SATAN TRYING TO KEEP SCIENCE Guy from debate

[horsecamp]

Creation by God ALONE Though it is correct and true science .. is never going to be popular because that means scientist with big credentials are also accountable for there sins..
ATHEIST CAN ONLY REMAIN COMFORTABLE IN THE LIE OF EVOLUTION

 

[snr5557]

Creation by God ALONE Though it is correct and true science .. is never going to be popular because that means scientist with big credentials are also accountable for there sins..
ATHEIST CAN ONLY REMAIN COMFORTABLE IN THE LIE OF EVOLUTION

It's not just atheists who believe in science. Christians also believe what science has proven to be the most accurate way to explain how people came to be. And I just have to ask, what is your understanding of evolution? As in, how do you think it works?

 

[horsecamp]

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 Scripture is obsolete.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?

I Don't think there brave enough ..I think they gave him advise and if he looses they can say he just was not qualified..
if they go with him and loose what can they say then?

 

[Madad21]

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' - it may not be a classy way to say it, but the same dynamic is at play.

This is true, Science is a study of things that are tangible including energy and gases, these all being in the physical world.
A Christian studys things of the spirit, and science cannot account for the supernatural.
If a person starts combining the supernatural to answer the a yet unanswered scientific questions then any hypothesis can be made to fit.
The best hope for Christianity in the realm of science is to stay completely away from origins, keeping at the same time the Christian perspective of creation and faith in scripture.
You can stand against the scientific atheist all you like but in the end it all boils down to evidence with those guys, and Gods word to them is unsatisfactory. they look for the tangible and always will.

 

[horsecamp]

It's not just atheists who believe in science. Christians also believe what science has proven to be the most accurate way to explain how people came to be. And I just have to ask, what is your understanding of evolution? As in, how do you think it works?

evolution is satanic science it came about by the father of lies.

 

[snr5557]

evolution is satanic science it came about by the father of lies.

That did not answer my question at all.

 

[KingJ]

"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.

My friend, evolution is giving the devil our hand. He will come back for our arm. If you are up for it we can discuss this properly.

1. Share your belief of creation with me / How you fit evolution with scripture.
2. Show me the scripture you use to support your belief.
3. Explain to me how you deal with this scripture:

- Heb 2:7 You made them a little lower than the angels; you crowned them with glory and honor.
- Gen 1:27 So God created mankind in his own image, in the image of God he created them; male and female he created them.
- 1 Cor 15:39 Not all flesh is the same: People have one kind of flesh, animals have another, birds another and fish another.
- Gen 1:3-19 And God said, “Let there be light,” and there was light. Light came before the sun. (evolution says opposite).
- Gen 1:2 Oceans were created before land. (evolution says otherwise).
- Gen 1:11 First life was land plants. (evolution says otherwise).
- Gen 1:16 Stars were all created at once. (evolution says otherwise).
- Gen 1:20, 21 Marine life was created all at once. (evolution says otherwise)).
- Gen 2:7 Man was made from the dust of the earth. (evolution says otherwise).
- Gen 2:21, 22 Man was created, then woman. (evolution says otherwise).

4. Refute these arguments of logic:

- When did man become accountable for sin? Modern Homo-sapiens are traced to 200 000 years ago in Ethiopa. Is Adam's ape father in hell or heaven?
- If Adam was 200 000 years ago, where is scripture filling the gap to Abraham (1926 bc)? and hence how do you deal with all the scripture putting Adam 6000 years ago?
- Why does scripture not mention something as relevant as evolution?

 

[horsecamp]

This is true, Science is a study of things that are tangible including energy and gases, these all being in the physical world.
A Christian studys things of the spirit, and science cannot account for the supernatural.
If a person starts combining the supernatural to answer the a yet unanswered scientific questions then any hypothesis can be made to fit.
The best hope for Christianity in the realm of science is to stay completely away from origins.

sounds to me like Bill Nye better or your going to have to eat your words..

 

[aspen]

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.

We are all ignorant in many ways, brother.

Why do you judge the validity of scripture by a humanistic standard like science?

No friend, you are not asking for unbiased science - be honest! You are asking for science to be intellectually rigorous and completely support a literal account of scripture.

You really think the Devil cares what you believe? If he is as big and scary as you make him out to be, he would care less about you or anyone else.....you think a serial killer cares about the views of his victims? Hardly. In fact, the Devil as depicted by literalists/dualists is so evil, he could not possible have an once of perspective on your point of view. Go watch the BTK at his sentencing on you tube, struggle to even pretend he understood his victims - a healthy 8 year old could have empathized him under the table, without even knowing the victims.

Confidence in scripture?? I am completely confident in the truth of scripture, but I do not expect it to be faster than a speeding bullet or leap skyscrapers in a single bound. Sounds like your copy my need a red cape for Easter.....

I have read the thread and I wanted everyone to read my opinion - that is why I post here. All we can produce is our opinion on Truth and Falsehood.

I will indeed watch the debate; I will try not to cringe too much

 

[Madad21]

sounds to me like Bill Nye better or your going to have to eat your words..

LOL true true :lol:

 

[horsecamp]

That did not answer my question at all.

i just told you my understanding .. evolution it does not work it came from the father of lies.

i know this for a fact because this is how .

CHILD LIKE FAITH BELIEVES
GOD MADE it all.

Come sing a long with the little ones

it will explain it all to you.

i promise you You... You will learn creation correctly from these little kids singing it to you than
those scientists who reject that God made it this way..

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C-3a1ZlkaMg&list=PLIhV-vN0T1Rbi0D2OwljLr5932Ud2paKf

 

[aspen]

Christians get angry when Mormons high jack our vocabulary to describe their doctrine, while referring to themselves as both Christian (just like everyone else) AND exclusive (the only truth religion that is incapable with Christian doctrine) because it is intellectually dishonest......peeing in the pool AND shooting those who swim in your toilet.

