SATAN TRYING TO KEEP SCIENCE Guy from debate

[horsecamp]

Satan no way no how wants Nye to get any where near so many Christians..
pray for Nye that he goes and the gospel is proclaimed..

Satan WANTS NYE TO DIE WITH Out EVER KNOWING JESUS..

LATEST

Richard Dawkins Attacks Bill Nye
for Agreeing to Debate
Nye is not qualified to defend evolution,
Dawkins’ foundation claims.


READ WHOLE THING
http://lutheranscience.org/

 

[KingJ]

I doubt it's satan trying to stop the debate from happening. Success for the bible at debates like these only makes Christian life in this world a bit more bearable / better for our kids. It will never convert someone. People are blind because they choose to be blind.

''It has zero peer-reviewed papers to back up its claims, it has absolutely no scientific consensus and is not even considered science due to the fact it cannot be tested." Dawkins says this is the reason he refuses to debate creationists.''

Liar! The complexity of our thumb proving a being from another realm not limited by the laws of physics was involved, cannot be proven? The evidence does not point there? If we found a spaceship with technology beyond ours, would we not conclude it is from aliens / space? Richard Dawkins is simply a liar who runs and dodges debates because he would get beaten. On youtube his counter argument to a Christian trying to prove why we don't come from monkeys is ''We do not come from monkeys!!!! We come from chimps!!!'' suddenly nullifying every point rasied .

Creationist science is as a result of false science (concluding before objectively examining where evidence is pointing). Otherwise there would be no need for the distinction or debates like these. 1 Tim 6:20 O Timothy, keep that which is committed to thy trust, avoiding profane and vain babblings, and oppositions of science falsely so called.

 

[UppsalaDragby]

Creationist science is as a result of false science (concluding before objectively examining where evidence is pointing).

Such as?

 

[horsecamp]

I doubt it's satan trying to stop the debate from happening. Success for the bible at debates like these only makes Christian life in this world a bit more bearable / better for our kids. It will never convert someone. People are blind because they choose to be blind.

''It has zero peer-reviewed papers to back up its claims, it has absolutely no scientific consensus and is not even considered science due to the fact it cannot be tested." Dawkins says this is the reason he refuses to debate creationists.''

Liar! The complexity of our thumb proving a being from another realm not limited by the laws of physics was involved, cannot be proven? The evidence does not point there? If we found a spaceship with technology beyond ours, would we not conclude it is from aliens / space? Richard Dawkins is simply a liar who runs and dodges debates because he would get beaten. On youtube his counter argument to a Christian trying to prove why we don't come from monkeys is ''We do not come from monkeys!!!! We come from chimps!!!'' suddenly nullifying every point rasied .

Creationist science is as a result of false science (concluding before objectively examining where evidence is pointing). Otherwise there would be no need for the distinction or debates like these. 1 Tim 6:20 O Timothy, keep that which is committed to thy trust, avoiding profane and vain babblings, and oppositions of science falsely so called.

there is going to be clc els wels and lcms pastors there also many reformed and Baptist pastors ..unless he rushes in and out with his fingers in his ear he will hear the gospel how Jesus saved him.

CREATION SCIENCE IS A RESULT OF WHAT GOD SAYS HE DID IN THE BIBLE .

REJECTING THIS TRUT LEAVES lots of , ROOM FOR ----------------------believing for a while ,but in the time of testing faling away.

some one rejecting creation truths and accepting Satan's doctrine though it may be only that one doctrine of Satan.. still causes Divisions in the church . so in our Lutheran Church's they would be denied member ship.. We of course would rather have people believe all the bible so we could all worship together..

would that now be wonderful That of course wont happen on this side of heaven
---------


Here is The evolutionary site--- scroll down and see the comments .. about Christians ..
EVOLUTION TEACHES things get better .. one evolves to better life forms ,

they them selves are proof just the way they talk about Christians evolution is false-----------the only way things get better is through Christ
http://www.richarddawkins.net/foundation_articles/2014/1/16/why-bill-nye-shouldn-t-debate-ken-ham#

 

[KingJ]

Such as?

CREATION SCIENCE IS A RESULT OF WHAT GOD SAYS HE DID IN THE BIBLE .

You guys you are being annoying. You are simply not reading properly. If there was no false science we would call 'creation science'...simply science...as the evidence points to a creator from another realm.

some one rejecting creation truths and accepting Satan's doctrine though it may be only that one doctrine of Satan.. still causes Divisions in the church . so in our Lutheran Church's they would be denied member ship..

Christians who accept 'theistic evolution' are denied membership? I don't accept it, but there are many that do.

 

[horsecamp]

You guys you are being annoying. You are simply not reading properly. If there was no false science we would call 'creation science'...simply science...as the evidence points to a creator from another realm.


