Jump to content
Online Baptist Community

qwerty guy

Advanced Member
  • Posts

    589
  • Joined

  • Last visited

About qwerty guy

  • Birthday 04/09/1976

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Not Telling

Recent Profile Visitors

3,487 profile views

qwerty guy's Achievements

  1. One of the biggest tricks the world has, is to take christians off the argument. Creation science is one of these. They will argue very high on the ladder, while most christians ignore the foundation. Take it to the very basics. Def: Science: WOAH. Problem already. You see, science in 1989 was defined as "Facts gathered through observation and experimentation" by Webster. starting in 1990, it was defined as "The study and theoretical explanation of natural phenomena" Well, I can give theoretical explination of any natural phenomena, but the wording is there to take God out of science. A great question in this argument (debate is wrong word to use given most of my experiences) Is that God at worst, is a Theory, thus science would demand exploration. Given the amount of observation; historical accounts, first person testimonies; it is purely scientific to explore the possibility of God. When you get an arms in the air "oh yea lets just follow the "god did it" easy answers" argument, rebuttal is simply that no one has seen an atom, and yet they are already teaching about electrons, and even WORSE: QUARKS! Oh my this mystic "ATOM" that no one can see WOOOooooo. Another rebuttal is pointing out secular scientific arrogance, in that nothing exists until they say it does. Long list of native testimonies of animals that secular scientists scoffed at only for it to be found later, not to mention the chemicals, cures, mathimatics, ect. They will cop an attitude at this point, that the scientists of that day where just stupid.. and of course we know better, more to the point THEY know better, at which point you can let them know they are to dumb to realize they are dumb, and recite the bible verses dealing with being puffed up with knowledge. This argument is easy. Given it's so easy, they use simple shell games and pre-programed questions to detract the casual christian. Stay focused on the root of what science is suppose to be and don't let them control the argument and play their games.
  2. It's most enlightening to read the comments after the article. :reality:
  3. Madison Wisconsin. Please start a church there so I don't get called
  4. wonder what kinda damage Satan could of done if he re-animated Moses and told Israel to go somewhere else. I'm more in line with what Cowboy was saying, that Satan wanted the actual body, what for we can only speculate.
  5. This is gonna be long, sorry... and I only got half way through the postings, so maybe some of this was answered better... sorry again.......... As a basis, first off, the catholic religion will certify although be it quietly, physics, fortune tellers, etc... so I have fun into people who think they are "saved" but also witches, due to the catholic church. That being said I continue: Witchcraft works as well as many watered down versions of it: A devil; a fallen angel, witness to creation and everything sense then; witness to thousands of years of mankind dabbling with occult spiritualism; Sees a modern day person do X with an X and knows what that person is trying to do, thus does what it can to make it come true. ( I will not give details on spells.. deal with the X stuff please ) Reasons for doing so: The person "casting" the spell, would be much less likely to accept Christ as a Saviour, when they feel they have a higher knowledge/ higher power, that they can be control of. Dong so for a saved person, would cause this person to champion the cause of idolatry, instead of Christ. How they do it: John 8:44 Ye are of your father the devil, and the lusts of your father ye will do. He was a murderer from the beginning, and abode not in the truth, because there is no truth in him. When he speaketh a lie, he speaketh of his own: for he is a liar, and the father of it. 2 Timothy 2:26 And that they may recover themselves out of the snare of the devil, who are taken captive by him at his will. As a saved person, God has the authority to offer some protection, given that your body was bought at a price... but the unsaved, are at the will of Satan, and God seems to only intervene so as you can get saved. If a person is unsaved, and a fall down the stairs is not going to intervene with salvation, the devils have free reign to cause that fall. Devils are self serving, with the priorities of keeping people from getting saved, secondary is to keep the saved from spreading the word. An unsaved person is quite able to cast a spell on another unsaved person is this fits the will of the devils, there is one around to actually witness it, and no Godly interference happens along. If you find a spell book from 620 Germany, and try and cast a spell... if there is a devil around to witness this, even if it doesn't know what you're doing, it can quickly ask and find out what exactly you are trying to do with your ribbons and candles and such. Some devil that remembers the junk from 620 germany fills in his buddy. If it fits their plan, it will work. The "witch" doesn't really have power, and the devils have no interest in giving power nor being subject to a person, they simply find it worth their time to distract from the real truth. They have full right to do what they want, as we see above, people are owned by and at the will of Satan until they are saved. If you have questions, Just message me... kinda tired of typing sorry
