Search results

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...

As RD said: I'm still waiting on a response to my challenge to you about the flood model you use to describe Noah's Flood. Could you please present a response? Here are just a few things that need to be addressed: 1. Meteorites 2. Continental plates (volcanos, earthquakes, "ring of fire") 3...

Unless you can show an absolute frame of reference, motion is by definition measured against an arbitrary external frame of reference, which is assumed to be motionless for the purpose of describing the motion of the object. Motion is, by definition, arbitrarily defined.

Lon has a way with words that I admire, even though I disagree with some of his theology. His defence of the Trinity, however, is excellent! Way to go, @Lon! =•=•=•=•=•=•=•= Thread rules: 1. Congrats only 2. No debating 3. No trolling Any disruption of the thread or rule breaking will...

You're moving the goalposts, Tam. The Bible is supported by science. That is not to say that there are things in the Bible that cannot be explained by science. As far as the six day creation, why do you say that "science" does not support it? Because last I checked, the only thing that...

That's because they're written by people who reject that God made the universe in 6 days, and those in positions of authority within the scientific community do anything they can to silence those who even voice any sort of opinion against Darwinism. "Slaughter of the Dissidents" by Jerry...

"All science supports the Bible" is not the same as "everything in the Bible can be explained using science." Right, but even the laws of the physical universe prohibit anything but a supernatural cause to the universe. Rather, the explanations of the people who reject God as the Uncaused...

Basically this: A supernatural event cannot be explained nor refuted by natural explanations. HOWEVER!... The fact that science confirms portions of the Bible, and insomuch as we have confirmed the historicity of things in the Bible, they lend credence to the rest of the Bible being true, even...

https://youtu.be/sNeou5p5f5s Super cool! They basically took scans of Neil Armstrong's space suit and then 3D printed replicas, took a casting of the 3D printed model, used the molds to make replicas which will be shown across the country for the 50th anniversary of the launch of Apollo 11...

Rather, there is no absolute frame of reference with with to measure all motion. Actually, light is a bit weird when it comes to physics. Because photons have energy and momentum, but no mass, once emitted from a source, their speed and direction, their velocity, (in a vacuum) does not...

To be fair, there are plenty of excellent posts made by the opponents of the flat earth (can't say the same for the FE side, as it's mostly just repetitious arguments rehashing the same thing) and even some gems like Clete's post on the angle of the sun above the horizon being less than 1°.

The original thread (locked and in the Hall of Fame) has over 5000 posts.

By definition, all motion is relative to an arbitrarily assigned frame of reference. In physics, motion is the change in position of an object with respect to its surroundings in a given interval of time. Motion is mathematically described in terms of displacement, distance, velocity...

Pretty sure that's exactly what RD was asking you since YOU'RE the one who asked: So, Tam, relative to what?

I'll ignore the bait and switch you just tried to pull for a moment so we can have a polite and reasonable discussion. No, I'm simply defining it because you asked for a definition of gravity. I'm not claiming to know the fundamentals of what causes gravity to work. I'm simply telling you that...

Gravity: the force that attracts a body toward the center of the earth, or toward any other physical body having mass.