Search results

100% true! Welcome back, Dave! I've missed you!

Quite so, which was the point I was making. He wrote it in layman's terms. I'm not saying that he couldn't write the stuff up in more scientifically formal ways and do the math and all that. I'm sure that he is very capable of doing so. In fact, I wish he would, or, if he has done so already...

It was no less called for than when he said it to me. Indeed, more so because I actually responded to that point by demonstrating that a month can be pretty nearly anything close to 30 days and, in fact, the passages of Genesis are not there to intimate to us that months are 30 days. That isn't...

No kidding! That's what I already said!!!!!@ What planet have I been transported to here?!!! And says nothing at all about how it could actually happen in real life.

On the contrary. I've read the book and watched the videos and NONE OF IT addresses the issue I've brought up. It's taken till today for you to even act like you understood the argument I was making and so you haven't addressed it either. I'm perfectly open to being shown that I am wrong but...

In other words... Don't confused me with the facts... I've already made up my mind.... got it.

Romans 10 may have been about Israel but it was not speaking to Israel. The book of Romans was written to Romans, which is to say that it was written to Gentiles, not Jews. Paul was not teaching the Gentiles how Israel was saved but said, to his Roman audience... Romans 10:8 But what does it...

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...