Search results

Not a bad rendering of the gospel. There are quite a lot of statements that are somewhat loaded with meaning that an uninitiated person might not notice and your tendency to capitalize certain words like the word 'rose' in "Rose from the dead", for example, is a bit puzzling but that might have...

I think what he was wanting you to explain is how this is relevant to the opening post? What difference does it make?

I assume you're referring to the verse cited in the opening post. Where in that verse does it say anything about God having "an unchangeable nature"? Indeed, where in all of scripture does it say anything about God having "an unchangeable nature"? Revelation 1:18a I am He who lives, and was...

But heat does require energy. Heat is energy. It doesn't mater! I never brought up temperature in the first place, you did! It isn't the temperature, necessarily, that would rip the material to shreds anyway, its the forces involved in accelerating things at such a rate. The G-forces alone...

I'm am genuinely shocked, disapointed, and ashamed of you, RD. This is the most flat-out dishonest nonsense I've ever seen you post. Shame on you! You should be embarrassed.

That was a lie. I cannot even believe that you, of all people, would have the temerity to say such a thing to me. You know better. If you can't refute what I've said with evidence then just keep your mouth shut. This is your evidence? Do you know how many different definitions of "a month"...

Saying it doesn't make it so and ChatGPT, while it is what I quoted in my post, is not the source of this objection but rather only serves as a corroborating witness to what I've heard others say in response to these ideas for a long long time. Well, its the energy that creates the temperature...

I'm not convinced that any such change actually occurred.

No, that isn't what I'm saying. It doesn't have to be one object. It could be one object or it could be millions of smaller objects. Regardless, the total mass is the same and it would had to have all gone up at pretty much precisely the same time or else it could never have coalesced into a...

This entire post argues MY point!!!! You are at least beginning to acknowledge the premise! You say it was a sixty mile barrel along which this material was accelerated. Fine. Let's go with that. Let's also use the 18 miles per second that seems clear is the minimum about of velocity these...

I read every syllable of it. Every single syllable. It has been years ago. When it was new but I did read every single word. It is irrelevant because the material could never have made it off the planet in the form of rock and dust (much less liguid water or ice) given the proposed method of...

I do not merely make the claim, I make an argument to support it. An argument you've not responded to except to claim that it "simply isn't true". Yes it is true. It absolutely has to be true. I cannot be otherwise. If you think otherwise then you tell me how any material exploded off the top...

I HAVE seen these videos before and I have read the entire book, which I own two copies of. I'm telling you, I understand the theory and I'm telling you that it (the formation of what would become comets and asteroids) cannot have happened the way the theory proposes. It makes logical sense but...

I understand that specific point but GPT's comment isn't quite the point I'm making. First of all, I do not believe that comets are collections of loosely bound rocks, dust and ice but leaving that aside and granting the notion for the sake of argument, the point I am making is that there...

I've used it quite a lot for various things. It's right a lot more than not IF you ask the questions correctly. The prompt (i.e. the question you ask) is enormously important and if you ask the same question a second (or sometimes a third time) in the same exchange, it gets better at figuring...

No, it would be just one, more or less ancillary, aspect of the theory that was incorrect. The origin of comets is in no way foundational to the theory. On the contrary, the book is what engendered my objections. More precisely, the books lack of evidentiary argument. In short, it makes the...

Once again, it seems anyone interested in tackling this topic or engaging me in discussion finds some way to get banned before I even get a chance to respond. You cannot have it both ways. You can't have both countless continuous decisions being made on one hand and then immediately claim that...

Said another way.... All words have a range of meaning. The actual meaning is determined by the context in which it used. In short, changing the topic of discussion doesn't count as a rebuttal of an argument.

Two things. First I'm not so sure that it's that huge of a blunder. Second, I'm not so sure that my objection is valid. In fact, the most important factor in my skepticism on the theories ideas about the origin of comets and asteroids has to do with the fact that no one seems to be able to...

Even if that were true, it's the same thing. His education vs mine is irrelevant to the truth or falsehood of that which is in dispute. Ah! That makes sense. No, I don't have a good recollection of our previous conversation, by the way. Sorry. Well, the problem isn't merely achieving orbit...