SATAN TRYING TO KEEP SCIENCE Guy from debate

[snr5557]

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

Biologist, or better yet an evolutionist.

 

[williemac]

Biologist, or better yet an evolutionist.

They may know what they are talking about, but that doesn't mean they know the truth. Science simply cannot ascertain the origin of life. One cannot disprove the unprovable. There is a difference between proof and evidence. In my opinion, there is more evidence that God exists than there is that He doesn't. The theory of evolution does not disprove the existence of a creator. It merely conflicts with what is being said by another person. An evolutionist can argue with me or against my belief all he wants, but he will not succeed in proving that there is no God, even if he appears to win the debate. In the end, he is merely substantiating his own opinion, which he has contrived on the basis of whatever evidence or logic he chooses to base it on.

In fact, it seems to me that most evolutionists use science to prove or justify a philosophical and emotional conclusion that they have already come to. They are not usually open to the existence of a creator in the first place. In most cases they are motivated to using evidence to prove this pre conceived notion which was arrived at on an emotional basis and apart from the evidence they are using. That goes against science, ironically.

 

[Arnie Manitoba]

Biologists study living organisms

They are trying to understand how The Creator made living organisms function

Not all biologists realize this.

 

[UppsalaDragby]

Biologist, or better yet an evolutionist.

Biologists and evolutionists can only study life on earth today and make assumptions about origins so you cannot claim that they "know what they are talking about". Creationists do not see any problems with what modern scientists observe because there is nothing that has been observed and tested that conflicts with the creation account. What we see is families of plants and animals being produced according to their various kinds. What biologist or evolutionist knows that originally, "various kinds" did not exist? What palentologist knows that? What do you think makes them experts about things that are beyond their ability to know?

 

[aspen]

seems to me that evolutionary scientists really only get irritated at Creationist who want to misclassify Creationism as science OR mischaracterize evolution so badly that strawman which is left over does even resemble what they have devoted their entire careers studying. it would be crazy to run around challenging modern medicine and doctors with ancient medical practices in the Bible, why do we do it with creation? modern medicne could not exist with out the autopsy, which is forbidden by the Bible's verses against even touching a corpse.

i can see scientist's pov on this topic because i see the same crowd of Christian mischaracterizing Catholicism and trying to convince everyone that Conservative Protestantism actually came before Catholicism - in the world of competitive mental gymnastics, these folks are olympians.
Upps - fossils

 

[snr5557]

They may know what they are talking about, but that doesn't mean they know the truth. Science simply cannot ascertain the origin of life. One cannot disprove the unprovable. There is a difference between proof and evidence. In my opinion, there is more evidence that God exists than there is that He doesn't. The theory of evolution does not disprove the existence of a creator. It merely conflicts with what is being said by another person. An evolutionist can argue with me or against my belief all he wants, but he will not succeed in proving that there is no God, even if he appears to win the debate. In the end, he is merely substantiating his own opinion, which he has contrived on the basis of whatever evidence or logic he chooses to base it on.

Nye isn't trying to make people not believe in God. He doesn't care what you do in church or on your own as long as you're not hurting anyone or breaking the law. He just wants people to know that Creationism is being taught as science, not a religion, which can hurt us since our children will not understand basic biology. What if one of them could have had a key insight into a serious problem in the world, but because they don't understand science they would never be able to do so. That's why he's getting involved. I was actually surprised when I found out that people are teaching religion as science, because even though I'm religious, I know that there is a distinct difference between science and religion.

In fact, it seems to me that most evolutionists use science to prove or justify a philosophical and emotional conclusion that they have already come to. They are not usually open to the existence of a creator in the first place. In most cases they are motivated to using evidence to prove this pre conceived notion which was arrived at on an emotional basis and apart from the evidence they are using. That goes against science, ironically.


I don't think that's true. Many people, me included, learned about evolution because we went to a school that kept church and state separate. When people become interested in a topic, they investigate if further, also in my case. I'm not saying that what you said it doesn't happen, but I think that you shouldn't say "most evolutionists".

Biologists and evolutionists can only study life on earth today and make assumptions about origins so you cannot claim that they "know what they are talking about".