Christians who accept 'theistic evolution' are denied membership? I don't accept it, but there are many that do.

yes they are denied membership -- they must vow to a 6 /24 hour day creation by God alone..

CHECK OUT VIDEO under the post bring back memories
8th graders being questioned giving answers so they can take their first Lords supper

there are several things about the bible we all must believe.. so there will be no division.

Now
why are we annoying we keep to our selves we don't have any thing to do with other Christians don't worship pray or have bible studies with other Christians
we also do our own evangelical work.. we don't have any thing to do with other Christians pastors or congregations we don't even join with other Christians even in humanitarian work we do our own .. how can we be annoying? when we stay completely away from other Christians religiously . so how can we be annoying when we are not around other Christians religiously? we do our own missionary work we never teem up with other Christians for any thing. we have our own seminary's and colleges high schools grade schools kindergartens and were still called annoying? I guess other Christians would prefer if we just dropped dead.. But then they would complain about us taking up space in the cemetarys

 

[KingJ]

yes they must vow to a 6 /24 hour day creation.

That is harsh. Age of the earth undermines nothing. Evolution undermines scripture entirely.

Example...Adam's seeking counsel with his ape father =

T-Rex living with humans and the current wildlife we have in Adam's day... = 0.0000001% chance. A T-rex has more survivability then a dodo! Regarding the old paintings of us with them.... People in the OT were highly intelligent. They dug up fossils just as we do. They drew pictures of them with humans just as we make films like Jurassic Park.

I am not going to argue with creationist scientists. But, common sense regarding age of the earth is not on their side.

 

[UppsalaDragby]

You guys you are being annoying. You are simply not reading properly. If there was no false science we would call 'creation science'...simply science...as the evidence points to a creator from another realm.

I'm sorry for being so annoying, but what is it that you claim to be "simply science"? What scientist "objectively examines where evidence is pointing"?

Objectivity would be starting off from an absolutely clean slate, as opposed to having the interpretation of their observations preinterpreted by the education system and the "scientific Community". So I don't really get what your point is.

 

[KingJ]

I'm sorry for being so annoying,1. but what is it that you claim to be "simply science"? 2. What scientist "objectively examines where evidence is pointing"?

3. Objectivity would be starting off from an absolutely clean slate, as opposed to having the interpretation of their observations preinterpreted by the education system and the "scientific Community". So I don't really get what your point is.

1. Please re-read my line.
2. What scientist shouldn't?
3. I made my point clear in that line.

Creation science = science (thats where the evidence points). Evolution = false science (contriving evidence to support a theory).

Now more interestingly, what is your point? I can't help but feel you setting me up for it.

 

[UppsalaDragby]

1. Please re-read my line.
2. What scientist shouldn't?
3. I made my point clear in that line.

Creation science = science (thats where the evidence points). Evolution = false science (contriving evidence to support a theory).

Now more interestingly, what is your point? I can't help but feel you setting me up for it.

Sorry, I'm not trying to set you up. I'm just having a hard time following who is for or against creation science here. I thought you were implying that creation science was false science... but now you seem to be saying the opposite?

 

[KingJ]

I think I see where the confusion is now. My statement ''Creationist science is as a result of false science'' as in...we need to call it ''creation''....science because there is ''false'' science out there ^_^.

 

[UppsalaDragby]

Friendly fire in other words.. ^_^

 

[KingJ]

Definitely .

 

[snr5557]

Dawkins, from what I understand, doesn't want Nye to debate because he isn't a biologist. He got his BA (or his BS I don't remember) in engineering. He says that first off there is nothing really to debate, and that if a peson debates something they are in a small way saying that the other side may have something valid to say. Also, Dawkins says that if we are going to have someone debate evolution it should be someone whose education deals with evolution on a regular basis, such as a biologist.

So, I disagree that Satan is behind this. Dawkins thinks that, if there is going to be a debate, that it should be done with someone who knows exactly what they are talking about.

 

[horsecamp]

Dawkins, from what I understand, doesn't want Nye to debate because he isn't a biologist. He got his BA (or his BS I don't remember) in engineering. He says that first off there is nothing really to debate, and that if a peson debates something they are in a small way saying that the other side may have something valid to say. Also, Dawkins says that if we are going to have someone debate evolution it should be someone whose education deals with evolution on a regular basis, such as a biologist.

So, I disagree that Satan is behind this. Dawkins thinks that, if there is going to be a debate, that it should be done with someone who knows exactly what they are talking about.

Dawkins is afraid Nye will loose . that's why Dawkins does not want any evolutionist no matter how many degrees they may have to
debate any creationist that knows about their faulty science and can speak well.

Answers in Genesis has creation scientist all over the world that gave up evolutionary ideas because it does nor make good science sense and help out debunking the very worthless evolution theory.

Dawkins does not respect any Christian that's why he uses vile names for any Christian..

