Jump to content


Junior Member
  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

234 Excellent

About anthonyjmcgirr

  • Rank
    Junior Member
  • Birthday 02/27/1984

Contact Methods

  • Skype

Profile Information

  • Gender
  • Location
  • Interests
    writing, reading, watching movies, spending time with loved ones, creating.

Recent Profile Visitors

714 profile views
  1. My problem isn't that science is an ever-evolving creature. My problem is science is PUSHED onto kids and people as if it's absolute fact when it's far from being fact. But if you do not accept what science says is fact, you're an idiot who cannot be taken seriously. So it's like science pushing that their models of the atom is perfectly correct and anyone who disagrees is an idiot...then they later change it. And change it again and again. How do you know the current model won't be tweaked again? Science makes all sorts of claims about things they have no idea if they exist or not. They have a whole lot of faith. They cannot tell us how we got here, how the universe started or any such thing, but I remember being told of the big bang and abiogenesis and all sorts of things that turned out to be incorrect. I cannot just accept *facts* when the *facts* change.
  2. It's funny that the atheist quickly tried to shut up the context debate. She didn't want to hear any of that. She read on some atheist website that the bible condones rape and slavery and uses that to deny God. She then calls you a monster and attacks your beliefs, then mocks Christians by how they are constantly on the attack. I know us Christians should be the 'bigger man' in these instances, but how much do atheists attack Christians and call us ignorant idiots for our beliefs? So she was a total hypocrite in that debate. But context is exactly the right explanation there. If atheists take the verses out of context, why is it wrong for us to try and explain the right context? You were right about the rape. Back-to-back it describes a sexual situation and how to handle it. So are both statements contradictory? Really, they're not. One describes consentual sex and how the man must take the woman as his wife. There's nothing that says the woman must marry him. The second instance is rape and talks about what will happen to the man in that instance and he will be killed. So if both of them are rape, why does the man just have to marry her in one and be killed in the other? It's obviously two different situations. You were also right about slavery. Slavery in that day, in most circumstances, was more like welfare. People would sell themselves or their family into 'slavery' (who were more like servants than slaves). God told the slave owners how to treat their servants and not to abuse them. So God was protecting the people by making that law, not condoning our idea of what we think slavery is. It was a way to pay off debts or to make sure their family didn't starve or go homeless in hard times. After six years they were to be released, but in most circumstances they wanted to stay! So atheists do this a lot. They don't even read the bible or try to study context. They quickly jump on any 'discrepancy' and ride it hard as any excuse necessary not to accept it. Like atheists making fun of the fact that the word 'unicorn' shows up in the bible. No, it's not talking about the mythological beast. It's a one-horned rhino. Or the whole cloven toe thing. Yeah, like they had the same biological classifications that they do today.
  3. Yeah, I just think it takes more faith to say a reptile turned into a bird over many variations and small changes than to say God created both lizards AND birds. It will just never, ever happen. A bird will always be a bird. It can change colors, its beak might shorten or lengthen, but it will always be the bird that it is. You can classify it whatever you want, but it's still a bird.
  4. The only things that evolves more than nature is scientific theory. Check out my thread on time dilation. This post on major redshift differences goes right along with that. Time isn't static everywhere. Things obviously aren't expanding at the same rate in the universe. The speed that light travels also isn't static. You can make measurements here on earth using your own rate of time at sea level, but you have no idea if light travels faster at Pluto than at Earth due to the decreased gravity. There is just too much out there that we haven't even begun to observe, but only assume and then pass off as fact. It's frustrating. Like the Oort Cloud. We've never actually seen it and have no clue if it exists. But they need it to exist to account for comets. Otherwise, it would prove the universe is young, but they can't have that, can they?
  5. Exactly. There is a ton of scientific theory that's being taught as absolute fact and there's no observation of it whatsoever. The big band is only a theory. It has not been witnessed, so the best the big bang theory can accomplish is no more than what you 'laugh' at us Christians for having. You have faith that the scientists are right and the big bang happened. And here's proof that it's not that easy...that there's major issues to the theory and it will have to be rewritten. And rewritten. And rewritten. How many theories have popped up that science said, "oh, that shouldn't be possible!" Like how dense Mercury is. It was considered impossible, yet it shocked the whole scientific community and they had to go back to the drawing board. So how can you say science has no faith backing it? If it's not based on faith on what they 'think' happened, there should be no revisions, no changes, no edits...it would be perfect as is. But it's not. So you have faith, plain and simple. So that makes you a hypocrite for laughing at us when you're no better. You're not smarter or more intelligent.
