anthonyjmcgirr

You are trying to pound your square peg of belief into the round hole of reality...start from the evidence... We gave you the evidence. Do you deny there are gigantic fossils of the animals I described? Or the clay pottery and dinosaur carvings on burial stones and painted on cave walls? We've shown that all to you. There is much more evidence of that than the wax statues you find in any museum that supposedly show how human ancestors looked several million years ago. There's no fossil evidence presented...just images of what they think they looked like. Pure bias. Oh, did you know that they still teach science to kids in school that has been disproven a long time ago?

Most dinosaurs were no larger than a chicken. The gigantic ones could've been taken as babies correct? Or I have another theory. The fact that reptiles never stop growing and if you incorporate the earth's climate at a time before the flood and even before the curse. People lived so much longer, so why not the animals, insects, reptiles, etc? I've seen fossils of gigantic ants, scorpions, turtles, centipedes, etc...sizes that you do not see in nature today. Even humans were giants and there are bones and historical evidence to prove it.

How is it not right? It's the literal interpretation of the word that is backed up by Jesus Himself! He speaks of the flood as a real thing. His genealogy goes all the way back to Adam! The 7-day creation event is held up throughout the entire bible. You only challenge it now because atheistic scientists with an agenda to disprove God and keep getting their funding to support an ideal that ruins people's faith.

You have to imagine the men who are divinely inspired to write what they wrote. Like John trying to describe what he saw in Revelation. Describing massive locusts with a stinger like a a scorpion, etc, could've been black hawk helicopters for all we know. Like when modern day scientists mock the bible because rabbits don't eat their cud or whatever...all that classification didn't come until recent times. They wrote what they saw and experienced with the help of God, but didn't always know the best ways of describing it. The bible reveals a lot of things that we didn't know until modern times. Do you think you would do any better if given divine inspiration to reveal something supernatural? And why would dinosaurs be special in a time when they were the norm. Or maybe they weren't the norm in that specific area. They were seen by man and drawn on cave walls along with deer and other things. They were sculpted and etched onto burial stones. They've found footsteps of man and dinos side-by-side in the same layer. It's all there and covered up to keep this lie of evolution going.

^ you just completely dismiss the evidence he shared? I tried to post photos but it wouldn't let me. There are THOUSANDS and THOUSANDS of such evidence. But it's ignored and even in a lot of cases covered up by science. They've even gone out of their way to destroy evidence on cave walls and hide the bones of giants while promoting their theory of evolution with hardly any supporting evidence. You'll see this created image of what Neanderthal might've looked like from their imagination, but hide the bones of giants and try their best to discredit anything and everything that supports a young earth. And what motive do they have to do that? Money. The moment anyone even mentions intelligent design, they are ridiculed and instantly lose all credibility in the scientific community. They will most likely lose their jobs. So they have a reason to keep up with their lies and remove all evidence of Creation.

You want me to share with you biblical evidence of dinosaurs, but any mention I bring up, you can say it's poetical and has no merit? Job mentions Behemoth which is described as a Brontosaurus. History is full of stories of dragons and such. The word dinosaur wasn't coined until the 1800s. But science says all of these stories are myths. But it's enriched in every culture, these massive beings. There's carvings, cave paintings, Ica Stones, historical accounts of encounters and on and on.

Not really. It's based completely on bias. They tested the age of a dinosaur bone, not realizing it was a dinosaur bone when it was sent in for testing just to see what age the fossil would get without millions of years being assumed and it came back at around 5,000 years. They add into their calculation what they think the age SHOULD be based on the kind of bone, which species it belongs to. They then say that the layer must be X millions of years, so everything found in that layer must be around that age. And the ages I've seen are massively broad generalizations. "This is between 2-to-4 millions of years old." Really? That's not a very good prediction. There's no accurate dating method beyond 50,000 years. And the data is skewed because scientists assume they know the amount of stuff was in the atmosphere at that time, which they could be VERY wrong about. There could've been an abundant amount of carbon in the air pre-flood that would mess up all dating methods.

