’s already there. So the earth was totally covered with water that had to recede in the crust of the earth in order for land to appear. So what happens when water goes under the crust of the earth? The crust expands which would make the first expansion created what is known as the SuperContinent (link).Second expansion: In Genesis 7:11 In the six hundredth year of Noah’s life, in the second month, the seventeenth day of the month, the same day were all the fountains of the great deep broken up, and the windows of heaven were opened…. Was where the flood was started. Now why would the bible say: “And the windows of heaven were opened” if all it was doing was raining? Young Earth Creationists believe that during creation, a outer firmament (semi solid shell existed just beyond the ozone layer) was created as well. Because this semi solid shell was mainly made of “metallic hydrogen” (link) which exists naturally inside the planet Jupiter. When it fell (opened by a meteor strike like pic below), it combined with the free oxygen that existed and made more rain.

And because the evidence cannot be disputed, I would deem all this a working model. How?
1) We have the working mechanism to cause this which is water.
2) We have the water where it should be to cause this which is under the earth’s crust.
3) And we have enough water down there to expand the landmasses just as they are observed today.
4) We have the only 2 part expansion mechanism (creation and flood) that expands the land masses twice. First making the super-continent, and then making what we see today.
5) having the earth expand because of the intake of water beneath the crust shows just how the continents expanded. And when reversed, they fit together just like a puzzle.

Moon dust?

This is an old creationist argument. Most think that it is debunked, I don’t. In fact my approach to this will be different because I will be using known facts about this, and a different approach. And yes this will resurrect a evolutionist nightmare argument. Their first attempt to discredit this will be to call everyone stupid for even discussing it. Which basically means, they cannot really debunk it. Basic rule of thumb in debates with evolutionist is: When they start calling you names, it means they have nothing left to debate against your argument. It also means: The creationist just won the debate. It used to bother me, until I figured this out. So now I laugh when it happens. But let’s get down to business with discussing the resurrection of the Moon Dust Theory.

The earth just orbits the sun. The moon on the other hand, orbits our planet while “following” the earth’s orbit around the sun. As shown in the picture below:

The moon has gravity, which will attract dust. And the earth has gravity which attracts dust. And while dust is being pulled towards the earth, the moon travels through it as it orbits. But there is more. As the earth orbits the sun, the moon follows it and every orbit is in a new path full of dust. So basically, the moon is like a windshield wiper on a car. What your windshield collects, the wiper bunches it up and wipes it off. Now imagine that all the water your wiper wiped off actually stuck to your wiper, like dust sticks to the moon because of gravity. How long would it be, as you drive through a storm, that there would be so much water on your windshield that you could no longer drive?

Another example: You go and buy a duster. The dust on your furniture represents dust in space. Now does you duster collect more dust “moving” across your furniture (like the moon orbits the earth), or if it stays in one place and waits for the dust to come to it?

You see the moon traveling through space that is full of dust, where every orbit is like passing through a rain storm of dust that “never” quits. The dust is attracted to it because of it’s gravity. Then even more is pulled into it’s path because of the earth’s gravity. But that’s not all. The sun’s gravity pulls even more dust from further away, And that dust also gets pulled into the moon’s path as it orbits our planet. And because the moon acts like a dust wiper as it orbits the planet, not as much dust is going to reach earth because of that. Why? The earth travels through the path of each orbit of the moon where the moon just cleared a path of dust.

Now because the moon takes a little over 27 days to make one complete orbit, and you take that and divide into four points (quarters) of the moons orbit. It would mean that it takes roughly 7 days to move 1/4 of it’s orbit. Which means that for 3-7 days the moon is directly in the path of the earth’s orbit of the sun. While there it would be collecting dust that would usually end up on the earth if the moon were not there. So for 3-7 days, the dust flow to the earth, from it’s orbit around the sun, is disrupted by the moon. And you times that times the supposed age of the moon (4.5 billion years) and you get 13.5-31.5 billion days of dust the moon blocks from our planet. Divide that by 365 and you get how many years of dust were block from our planet.

