Search results

I thought he said he was done and starting another thread about this thread.

This is actually a good question. How does the flat earth model accommodate the moon phases? I'm not asking Dave since he left the thread, but I'd still like to know.

I know you ended your participation here, but I found this comment interesting and this is how I would have answered it. The video did no such thing. The video assumed only that the sun was very close to 90 degrees from our viewing angle of the moon. You'd agree that when the moon is lit by...

This is simply not true. The Dunes are about 250 ft. higher than the lake. And the bluff a little farther north along the coast is a little more than 100 ft above the lake. And, BTW, the dunes are less than 60 miles from Chicago. This is important because swells at the lake level matter very...

That picture is what I'm talking about. It happens rarely, but it should happen often. And notice,too, that the picture was taken on a large dune, so that would eliminate any possibility that swells are what the Chicago skyline are hiding behind when we see (often) the tops of the buildings but...

Yeah, but the problem with the idea that fog or haze being in the way is that there are a great number of clear days throughout the year. But seeing Chicago mostly above the horizon happens at best only 2 times a year, and sometimes not at all in a year. Seeing the lights on top of the tall...

You meant "common descent" and not "evolution", no? Because I could agree that the arguments of common descentists are as insane as the flat-earthers (and probably why flat-earthers, in general, believe in common descent) due to the same mindset. But you see, arguing against flat-earthers is...

Not long ago we had an atmospheric event that allowed us on the east coast of Lake Michigan to see Chicago very clearly. The funny thing was that even as the air got *clearer*, the image faded and disappeared. That proves the image was due to factors other than Lake Michigan being completely flat.

And what makes it so funny is the flat delivery.

The laws of thermodynamics also prohibit cells from arising spontaneously, and smaller DNA molecules from becoming bigger DNA molecules (that work). Therefore, Miller/Urey proves (and by "prove" I mean "lends strong evidence to") that life cannot form naturally.

Poly really did put everything in context: Click here for context: http://www.theologyonline.com/forums/showthread.php?s=&goto=newpost&threadid=15478

Hilston - clear and able to stand on it's own: The rest of the post is here: http://www.theologyonline.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=543437#post543437

My first. Good enough to stand on its own, this is just a part of this substantial post: Get the rest of the post here: http://www.theologyonline.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=542675#post542675