Search results

This isn't true Dave. Not only did I begin with civil dialog and reason and no name-calling, even with name-calling the arguments we provided against FE have been logical and on topic. You have simply chosen to ignore direct responses. Just get a little thicker skin and you could be having a...

Could you elaborate? I'm not sure what you are saying. It sounds like you are saying if the wind were not blowing it wouldn't be moving. Again, I don't understand what you are saying. The wind created this movement? What movement? I think you are trying to say that if the earth were spinning...

It's not a false picture. It's a hypothetical. Haven't you ever used a hypothetical before? Of course. But narrowing to one frame of reference allows us to understand a part of the whole because it would be too complicated otherwise. Of course not the while force of the global wind. But only...

Because our faces would be affecting the wind as much as the wind would supposedly affect our faces. What would our faces be doing to the wind? Our faces would be slowing the wind down - agreed? And if our faces slow down the wind, then what would speed it up again? Nothing can speed back up...

Would you agree it would kill us because it would rip us to shreds? But if air is not affected by things that go through it, then how could it affect our faces?

Then say that in reply. But you ignored what I said and then have the gall to demand that we pay attention to what you say. Ok. Your current claimed contradiction that we should be getting hit in the face with 1000mph winds if we look east at the equator on a globe earth is not thought through...

No, the parallel is between flat earth arguments and common descentists arguments. Specifically, the avoidance of dealing with inconvenient facts. Sure, start a thread and commit to answering in it. You won't. You always throw a couple snide comments and leave before anything can be established.

You are a hypocrite Dave. When I tried to discuss this topic with you, calmly and without name calling, you ignored me. You are a hypocrite Dave. When Clete presented some compelling evidence for a view that opposed your's, you ignored it. Why should we pay attention to what you post? You are...

So the question remains. Why do Christian flat earthers even discuss the science of it at all? It should be a case of "God said it, that's it." They should rely on their brief observations and end any discussion there. All questions or challenges should be met with "I don't care" and/or "the...

This statement cannot be defended. It is too strongly worded. Are you sure you don't want to restate this with a little more humility? If you really want to stand by this statement, it will be a reflection on you that you will not recover from.

Clete called them real concepts. Think of it better like this: it isn't that time exists that keeps everything from happening at once - it is that in reality not everything happens at once and we call the antithesis of everything not happening at once "time". It's just a name describing reality...

I had always wondered why God would be so worried about us swearing - taking the name of the Lord in vain. The commandments before that one, and the ones about our relationship with men afterward, seemed so much more real and important. Then, of all places, I hear Dennis Prager say that passage...

In Soviet Russia, thread revives you!

I think Kent Hovind is often wrong. But he seems to have a good idea here: Let's not forget that the flat earth society was started entirely by people that were not fundamentalist Christian.

If this isn't true then this isn't true either. Are you sure "Neither the air, the atmosphere, nor gravity effects the movement of anything through it."? Can you think of a way to test this? edit: HT to JudgeRightly

And he's posted good thinking in some evolution threads as well. Perhaps we should ask directly if he's been self medicating?

The word "behavior' is close enough, even if it isn't the perfect word. You've reduced yourself to a meme: This brings up the point of my post. You don't respond to people discussing each topic with you using only reason. And you don't counter with any of your own words except on a surface...

Dave continues to add evidence to the idea that he is unable to think well enough, or focus well enough, to discuss the topic. As Knight has brought up, it seems like the mind that has spent too much time altered by marijuana. Although there may be other reasons why Dave shows this kind of...

I have yet to see Dave engage with anything but the simplest observations, even while he also ignores simple observation that runs counter to his claims. He uses videos to explain anything more complicated than that. I think it's reasonable to posit that he is having trouble focusing on a topic...

Right. And I focused on the horizon. Don't you think it's rational for someone to question your seriousness when they agree to your parameters of debate and you still ignore them?