Search results

We're going to Oregon. Definitely looking forward to it. Sent from my Z992 using TheologyOnline mobile app

But if FE'ers reject gravity, giving them an example of other forces altering the effects of gravity would have the appearance, at least to them, of bolstering their contention against gravity. On the other hand, if you were trying to explain why something they brought up to argue against...

Cool video, JR. But what is the application in this thread?

I'm not holding my breath.

Why does the bible say the sun rises and sets? If you discard the globe earth because of the Joshua passage, you must discard any flat earth model that doesn't have a RISING and SETTING sun. Sent from my Z992 using TheologyOnline mobile app

Yes, I agree completely. What I was trying to do with using the crepuscular ray angles was to show that the flat earth model can't use the crepuscular rays any more than the globular earth model. First, for the reason you state, and second, because it makes the sun ridiculously low...

Actually, no. The distances are based on real angles. What I did was first to point out that the angles of the closer sun would have to be the same as the angles of the further sun, just as the apparent size of the closer sun is the exact same as the apparent size of the further sun. Thus, the...

At least evolutionist have a holy book (Origin of the Species) that can be studied and refuted, But they both evade facts presented to them by shifting focus onto something else. A standard Jehovah Witness tactic. Sent from my Z992 using TheologyOnline mobile app

Consensus on anything in the flat earth model will kill it, and the purveyors know it, at least most do. That's why they won't grant it. But "3000 miles" is what I've seen to explain the difference between the shadow lengths that helped the Greek Eratosthanes calc the size of the earth 2500...

DFT_Dave, I wanted to continue with the thoughts on crepuscular rays, so I'm responding to my own post, while mentioning you. As I was pointing out in my previous post, the angles seen in the two photos of crepuscular rays hitting the earth (reproduced here for convenience) Show that angles...

Great! I gave reasons why it's fraudulent. Please respond with your case of why it is not.

A video is either a fraud or not--my opinion and yours notwithstanding. If you are really looking to find truth, then you need to reject videos that are frauds. I've shown at least two examples of fraudulent artwork from you. Whether you made the videos or pictures or not, because you have...

No, I'm just saying that the video, which you claim and it claims is "THE most undeniable proof of the Flat Earth SUN!", is a fraud. And if THE most undeniable proof of the Flat Earth SUN is a fraud, what does that say about the model? And we shouldn't just want a view to prevail over another...

I think the only thing that video proves is that guy who filmed it does NOT believe what he is pushing. You can tell because he had to set the table up so that it was ABOVE the level of the camera, thus causing the dime to sink out of sight as it moved away from the viewer. You can also tell by...

Are you sure you want to go there? We have a fairly good handle on how high clouds get to be. Most are below 20,000 ft, a fair amount below the altitude airplanes routinely fly. Some are a little higher, maybe reaching over 50,000 feet. That's about 10 or so miles. Are you saying the sun is...

Well, if it's made of almost nothing at all, then it will be easier to accelerate it at 1G-->F=ma. :) Plus, if it turns into a disk, then a lot of the mass isn't needed anymore. I keep thinking about this story: The rich man asked the mystic, "What does the world stand upon?" The mystic...

How do we determine the mass of the moon? Isn't it by the orbit it is in, its apparent size, and the effects it has on the earth, including the tides? If the moon were just 3000 miles away, and it's apparent size were the same, then to make its gravity the same would mean a decrease in...

I think you've misunderstood my point. What you've done, admirably and (mostly) patiently, is to attempt to correct the folly of a fool, or "answer a fool according to his folly". What you are now doing, admirably, is to cease doing so, or "answer not a fool according to his folly". I don't...

You've answered a fool according to his folly. Now its time to not answer a fool according to his folly. Sent from my Z992 using TheologyOnline mobile app

Thanks for helping to do so. So God set out the relationship He wanted Adam and Eve to have with Him. Satan, part of the creation, usurped that relationship, so Adam and Eve used knowledged gained from the creation as greater knowledge ("you shall NOT die") than the knowledge gained from God...