Search results

And we know it's not because of things like the pythagorean theorem. They're very real, and very far away. I feel like a lot of what I say in my posts is lost because you don't respond to my individual points in turn. "God being a reference point" has nothing to do with physics, because God...

That you think your arguments stand in the first place is saddening. You missed it. Try again (emphasis mine): It must first be reiterated that with extraordinary few exceptions no educated person in the history of Western Civilization from the third century B.C. onward believed that the...

Arbitrarily, yes, BY DEFINITION. Arbitrarily defined as such, yes. Why do you assume God needs a reference point for ANYTHING? Why not let God Himself be the reference point, and go from there? Sorry, Dave, but geocentrism doesn't work. If you define the earth as an absolute reference...

You just don't like it because it completely destroys your arguments. I break it up because you make so many different assumptions and claims and conclusions all in one sentence or paragraph that it is extremely difficult to address any of it. In other words, you obfuscate so that it makes it...

This is a straw man, Dave. No one has argued that the moon, sun and stars can support life. What has been argued is that each have an atmosphere. Why do you assume that we think that the Earth is the same as the moon, sun, and stars? That they do. Keyword "appear." Once again, ALL MOTION...

This is that thread. I've clipped the parts from the quotes above that are not necessary for this discussion. I'd like to request, before we begin this thread, that those who participate in this thread do their best to honor God in their posts...

It doesn't say either way.

1M1S has been :nuke:ed. :carryon:

Not what it says. Try again. It is He who sits above the circle of the earth, And its inhabitants are like grasshoppers, Who stretches out the heavens like a curtain, And spreads them out like a tent to dwell in. - Isaiah 40:22...

Most Christians accept the Bible as God's word, and that the teachings and stories contained within it are true. But how can we verify that it is true, when so many people say things like, *it's just a collection of stories/myths, but it has no real accuracy? This thread is designed to explore...

Would you be willing to find a map of the flat earth that you would deem acceptable and then share it here? This is simply false, and whoever told you that was an idiot who has never tried to make a sphere out of paper without crumpling it up. Experiment: Take an orange, use a permanent...

This I will agree with. :thumb:

Actually, I want to correct myself. Was thinking about it just now, and if the atmosphere extending out past the moon is evidence for the hydroplate theory (which is a model of both the creation of the universe as described in the Bible, AND a model of the Biblical flood of Noah, then it isn't...

Agreed. See below.

Actually, they are, because (even though it's extremely thin) it really does extend that far. https://phys.org/news/2019-02-earth-atmosphere-moon.html Which, is just more evidence for the Hydroplate theory.

Belief in a flat earth is a symptom of mental illness. You need to get your head checked out, because no rational person would even consider that the earth is flat. In my opinion, we should have shut down the original thread when you started it, because allowing someone to spread such idiocy...

The earth wasn't ever NOT a ball, Dave. And now you're trying to be a revisionist historian. The idea that the earth is flat originated with Samuel Rowbotham in 1849. From what little research I've done on him so far, it doesn't seem that he has any ties to a belief in God when he came up with...

I wonder why... Both RD and I, and several other people have given you plenty of challenges that you have completely ignored. and also, what scriptural support does that model have ======== I asked about the flat earth flood model SEVERAL MONTHS AGO, Dave, and you said you would respond...

In other words, you're just going to ignore everything that was just said and forge ahead with your nonsense? At what point do you become just another troll, Dave?

That's exactly what you've been saying, Dave. Not according to you. Using the SUN as a frame of reference, the SUN is assumed to be motionless. The earth's orbit and spin is in relation to the (arbitrarily assumed) motionlessness of the SUN. No, it wouldn't, Dave. Why? Because the...