  6. On the ark... that's one that would fit into the "bring just the eggs" folder
  7. He musta died from being so tired from that long walk! (said in humor)
  8. I only skimmed it sir. Lack of time sorry. Is there something notable I was to look for?
  9. I'm currently reading these forums. Oh, and the book next to my bed is Preaching and Preachers Dr Martin Loyde-jones
  10. [quote="Alimantado"][quote="qwerty guy"] Would you like to please take the headlines from about 200 newspapers across the globe that week. And give me the scientific data on the averages of the word location where the failure was talked about? Maybe make me a graph showing the trends on major news sources in how they reported this? Or, you could just search out some examples to prove what you already assumed, then stick em up with sarcasm like you proved your point.[/quote] Sorry if you found the sarcasm offensive--looking back it was rather harsh and I apologise. I didn't purposefully seek out examples of newspapers that didn't fit your analysis; I just looked at the web-sites of 5 or so big news sources and found them all to be quite up-front about the failure of that machine. I'm sure you've seen some sources that did try to bury the bad news but I don't think that was a common response, based on the small sample I looked at. Happy to be proved wrong if you show me some more sources because frankly I don't care whether that machine works or not. Physics is boring![/quote] Don't sweat it friend. I found online is much more accurate, I noticed this back with this failure. I remember Drudge report had the headline "broke" and other online sources like Yahoo news came right out and told how it didn't work. I also noticed though that all the print newspapers I would read had headlines like "learning more of the big bang" and "Science 1 - end of earth 0" mocking people who thought it would blow us up. Those, the fact it didn't work was buried very deep. This isn't so much a condemnation of science as it is the news. Could be why print is dying. I noticed online they give you the news in as little words as possible, and in print they spend most of the time trying to tell you what you should think of it.
  11. Would you like to please take the headlines from about 200 newspapers across the globe that week. And give me the scientific data on the averages of the word location where the failure was talked about? Maybe make me a graph showing the trends on major news sources in how they reported this? Or, you could just search out some examples to prove what you already assumed, then stick em up with sarcasm like you proved your point. You really are scientist in training lol
  12. Yes. They did a couple tests, it smoked, they kicked it a couple times, and shut it down. They are now figuring it'll take 4 years to get er going for the first collision. This of course, means 2012, and has the tin foil hat web sites going nuts cuz of the mayan calendar end of world stuff. One thing I would like to point out is a prim example of what's wrong with main stream science and media: They tested a couple of the magnets, and headlines said that they operated it and it worked. Most people who pay only a little attention to the news, if asked, will respond that they already collided protons and must be learning a ton. You had to read down the articles to learn they powered up 10% of it and had to shut it down. Science has become a "good enough" realm. THey built it, they plugged it in, GOOD ENOUGH! report that we succeeded, and go ahead and start reporting our theories as facts. In the end, if they ever get the thing working, all they will be able to tell us is what they are able to see happen with protons hit each other. GOnna be funny to see how far they stretch that
  13. World of warcraft is not very respected by serious gamers, but I had it playing behind me for months. My roomate played it and yes, it's addicting. He'd go to work at 7am, come home around 5pm, play til 2am, go to bed and do it all over again day after day after day. I almost gave him an intervention. And he stopped much much sooner then others. I know of people who live like that for years. There was even a girl who prostituted herself for WoW coins to get her "epic mount" the coins would of cost her $200.00, or about 2 months of playing the game and earning them on there, instead she did something horrible. It's laughed about on game forums with screen shots of her posting and her very proud response that it worked. I wouldn't go near that game if someone payed me to play it.
  14. Well first off, keep in mind the argument could be made that the rate has not been a constant. It could of, billions of years ago, been moving .0000000000000001" away a year. The same Argument that creationists can use that gravitational force increasing as it's closer would cause it to "fall in" or the tides be too high, can be used by evolutionist that the moon wasn't moving away so fast before. BUT, this is the problem evolutionist face that have given us the theories that the moon is not native to earth, that it was "captured", that the moon was created by an impact with earth (the newest theory, is that a huge chunk of mars or the plant that created the asteroid belt, slammed into earth, spitting out a chunk of the earth on the other side, and accounts for heavy metals and the such near the surface) Another theory is that the moon was just fine for many billions of years, then got hit by something and has been slowly going away. I'm glad I'm a creationist, I get to use Arkem's razor. Just be ready for these arguments if you use the moon movement in any debates.
×
×
  • Create New...