I gave the source in my post.
I don't see a source, could you point it out here:
Christian Trinity:
God the Father
God the Son
God the Holy Spirit
Newton did not believe in God the Son. For him God could not become flesh.
-----
All original cosmologists from the Greek world were anti Christian and anti Biblical.
Was everything that they said wrong? Or just some of it? How do you know which parts are wrong and which are not?
All modern cosmologists today are anti Christian and anti Biblical.
Fathers of the Physical Sciences who velieved in the Creator God (or at least the ones relative to this discussion):
Galileo Galilei, 1642, Law of Falling Bodies
Isaac Newton, 1727, Gravitation
James Joule, 1889, Thermodynamics
Lord Kelvin, 1907, Thermodynamics (preferred Intelligent Design over Darwinism)
(See kgov.com/fathers for more scientists who believed in God)
Now we know that Newton was not really Christian.
Argument ad populum. You have not proven your claim, and are proceeding as if it has already been established. Prove your claim first, and then we can proceed with the rest of your argument.
He was influenced by Pythagoras for his cosmology not the Bible.
http://kgov.com/aron-ra-debates-creationist-bob-enyart
http://www.newtonproject.ox.ac.uk/view/texts/normalized/THEM00007
The first link you should read because it discusses Newton being a Christian; the second because it was written by Newton.
The obvious point was that tracks and everything else appear smaller in the distance,
You need to be clearer when making your points. This is what you said:
Depth perception tells us if something is near or far away.
The distance between the tracks simply gets smaller the further away it is gets.
No one is disagreeing that things are smaller in the distance. What you said however is that the distance between the tracks gets smaller as it gets farther away. Yet this is not true, just because they are farther away does not mean that the distance between the two rails on each side of the tracks is getting smaller, only that the "apparent size" of the objects is smaller only because they are farther away.
Now, is what I said a valid argument against what you wrote? Would you like to revise/rephrase what you said above?
but again you miss the obvious and misrepresent my point, a sinful thing to do.
I merely responded to what you said. In what way did I misrepresent you?