There's no way to determine which are older. Have you ever seen pictures of the frozen waves in Antarctica? Some have been found in my neck of the woods here in Michigan in the Great Lakes. Apparently, this water was below the current layer of ice, but was pushed upward. So what was on the lower portion of ice is now on top. That's why I don't trust ice cores. Ice shifts, breaks, melts, re-freezes, pushed, moved, etc. Same with rocks and sediment. The ground at Yellowstone has risen ten inches. The whole earth is a living organism it seems, moving and shifting under the ground. We've found man-made materials encased in coal deep down inside where it shouldn't be. What does that tell me? It tells me that when the flood happened, a man-made object got mixed in.

Actually, I was an atheist and evolutionist until I was 19 when I became a Christian. I realized that everything I believed and studied before didn't match up with what I read in the bible, so I started to study alternatives. The more I looked at it, the more I felt kinda dumb. I'm not calling anyone who accepts evolution as dumb...just sharing that I felt dumb for ever thinking the universe and everything within could've ever come to be by itself without the help of a Creator. And if an all-powerful Creator Being exists, as I believe He does, He shared with us how He did it. And He could've done it by speaking everything into existence in a process that scientists would say took millions and millions of years. That's the only way they can come up with those kinds of figures...because it would take millions (or billions) of years to happen on their own without God. But I now don't believe it could've happened at all without God and that changes everything.

^ hey that's a good question!

Hello I was trying to post pictures in the science vs. faith sub-forum and it keeps telling me I'm not allowed to do that. Or rather, it's not allowed in that section. Is there a particular reason? I think of all areas, that one should benefit from photographic evidence of things to embolden our discussions.

Still it's assuming bias. I can fit all the evidence into a biblical time frame in a way that is completely logical. The only illogical idea to me is how anything can happen on its own without the help of a Creator. Even with millions of years scientists assume things happen, they still don't know why or how...just theories to support their naturalistic bias. And again, when you look at fossils, you only ASSUME that a fossil lower in the ground is older. As I pointed out, the smaller creatures that crawl and are slow would've been swallowed up first by sediment, followed by the faster animals, followed by the animals that could climb trees and hide from the flood where the reptiles could not. How did the mammals survive the so-called comet/asteroid impact over the dinosaurs?

Yeah I just don't get why they can't accept there is more than one way to interpret the evidence! I see flood evidence all over the world. Even scientists will agree that at different 'stages' the whole world was covered. Like, they explain the Grand Canyon as being carved out by a massive lake that existed in the area covering the space of several states and over millions of years it was carved out. Well, why not by a world-wide flood? It would be a perfect example of such a flood occurring, with marine fossils found all over the canyon. We've seen with Mount St. Helens that such massive, devastating, powerful events can change the area instantly. But if we had no record of the volcano's eruption, scientists would assume all that happened over a span of millions of years.

Well, if I'm not mistaken, mammals could climb trees and dinosaurs couldn't. And they were probably more intelligent. Why would Noah waste 120 years to build an Ark for a local flood? It would be simpler to move a few miles or into the mountains for a small local flood. A small local flood wouldn't cover the mountains. How else would you find massive fossilized clams on top of mountains? As for the so-called Geologic Column...it is completely built upon false assumptions and circular reasoning. Scientists say, "Wow, we found this bone in this layer, so this layer must be X millions of years old because this dinosaur lived at that time." "Whoa, how do we date this bone? Well, it was found in X layer, so it is X millions of years old." And the ONLY way you get a fossil is if the animal is immediately covered in sediment which is most likely to happen in a flood. And not to mention, you cannot get any accurate date by any dating method. Those, too, are also made in bias because you can't accurately date anything beyond 50,000 years old.

I would say not having a uniform layer of sediment would be absolute proof of the flood. It would've caused a mixing of sediments would it not? And there are plenty of places where the fossils are mixed and in different places. There are marine fossils on the highest mountains (including Everest). There are whale fossils in the middle of deserts. So there are definitely fossils where they don't belong. And I would also assume that the plants and animals closer to the ground and unable to move as fast would get buried before the larger animals that can run to higher ground away from the oncoming water. So that explains how scientists can interpret layering as different ages that could've resulted from a flood. I believe that the existence of a Supernatural Creator changes the whole thing. Scientists trying to record events as they occured naturally will definitely come up with millions of years. BUT if a flood happened and God does exist, it changes everything science thinks it knows about the earth or even the universe. That's why I refuse to watch that show on FOX, "Cosmos". I don't like being lied to.

