Jump to content

anthonyjmcgirr

Advanced Member
  • Posts

    194
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Reputation

37 Neutral

1 Follower

About anthonyjmcgirr

  • Birthday 02/27/1984

Profile Information

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

Recent Profile Visitors

1,276 profile views
  1. 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.
  2. 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.
  3. 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?
  4. 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.
  5. 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
  6. 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.
  7. ^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?
  8. 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.
  9. 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.
  10. 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.
  11. 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.
  12. 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
  13. They have found human fossils in cretaceous rock. Except scientists follow circular reasoning. If they find dinosaur fossils, well then the rocks are 165 million years ago, but if they find human bones, well then it's only 1 million or less. So that's how science assumes age and why they will never, ever *find* human and dino fossils in the same 'strata'.
  14. I'm sorry, but you must be in total, utter denial to totally dismiss the evidence Enoch presented. It's actual physical proof! It's much more proof than any evolutionary theory has or can offer. But short of a T-Rex taking over San Diego, you will just brush it off your shoulder. Dawkins said if there was any proof whatsoever it would destroy evolution? Just ONE drawing of a dino on a cave wall does that. But you have thousands of pieces of evidence in just the Ica stones alone. Yes, people say they are hoaxed. What evolutionist wouldn't immediately just say they were? They pinned it on one man who had to claim he created them in order to avoid going to jail. But truth be told, it would've taken one man over 40 years to create them all, making a thousand a year. IMPOSSIBLE! So no, I believe they are real, 40,000 pieces of physical evidence of man and dinos living together. The verses about Behemoth talking about having a tail as a cedar. That doesn't describe an elephant, giraffe or any of the other animals you mentioned. They all have tiny tails. What animal is so massive, with a tail that large? yes, a dinosaur. And the bible account isn't the first such account historically written. When it comes to the canopy article you posted, people make a lot of assumptions. Was Mt. Everest the size it is now? Did ALL the water from the flood come from this canopy? The answer is no. The bulk of the water came from the deep, as another article I posted has scientific evidence for. They say it's possible that there's enough room under the earth to contain more water than is currently on the surface! But when all of this was going on, the earth was shifting. Like the mid-Atlantic ridge, pulling apart the continents and all the water rushing in, creating the river basins, pushing up mountains, forming things like the Grand Canyon, laying down miles of glaciers once the earth instantly cooled after the canopy fell and the north regions, once tropical now suddenly winterized. That's the only explanation for mammoths that were instantly frozen in the middle of eating their dinner with green stuff on their teeth and still in their stomachs. As for having evidence, such as humans and dinos in the same strata, how can that be proven? You see a dinosaur bone and automatically assume the strata to be millions of years old. Yet they find dino bones with collagen and blood in them, footprints of dinos and humans in the same rock layer at the same riverbed. Cave paintings, statues, carvings, Ica stones, historical evidence and tales of people encountering these creatures, etc, etc, etc...and you just shrug it all off.
×
×
  • Create New...