Search results

The flaw in the FE argument concerning crepuscular rays is revealed if you look at the shadows of clouds from above. The shadows of the clouds fall straight down just as is depicted in the right-hand image in the video thumbnail. The "rays" do not converge any more than railroad tracks converge...

Well, there's a comment I can agree with. But that wasn't my point. The point was that you've accused me of not answering your arguments. The fact is that I have done so and you have completely ignored the counter-arguments and now repost a refuted video as though no counter argument was...

Previously refuted. All counter arguments ignored.

This is a lie, David. You ought to repent and apologize. I am the one who, FOR MONTHS, not only responded to virutally every point made in the assinine videos you presented but defended your reputation that was being damaged for having even posted them! David, you need to stop. You are...

I never claimed that Newton was a Christian, although my bet is that he was, even if his doctrine was in error. The point being that he didn't reject the Bible or its worldview as false nor did he consider biblical teaching to be in conflict with the nature of reality. And there certianly is no...

Saying it doesn't make it so. Precisely my point, Dave! Contrary to what you're suggesting, the vast majority of scientists are not members of some secret society which is promoting some grand anti-Christian conspiracy. On the contrary, the fathers of most any science you care to name were all...

Dave, This unresponsiveness on your part is the reason you've driven everyone nearly insane on this thread. Why are you afraid to address the arguments? Do you believe that it is a rationally valid to ignore counter arguments and to simply jump from one refuted argument to the next? Is that...

I picked your post to respond to because you're the one who said "You guys should try to stay on the topic of the thread..." and the proceeded to bring up dispensationalism, of all things. The bottom line is - if your (or someone else's) comments don't have something to do with cosmology, keep...

Stop attempting to hyjack the thread. Discuss the flat earth model or something related to it or go away. No one here wishes to discuss dispensationalism or Mormonism or Preterism on this thread.

I got a good answer to the first of these questions by the way. The reason impact craters are almost always round is because there is sufficient energy in the impact to rapidly melt and even vaporize portions of both the meteor and the impact site. This causes what is essentially a secondary...

Are you being serious? (not sarcasm - really asking)

What would be causing the shadow over exactly half of the Earth in the first place?

I love that this thread seems to have nine lives! Hey Dave, I found a video of a presentation the Wal Thornhill gave a couple of years ago. It seems directly up the ally you wish to be on in regards to reevaluating modern cosmology. Some of it will be too technical but mostly not. If nothing...

That isn't an argument. It's an attempt to say, "OOOH Ugly video that I don't like! The whole position and anyone who agrees with any version of it must be a religious lunatic! AAAHH! Get me out of here!" It's called an Ad Hominem argument. Most people think that the mere act of calling...

Typical ad hominem argument from someone who hasn't any idea what he's talking about.

Cool! I'll be anxious to see what you think of it. Incidentally, have you ever noticed that the craters on the Moon and elsewhere are almost universally round? Do you suppose that every meteor hit the Moon's surface at or near a 90° angle? Doesn't sound right, does it? Also, why are there so...

Those are not "not natural". They aren't even mutations.

I haven't been following your discussion very closely and am not certain just what you meant here so forgive me if I'm jumping to unfounded conclusions here but, "not natural"? Just what do you think you mean? I don't intend to start a whole discussion on this, I just thought you might want to...

No one is whining but you. I understood your point and responded to it directly, which you missed entirely proving my contention that you could not answer a single argument that I might choose to present in defense of a young earth paradigm. I have built my entire life - my entire life - upon...

Except that there are real rational arguments that can be made in support of that contention that neither you nor anyone else can answer. Don't attempt to highjack the thread on this topic. If you want to debate the age of the Earth, start another thread.