Yet, Creationists are doing the same thing with science.....

Christians get angry when Mormons high jack our vocabulary to describe their doctrine, while referring to themselves as both Christian (just like everyone else) AND exclusive (the only true religion that is incapable with Christian doctrine) because it is intellectually dishonest......peeing in the pool AND shooting those who swim in your toilet, while citing revelation in order to justify it.

Yet, Creationists are doing the same thing with science.....

 

[Madad21]

Christians get angry when Mormons high jack our vocabulary to describe their doctrine, while referring to themselves as both Christian (just like everyone else) AND exclusive (the only true religion that is incapable with Christian doctrine) because it is intellectually dishonest......peeing in the pool AND shooting those who swim in your toilet, while citing revelation in order to justify it.

Yet, Creationists are doing the same thing with science.....

Yeah but science is anyones game, its not just their pool to swim in. where as Religion is a conforming to an already established truth or dogma.

 

[aspen]

Yeah but science is anyones game, its not just their pool to swim in. where as Religion is a conforming to an already established truth.

True, but like Christianity, the science game has rules that must be followed. Twinkles cannot be called organic because they are made up of artificial everything......and you are not allowed to rename man made chemicals with established names of organic materials

Science cannot base the origins of material things on immaterial sources - you may not agree with this rule, but that would place you outside the realm of science.

 

[Madad21]

True, but like Christianity, the science game has rules that must be followed. Twinkles cannot be called organic because they are made up of artificial everything......and you are not allowed to rename man made chemicals with established names of organic materials

Science cannot base the origins of material things on immaterial sources - you may not agree with this rule, but that would place you outside the realm of science.

We dont get Twinkies here, they sound nice

 

[snr5557]

1. Share your belief of creation with me / How you fit evolution with scripture.

I personally believe that the Bible is meant to be a guide, and that parts of the Bible are not meant to be taken literally. I've only begun this quest, so unfortunately I cannot always give exact beliefs on certain passages. However, I shall do my best!

2. Show me the scripture you use to support your belief.

You see, that's the thing about science. It does not bend to a person's "beliefs" it can only be affirmed by what is observed in the data that has been presented in a scientific experiment. And, given the time period in which the Bible was written, they did not understand much about the world around them, so they could not include such things in the Bible. Another thing about science, it doesn't require belief. It's true whether you like it or not.

So, back to the actual question at hand :), I think that the book of genesis is meant to be taken non-literally, as I have previously mentioned above.

3. Explain to me how you deal with this scripture:

- Heb 2:7 You made them a little lower than the angels; you crowned them with glory and honor.

I don't see how this applies to this situation

- Gen 1:27 So God created mankind in his own image, in the image of God he created them; male and female he created them.

Ok, we look like God
- 1 Cor 15:39 Not all flesh is the same: People have one kind of flesh, animals have another, birds another and fish another.

Well this is true. We don't exactly have the same kind of skin.
- Gen 1:3-19 And God said, “Let there be light,” and there was light. Light came before the sun. (evolution says opposite).

Where did you get this? I've heard of what's called the 'after glow" of the Big bang, which I admit I don't know much about the after glow but I assume it has something to do with light.
- Gen 1:2 Oceans were created before land. (evolution says otherwise).

Small question here, how could oceans even exist if there was no land for it to be on? Water doesn't float on air. It just doesn't.
- Gen 1:11 First life was land plants. (evolution says otherwise).

yeah evolution does prove otherwise.
- Gen 1:16 Stars were all created at once. (evolution says otherwise).

yeah evolution does prove otherwise.
- Gen 1:20, 21 Marine life was created all at once. (evolution says otherwise)).

yeah evolution does prove otherwise.
- Gen 2:7 Man was made from the dust of the earth. (evolution says otherwise).

according to science we're made out of stars that have died in the past.
- Gen 2:21, 22 Man was created, then woman. (evolution says otherwise).

where did you hear that? that would actually be interesting to know that the first human in existence ever was a woman :)

4. Refute these arguments of logic:

- When did man become accountable for sin? Modern Homo-sapiens are traced to 200 000 years ago in Ethiopa. Is Adam's ape father in hell or heaven?

Small thing first, we did not "come from apes" we evolved from a common ancestor. and I would say man became accountable when he was able to distinguish right from wrong.
- If Adam was 200 000 years ago, where is scripture filling the gap to Abraham (1926 bc)? and hence how do you deal with all the scripture putting Adam 6000 years ago?

I don't know, I wasn't there when it was being written. Plus there are many scriptures that had not been added and have been lost etc. Plus, again I don't think it should be taken literally.
- Why does scripture not mention something as relevant as evolution?

Because evolution is a more recent discovery of science. That would be like asking why something as relevant as children being addicted to video games is not mentioned in the Bible.


Now, before we continue I too have a question to ask:

How do you think evolution works? As in, the process of evolution.

i just told you my understanding .. evolution it does not work it came from the father of lies.

That does not answer it at all. All you said is that you think it's a lie. That is the equivalent of someone asking:

"Hey, how does a motor work?"

"It's a lie."

It does not answer it at all. It's just avoiding the actual question at hand.

 

[aspen]

We dont get Twinkies here, they sound nice

Too bad, I know plenty of people who love to grow them in their gardens around here......

 

[UppsalaDragby]

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.

What person living today knows exactly what they are talking about when it comes to origins?

 

[snr5557]

What person living today knows exactly what they are talking about when it comes to origins?

What I mean is an actual expert in that field.

 

[UppsalaDragby]

What I mean is an actual expert in that field.

OK, What expert in any field knows exactly what they are talking about when it comes to origins?