When I say know what they are talking about, I mean that in the field of biology they are up to date and very well informed in what is going on in the field of biology, especially when it comes to evolution. When scientists have tested, retested, and then tested again and find the same conclusion repeatedly, they can then trust it their findings are dependable. For example, if you were to take an apple, hold it up, and then drop it several times, you would come to the conclusion that apples do not float in the air. You could try this experiment multiple times with many different objects and find that on a consistent basis things will not float in the air.


Creationists do not see any problems with what modern scientists observe because there is nothing that has been observed and tested that conflicts with the creation account.

The Creation account, I believe, says that all animals came to be exactly as they are now right? So when evolution says that different species came into being over time that would contradict what that part of the Creation story claims.

What we see is families of plants and animals being produced according to their various kinds.

I think what you're saying is that different types of animals are produced from different kinds. Such as, dogs come from wolves, which are the same kind? Please correct me if I'm wrong, but that's what I think you're saying.

What biologist or evolutionist knows that originally, "various kinds" did not exist? What palentologist knows that? What do you think makes them experts about things that are beyond their ability to know?

I haven't heard evolutionists saying that different kinds of animals didn't exist. Unless you're talking about unicorns or the Lock Ness Monster.

 

[UppsalaDragby]

When I say know what they are talking about, I mean that in the field of biology they are up to date and very well informed in what is going on in the field of biology, especially when it comes to evolution. When scientists have tested, retested, and then tested again and find the same conclusion repeatedly, they can then trust it their findings are dependable. For example, if you were to take an apple, hold it up, and then drop it several times, you would come to the conclusion that apples do not float in the air. You could try this experiment multiple times with many different objects and find that on a consistent basis things will not float in the air.

Sure, no problem with that, but how has macro-evolution been tested?

The Creation account, I believe, says that all animals came to be exactly as they are now right? So when evolution says that different species came into being over time that would contradict what that part of the Creation story claims.

The creation account says nothing of the sort.

I think what you're saying is that different types of animals are produced from different kinds. Such as, dogs come from wolves, which are the same kind? Please correct me if I'm wrong, but that's what I think you're saying.

Yes, I think something along those lines sounds reasonable. The exact relationship between "kind" and species is difficult to establish today, but the concept of an array of variations within each separate family of animals and plants is conceivable. God obviously created animals with the ability to adapt and diversify to a certain extent. But the attempt to reverse engineer this behavior and claim that we all descended from a common ancestor is built on speculation.

I haven't heard evolutionists saying that different kinds of animals didn't exist. Unless you're talking about unicorns or the Lock Ness Monster.

I think you misunderstood me. What I am talking about is common descent, which points back to a time when one organism existed, rather than different kinds.

 

[KingJ]

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.

Don't be naive. You need to do a study on Matt 4. The devil may not tempt us directly, but his wisdom is in the world.

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.....

If you can't accept John 1:1 and 2 Tim 3:16 then you will get Rev 22:19.

All we can produce is our opinion on Truth and Falsehood.

Scripture is not an opinion.

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!

I asked you to explain how you see evolution fitting in with Christianity / Genesis.

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.

'''They''' were inspired by God to write His word. '''They''' did not need to understand anything. This is Christianity 101. Please see my comments to Aspen.

Example: Isaiah 40:21-22 depicts a round earth...it was written 740-680 bc.

- 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

Scripture is saying that us, humans are made just beneath the angels. It does NOT say we evolved to a point just beneath the angels. It says we were from human # 1 made just beneath them. So if humans are traced to 200 000 bc in Ethiopa, then those humans were JUST AS accountable for sin as we are. Hence the absence of scripture for 194 000 years becomes a significant issue.

- 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

Exactly! and don't you think throwing a chimp into that equation is insulting? Not so much to us...but God? Read this verse over and over until that fact sinks in please.

- 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.

What this verse is saying is that dogs breed with dogs. Cats with cats. Humans cannot come from cats / chimps / fish. Biology has proven that.

- 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

Evolution does not 'prove' otherwise . As for ocean on no land, it is not mentioning core as ocean. I believe in an old earth that God prepared for mankind. Gen 1:1 supports that theory where it says the Holy Spirit was hovering over the water before creation began.

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.