He is out to prove just being Christian means one is not very smart.. yet he knows evolution is faulty so he does not want any one debating Christians he just wants them making fun of Christians in any vile way they want..

the guy Dawkins is properly called a Atheist and any nasty venomous one to..

 

[snr5557]

Dawkins is afraid Nye will loose . that's why Dawkins does not want any evolutionist no matter how many degrees they may have to
debate any creationist that knows about their faulty science and can speak well.

Answers in Genesis has creation scientist all over the world that gave up evolutionary ideas because it does nor make good science sense.

I doubt that's true, since he argues it all the time.

 

[aspen]

I own a book containing creation myths from every known culture - I think Christians and scientists would agree that all of them would look pretty silly in a museum, masquerading as literal accounts because many are completely ridiculous to the modern ear. So why do we feel the need to 'science-fie' the Genesis account? The reason scientists reject the idea is because we start with a conclusion, based on ancient literature and work backwards to prove it - it is the same reason that police detectives are not allowed to use evidence to support their own theories instead of allowing the evidence to point to what really happened. Without the Genesis account, the evidence uncovered by scientists supports evolution. If you feel the need to believe in a literal account of the Judeo-Christian story in Genesis, that is cool, but don't try to dress it up using science - that is just silly. We would be quick to dismiss all science if it concluded that a galactic turtle laid the planets or that the evolution of man from amino acids was received by a guru who was fasting under a lotus tree, because it would be seen as a competing religion - in fact, many Christians try to make science a religion so they have the grounds to do just that! Science rejects creationism because it is religion pretending to be science. My grandma used to have a sign on her fence, above her swimming pool that read 'I do not swim in your toilet so please do not pee in my pool' - indeed, what my grandmother lacked in refinement, she made up for in honesty and practicality.

 

[snr5557]

I have a whole volume of creation myths from every known culture - I think Christians and scientists would agree that all of them would look pretty silly in a museum, masquerading as literal accounts because many are completely ridiculous to the modern ear. So why do we feel the need to 'science-fie' the Genesis account? The reason scientists reject the idea is because we start with a conclusion, based on ancient literature and work backwards to prove it - it is the same reason that police detectives are not allowed to use evidence to support their own theories instead of allowing the evidence to point to what really happened. Without the Genesis account, the evidence uncovered by scientists supports evolution. If you feel the need to believe in a literal account of the Judeo-Christian story in Genesis, that is cool, but don't try to dress it up using science - that is just silly. We would be quick to dismiss all science if it concluded that a galactic turtle laid the planets because it would be seen as a competing religion - science rejects creationism because it is religion pretending to be science. My grandma used to have a sign on her fence that said 'I do not swim in your toilet so please do not pee in my pool' - it is not classy, but the same dynamic is at play.

Dear Sir or Madam Aspen,

You are fabulous. Please remain this way forever.

with respect and love,

snr5557

 

[KingJ]

I have a whole volume of creation myths from every known culture - I think Christians and scientists would agree that all of them would look pretty silly in a museum, masquerading as literal accounts because many are completely ridiculous to the modern ear. So why do we feel the need to 'science-fie' the Genesis account? The reason scientists reject the idea is because we start with a conclusion, based on ancient literature and work backwards to prove it - it is the same reason that police detectives are not allowed to use evidence to support their own theories instead of allowing the evidence to point to what really happened. Without the Genesis account, the evidence uncovered by scientists supports evolution. If you feel the need to believe in a literal account of the Judeo-Christian story in Genesis, that is cool, but don't try to dress it up using science - that is just silly. We would be quick to dismiss all science if it concluded that a galactic turtle laid the planets or that the evolution of man from amino acids was received by a guru who was fasting under a lotus tree, because it would be seen as a competing religion - in fact, many Christians try to make science a religion so they have the grounds to do just that! Science rejects creationism because it is religion pretending to be science. My grandma used to have a sign on her fence, above her swimming pool that read 'I do not swim in your toilet so please do not pee in my pool' - it may not be a classy way to say it, but the same dynamic is at play.

You are simply ignorant brother. If science disproves scripture. Scripture is obsolete. Hardly rocket science . So all I ask for is unbiased science. But the problem is we have a devil who is smarter then most. The first place the devil attacks is our confidence in scripture...as he can't destroy us.

But it sounds to me like you havn't read anyone's post here, you just want people to read your opinion. You should definitely watch the debate you just might have your confidence in scripture / God restored John 1:1.

I am just curious Horsecamp, do you know if Bill Nye the science guy will be accompanied by others more qualified then him?

 

[snr5557]

"So all I ask for is unbiased science."

Actually, evolution itself is not biased. Are there scientists who are biased, absolutely. But evolution itself is not. In fact, the man who launched evolution, Mr. Charles Darwin, was a man of God himself. He did not set out to disprove God or anything like that, he simply followed where science lead him. And, science showed that evolution is a valid theory to how we came to be where we are today.