Search results

I'm glad you recognize that. Now apply it to yourself first.

Keep going. lol... The last time you actually learned something, did you recognize along the way that you didn't know it previously? If so, ponder that sensation. It should be more familiar to you.

Yawn. I grow tired of your stubborn folly.

This is Jesus speaking of Himself. :)

Or, in an Auzzie accent: The rine in spine falls minely in the pline. ;)

That you think an arc is the same shape as a dome speaks to your general understanding of both geometry and physics. Or, rather, lack of understanding.

It's sad that you think you're witty.... You claim that a plane cannot land on a moving earth, but it can land on a moving carrier. Your illogic isn't even internally consistent.

So how do planes land on a moving aircraft carrier? Or do you deny the existence of those too?

Please, keep displaying your complete ignorance on this subject. I appreciate the entertainment.

Sadly there is a lot of misinterpretation of Gods' word being presented as "truth" on this site lately.

So, you have no actual explanation. You just believe it can't happen, despite clearly not having investigated the matter. Do the math yourself and stop allowing your a priori bias to prevent you from learning.

Now, how about an actual answer to my question?

Please explain, in reasonable detail, your rationale for believing as you do.

I did in a previous post. However... Relative sizes of water mass, ice mass, land mass. Albedo of ice/snow vs that of open water. Start with those. Then look at ocean and wind currents. The amount of sunlight is not the sole determining factor. If it were, there would be bands of...

I have posted corrections to these claims many times, and you stubbornly refuse to accept them. You are incorrect and no amount of repetition will change that. Of course, you will post a red "X" on this. However, you have not and cannot refute the truth. Repeating your error only reflects...

HI Evmur... Your post is self-contradictory. You criticize another for not sticking to God's word: Then later you say this: As you can see for yourself, the text says nothing about the angels' physical capability for sex. You are "adding a great deal of speculation". Um, yeah. With...

Your key doesn't fit the lock. You argue for the exact English words when it suits you, and ignore them when it doesn't. When you have integrity, you don't need to change the rules like that.

He didn't. You must be projecting.

It "proves" nothing of the sort. Go and learn what "proof" is. YOUR INTERPRETATION of the verse does not prove anything. You may be convinced, but nobody else is obligated to be convinced... especially when your interpretation stands on speculation.

Again you practice hypocrisy, presenting the word study for Genesis 6 and failing to apply the same tools to Job 1, 2, and 38. Get some integrity!