You need to put a time on it. As has been shown above, mankind was created highly intelligent from day 1 (just beneath angels). Hence with Adam being the first there will always be jokes about his ape father to be made. Did he adopt him as a pet?

- 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.

Plus.....you do not know what you talking about. You need to do a study on the authenticity of scripture and why the books were included. You are willing to write off all the OT books used to determine our lineage to Adam? You are not just giving the devil your hand, he now has your arm. Your Christian foundation is supposed to be on Jesus / scripture John 1:1, not rollerscates.

- 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.

That comparison is a joke. Evolution and the big bang are significant matters to a belief system. You are simply not exercising lateral thought.

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

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

Just state the point you want to make please.

 

[snr5557]

Don't be naive. You need to do a study on Matt 4. The devil may not tempt us directly, but his wisdom is in the world.

It's interesting that you find Satan wise. I remember reading how that's kind of what satanists believe. According to one, it's not that they worship the devil directly, they just give him credit for giving knowledge to man and for rebelling against what is considered to what everyone should do and be like. It's interesting that you share this idea to, please tell me how you came to this? I'm not being mean I'm actually really curious. I think I heard somewhere on this site how some people like the devil because they believe that if man had not fallen, he would not reach godhood when the rapture happens. I may have gotten that last part wrong, but I think I got the gist of it.



If you can't accept John 1:1 and 2 Tim 3:16 then you will get Rev 22:19.


Scripture is not an opinion.


Scripture itself possibly, but how people choose to interpret it. That's why you get so many different protestant churches.



I asked you to explain how you see evolution fitting in with Christianity / Genesis.



I don't think genesis is meant to be taken literally, in fact I don't think many parts of the Bible should be taken literally.


'''They''' were inspired by God to write His word. '''They''' did not need to understand anything. This is Christianity 101. Please see my comments to Aspen.


They didn't need to understand what they were writing? If they were supposed to be following His word I would think they would have to understand what was going on. Common Sense 101.


Example: Isaiah 40:21-22 depicts a round earth...it was written 740-680 bc.


Scripture is saying that us, humans are made just beneath the angels. It does NOT say we evolved to a point just beneath the angels. It says we were from human # 1 made just beneath them. So if humans are traced to 200 000 bc in Ethiopa, then those humans were JUST AS accountable for sin as we are. Hence the absence of scripture for 194 000 years becomes a significant issue.


Exactly! and don't you think throwing a chimp into that equation is insulting? Not so much to us...but God? Read this verse over and over until that fact sinks in please.

I don't find it insulting at all actually.



What this verse is saying is that dogs breed with dogs. Cats with cats. Humans cannot come from cats / chimps / fish. Biology has proven that.

Well yeah. Thank you for accepting parts of biology though!



Evolution does not 'prove' otherwise . As for ocean on no land, it is not mentioning core as ocean. I believe in an old earth that God prepared for mankind. Gen 1:1 supports that theory where it says the Holy Spirit was hovering over the water before creation began.


You need to put a time on it. As has been shown above, mankind was created highly intelligent from day 1 (just beneath angels). Hence with Adam being the first there will always be jokes about his ape father to be made. Did he adopt him as a pet?

Sorry about not understanding the joke at first. I've never actually met a Creationist in person, so you're inside jokes etc. are all new to me.



Plus.....you do not know what you talking about. You need to do a study on the authenticity of scripture and why the books were included. You are willing to write off all the OT books used to determine our lineage to Adam? You are not just giving the devil your hand, he now has your arm. Your Christian foundation is supposed to be on Jesus / scripture John 1:1, not rollerscates.

I wasn't going to write them off, you're taking what I said way too far. Plus, I would say that my faith is in a way stronger than that of a Creationist. I'm willing to look at what science has shown to be the most true for that time, and yet I still believe in God. Creationists are so scared about learning evolution that they don't want their kids to learn it or themselves in fear of losing their faith.




That comparison is a joke. Evolution and the big bang are significant matters to a belief system. You are simply not exercising lateral thought.


I was trying to display two problems of the world today, if evolution is true and how children today can be addicted to video games, would not be in the Bible because they are more modern problems. The Bible would not know of modern day science because it was written thousands of years ago.


Just state the point you want to make please.

I don't think that anyone who actually understands evolution disbelieves in it.