The bible says it retreated, so it probably went back to where it came from.

Scientists have recently come across a discovery that could prove there's a reservoir of water under the earth so massive it could contain all the water currently in the earth's oceans. Of course the article doesn't point to the biblical flood, but says it's more like how it's imagined in Jules Verne's "Journey to the Center of the Earth." But if you ask me, it really take away the argument that there's not enough water on the earth to cover the mountains. It also speaks to the bible saying that water burst forth from within the earth and not just 40 days and nights of rain. http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-2579584/The-vast-reservoir-hidden-Earths-crust-holds-water-ALL-oceans.html

*blind post...I don't know if this has been brought up in this thread before* I don't think scientists have a clue about the sun. They have their ideas, but deny that when a comet hits the sun, the sun has no reaction. But we have witnessed MANY occurances of comets hitting the sun and a CME resulting and science still says it's a coincidence because it just isn't possible! *gasp!*

Interesting discussion. I've always wondered, if our sun is moving across space amongst a spiraling arm of the Milky Way galaxy, how is it that we still get meteor showers 2-3 times a year? Does the sun drag everything with it in perfect order?

Yes, their theories seem crazy. But they bring forth evidence that totally lines up with the bible, except instead of biblical explanations, they believe it was aliens. But they even show evidence of giants, the walls of Jericho falling, a young earth and a lot of other things. I keep thinking, "you guys are so close to having the answers!"

================================================================ Agreed. However: They have actual data that does show it slowing down from the late 1600's (See Setterfield and Norman) Is it possible their science then was flawed? I'd like to see this data.

^ that's a good site with a lot of evidence. There are even historical events described by Alexander the Great and many others who recounted battles with dinosaurs and dragons, but they are considered myth by science. But what if they were real? Scientific bias absolutely refuses any idea that dinos and man lived together. But the evidence is there all over the earth. In some cases, scientists even try to cover it up and destroy the evidence!

Wow the pictures didn't show up. But I haven't seen any that are definitively aliens. They are humanoid shaped, but all kinds of tribes and civs wore strange helmets, hats, masks, etc. And I do believe the beginning of Ezekiel describes what we would consider an extra-terrestrial experience, but the bible says it was seraphim's bringing to earth the throne of God. So could the UFOs we've seen be demons trying to trick humans? Very possible. If the rapture is a true event, the anti-Christ will need an excuse for millions of people disappearing off the earth.

I was watching ancient aliens today. I don't accept the ancient astronaut theories, but every time I watch the show, I think, "wow, all of these things that they're finding adds mounting evidence that the bible is true. These guys are SO close to finding God." But, of course, they ascribe it all to aliens having visited the earth in the past. But what I saw today was amazing. They were discussing the idea of dinosaurs and man co-existing. It was incredible to me that here was an extra-biblical show, without the creationist or Christian bias, talking about the evidence of dinosaurs and man co-existing. They listed a ton of different things and after each point, said that scientists "are skeptic" or they "deny" the evidence has any standing. If the geologic timescale is correct, why is there evidence of men and dinos co-existing in the same strata if they were separated by millions of years? Like this human and dino footprint in limestone: They have found sculptures of dinosaurs: Cave paintings: Ica Stones: There are many, many of such examples. They said if one man made all the Ica Stones they found, he would've had to make 1,000 stones each year for 43 years. What do you think of the physical evidence of man and dinosaurs living together versus the unprovable evidence that they didn't co-exist?

As much as I want to accept the theory, I have been doing more thinking. What is obvious to me is that anything science has to say about galaxies is pure unproven (and unprovable) theories. There is no way they can know that galaxies only make one or two revolutions before they dissipate. They have no clue how old each galaxy is. They have no clue how quick (or slow) a galaxy forms. They have no clue the age of the individual stars or the length of their lifespan. It's pure assumption that they turn into white dwarfs, etc. They have no way of knowing if the speed of light was faster and is slowing down. We can't prove any of these things.