But there is more. While the earth is in between the sun and moon (moon being on the dark side of the earth), you have two objects pulling dust in the same direction of the moon. And the moons gravity, in this instance for 3-7 days, will collect even more dust. This is because dust caught in gravity from “3” different objects (earth, sun and moon) all pulling in one direction, would move the dust much faster then normal to the surface of the moon.

And there is more. If we go back in time, as far back as the old earthers say (4 billion years ago). Our solar system would have been full of even more dust. Why? Think about it. Everything in this system is just forming, and becoming orderly. So chaos would dictate collisions, explosions, etc… Which equals more debris within our system. More for the moon to catch as it orbits.

So can we calculate the dust on the moon by the dust that reaches earth? Nope. To many variables and factors to add in. All pointing to more dust not less for the claimed age of the moon and earth. But there’s more… To make the math easy, we will say the moon orbits the earth once a month. That’s 12 times a year. 12 billion times in 1 billion years. 48 billion times in 4 billion years. And 54 billion times in 4.5 billion years (the claimed age of the moon). Now do you think with 54,000,000,000 (54 billion) orbits that there is only going to be less than 4 inches of dust?

Some examples of the old arguments:

Was NASA expecting a lot of dust when they landed for the first time on the moon? See what you think.

Why make the ladder to short unless you are expecting some sinking because of dust? Need more? Why make the feet on the ends of the legs on the module wide?

You make them wide when you expect to sink in the dust, and you don’t want to sink to much. Example: When there has been several feet of snow, do you where regular shoes and sink, or snow shoes and stay on top?

And I could go on and on with things where NASA thought there was several feet of dust, where this was actually written in a school text book at one time. So basically all of this effort was to save face on what the old earthers were wrong about then, and in my opinion, still wrong about now.

Side note: Even with all the tests NASA did, none of their tests can be done while simulating the difference between an object that has gravity, and collects dust. And one that does not have gravity and collects dust. Neither can they simulate objects caught in the gravity area of other objects and how that effects dust collection. Basically, NASA did tests that could not simulate all the variables that exist. So their conclusions are off by those variables by several degrees.

Example: Let’s say dust travels through space at one mile per hour. Getting caught in a planet or star’s gravity it’s speed can increase to 3 MPH. What that means is that dust collection on the moon could different as much as a factor of 3. And when caught in 3 different gravity sources, the speed of travel could increase even more.

To say that NASA’s test were accurate is to say that gravity has no effect on how dust moves through space. And if you try to gauge that on a planet that has an atmosphere, then you are adding a variable that does not exist in space. Also, if there was not that much dust being collected, this much damage would not have been done to one of the windows of the shuttle.

It is severely scratched from all of the dust in space. How does it become scratched by dust? The shuttle travels at over a thousand miles per hour to maintain an orbit. At that speed, dust can do this to glass. This is to also illustrate just how much dust is out in space. Just think how much worse that damage could be if the shuttle had simulated gravity pulling more dust to it as it orbits.

The difference of one object having gravity pulling dust to it, and one that does not. Is illustrated for better understanding with this picture:

To sum it up:
1) We have test collections of dust on earth that adds variables that do not exist in space.
2) We have tests using satellites, that cannot simulate gravity that would make it a real world test.
3) We have a moon that follows our planet as it orbits the sun, insuring that each orbit is in a “new” path of dust. Making the dust collection a constant feed.
4) When the moon is in the right position, where the earth is between it and the sun. The gravity of three objects (earth sun and moon) are now pulling more dust to the moon because in this position, the three objects are pulling dust in the same direction as our sun (the strongest gravity pull in our solar system). If this did not make a difference, then the orbits of the earth and moon would be a perfect circle. But because gravity of other objects aligned creates more pull, the orbits of the earth and moon are anything but a perfect circle. So the speed of dust being pulled to the moon increases.
5) We have 54 billion orbits through new paths of dust with every orbit, yet only a few inches of dust exist?
6) And then we have the moon’s gravity which makes it like a dust magnet, always pulling more dust to itself as it orbits.