Search results

:yawn: You done yet? Answer what has been presented to you.

Instead of bringing up red herrings, how about you respond to what I wrote:

So bring pedophilia charges against him. Can you? I noticed you didn't answer my question, but tried to distract from it: So you would be OK with pedophiles who didn't make the conscious choice to like children to live nextdoor to you and your family? How about if he or she was a homo? Would...

So you would be OK with pedophiles who didn't make the conscious choice to like children to live nextdoor to you and your family? How about if he or she was a homo? Would you, or would you not, like it if a pedophile moved in next door who claimed to be a pedophile only because he was "born...

Do you apply this same logic to pedophiles also? Or is it just for the homos?

Hardly any of that made any sense at all. Please correct your grammar. Loaded question. Reality is reality. It doesn't belong to anyone. If a man jumps off a train, his perception will change, but not reality. Reality is that he was on a train, then he jumped off of it, and then landed on...

There is nothing irrational at all about it, AND it perfectly fits reality. Relative to what? Dave, when you have to concede the entire point to make the argument against your opponent's position, your argument has failed. Yup, the train is stationary relative to the person on the train...

He's talking about these, you idiot: Those are called orreries.

The gifs were working for me...

It was explained clearly in the video. Calling it nonsense when you don't provide reasonable evidence against it is called an "appeal to the stone" fallacy. That is the kind of argument you have made. The SpaceX video does nothing to contradict the video I posted, and if anything, is...

That second orrery looks like it was designed. The first just looks like a jumbled mess...

The definition of motion, once again, is this: Motion: "the action or process of moving or being moved." How is motion defined: In physics, motion is the change in position of an object or a physical system with respect to its surroundings. Motion is mathematically described in terms of...

And? Notice how Dave completely ignored the point that was made about NASA allowing very few people (not "no one") to use their industrial grade vacuum chamber? False premise. Tell ya what, Dave. Why don't you try researching this topic for a bit before you start commenting on it and making...

As long as by "settled" you understand that there is no necessity for there to be a blast crater on the surface of the moon, because of how little thrust was needed by the main thruster on the lunar lander because it wasn't moving very quickly, then yes, this matter is settled. If by posting...

DUH, DAVE! That is, BY DEFINITION, how motion is determined! What do you think we've been SAYING for the past few months!? MOTION IS DEFINED BY ARBITRARILY DESIGNATING AN EXTERNAL FRAME OF REFERENCE! Except that, BY DEFINITION, there IS no such absolute reference point, BECAUSE OF THE FACT...

The fact that it CANNOT account for something that happens on a regular basis/exists shows it is a failure of a model, and should, at best, be discarded.

Not what I asked Dave. I asked if you were going to deny the EXISTENCE of thing that were brought back from the moon. Because they do, in fact, exist. Note how Dave will avoid discussing ANYTHING that clearly refutes or rebuts his position, such as a CLEAR explanation of where lunar regolith...

Refraction CANNOT ACCOUNT for the sun going BELOW the horizon on a flat earth, because it is NOT possible to have the sun that low on a flat earth, as Clete has shown you MULTIPLE times.

:blabla: Why is that a problem? Why should they? They're trying to simulate the surface of the moon. The moon's surface (aside from what little atmosphere there is) is for all intents and purposes a vacuum. In the moon's atmosphere, there are only 100 molecules per cubic centimeter. In...

I'm going to let you watch this video. https://www.dailymotion.com/video/x2m7k1z (couldn't find it on discovery.com, sorry) And then I'm going to ask you to not try to completely change the topic from the current discussion.