  6. What kind of evidence would you need to believe that theory of the big bang doesn't cut it? What if a discovery has been made that will require us to change our entire view on the creation of the universe? Such a discovery has been made. A quasar with an enormous redshift has been found embedded in a nearby spiral galaxy with much lower redshift. This changes the whole view of the universe—big bang astronomy will never be the same. http://creation.com/bye-bye-big-bang
  7. See, this is why science and I cannot be friends. A few years ago an atheist would've called me an idiot for not accept the basic facts and mechanics of a black hole. But the majority of it is theory. Theory that changes constant. Science isn't at odds with itself though. They expect it to change as we get new ideas and theories, but those theories will change. And the ones after that. It's incredibly frustrating. Why shove something in my face as fact and the truth knowing it's probably not fact and will eventually give way to a new theory? Except the fact that we don't even have a miniscule idea on how anything works out there. All the time are we blindsided with something that 'isn't possible' according to the way we understand things.
  8. You mean plants can't survive one night without the sun? The work of creating the plants finished that evening and night and the sun was made the next day...essentially one full night.
  9. ^Oh come on do you really believe that? He went on to plug his book. Would he really allow Colbert to win, losing all credibility and hurting book sales if it was scripted?
  10. There's a lot of dumb assumptions being made here. Because I'm a Creationist, I think ALL science is bad and wrong? That's not correct. I just don't sit back and believe that science is 100% true and every theory it professes to be correct actually is. I believe alternate theories and it is NOT the same as saying the earth is flat even though it has been proven not to be. You are essentially insulting us by lumping us in with those who think the earth is flat. What is wrong with having alternate theories? The theory of evolution has NO physical evidence to back it up. It remains only a theory. So the difference between observable evidence and un-observable evidence is one will always be a theory. You can't prove things that you suppose happened billions or millions of years ago. No one was there to observe it happening. No one has ever observed macro-evolution (or one species evolving into something different). Even in the fossil record we are missing millions of transitional forms. There are plenty of PhDs who have their own theories and are creationists and to me it makes sense and fits with my worldview. You don't have to be a total idiot to accept creationism so stop with the assumptions.
  11. Well I want someone to actually challenge me on the issues. If I present evidence, pull that apart. Don't just look for a way to discredit the person who revealed it. I understand there are frauds both in the creationist world and scientific world. I'm also sure there are things I believe that are incorrect or been unproven. But I am tired of things just being dismissed and shrugged off simply because they don't agree with the monopolized scientific bias of billions of years so it can't possibly be true.
  12. They don't even disprove or challenge the actual find. "Who found it? Yep, it's a fraud. This guy isn't credible in my eyes." What creationist work will ever be credible? The second it challenges evolution, it's automatically rubbish in the eyes of scientific community and never given the light of day. So what's the point anymore? Not a single piece of evidence we have present here mattered. You just shrugged it off. Short of a dinosaur showing up on your front porch, you will take evolution to the grave.
  13. Oh yeah, the scientific community has all the 'facts' and 'evidence' to back them all. ALL they have are dating methods which are inaccurate and have been proven wrong numerous times! That's the ONLY thing science has to say anything is millions/billions of years old. But that one piece of 'evidence' outweighs thousands upon thousands of pieces of physical evidence and historical data saying otherwise and you roll your eyes at our 'urgent bias'. I think you are the ones who are desperate to prove we evolved and there is no God to which you desire to hold yourself accountable to.
  14. Yes that's exactly what science does when something is found to disprove their theories! "Oh, they were mining and it just collapsed in on them!" 1) Well, why wasn't there any historical data suggesting that people were mining there? If they were mining, it would be obvious. 2) fossilized remains already? 3) a woman and an infant? explain that. They have found man-man objects in with fossils dated 165 million years ago, in sandstone and in coal, even completely encased in rock. Again, more physical proof. http://www.articlesbase.com/religion-articles/human-artifacts-found-in-fossil-beds-237491.html
  • Create New...