Search results

Again, you demonstrate your ignorance of the subject. In the sciences, the term "theory" has a specific meaning. It is not the same meaning as the term when used in everyday language. Gravity is demonstrable, testable, and one can make testable predictions using the "theory". That is the...

No, the rainbow is not the curvature of the firmament. That is evident given that one can usually see clouds above a rainbow.

No, we are not enemies. However, your arguments are devoid of substance. When I ask for evidence or challenge your claims with scientifically valid assertions, you dodge. That's lame, not Christian. If you can't mount an evidentiary defense of your position, you might want to reconsider whether...

The OP did not define what he means by a "true believer" as opposed a mere "believer". He will affirm the responses that agree with his unstated definitions, and reject those that disagree. We're wasting our time responding further.

I will grant that gravity is a "theory", but it is so in the scientific sense and not in the colloquial sense. Prove it. Don't waste your time with conspiracy hogwash; show the EVIDENCE.

I appreciate your irenic tone, but your post gives me nothing to ponder, except the unfortunate state of your understanding of actual physics. "Weight" is governed by gravity whereas Mass is independent of gravity or any other force. You make claims and provide nothing in the way of evidence...

Your credibility suffers from poor spelling. The word is existent. "Pushing downward"? By what force? Your "science facts" have nothing to do with science. Your post strongly suggests that you know little of either.

Sources? Utter hogwash. No, it doesn't. More utter hogwash. For a limited time only, because atmospheric effects only allow them to be visible beyond the horizon for a certain distance.

The Bible does not teach that at all. No, 1 Timothy 2:12 does not say that, in case you're about to blast a response.

Thanks; I appreciate the clarification.

Are you suggesting that Adam's prior creation grants him some kind of inherent authority over Eve, which continues today such that ALL males have authority over ALL females (or, in a more limited sense, husbands over wives)?

So why did you previously state, "This is saying women will actually desire to be in the place of authority of the man." You are suggesting that there is a "place of authority of the man" that women could desire to occupy.

Homework? It will take you all of two minutes to read those posts. In short, the latter part of Genesis 3 lists consequences for sin, not commands for males and females.

Agreed. This can be demonstrated with a simple 2-d drawing. However, the same is true of objects in the distance on a curved surface, which can also be demonstrated with a simple 2-D drawing. The apparent height of the objects will be less over a curved surface than over a flat surface. This...

See my previous posts in this thread, numbered... 8, 22, 38, 43, 44, and 50.

Your comments betray an a priori belief in a certain interpretation of these passages.

I haven't made any assumptions about heavenly bodies. I have challenged you and other FE proponents to explain the observed reality in the framework of your FE model(s). NONE of you have done so. None have even attempted to do so. Gary has attempted to explain it away, and you seem to be...

That's nonsensical. The two are not in contradiction with each other. If your assertion were sound, you could be "male alone" OR "human alone" but not both.

What you both overlook is that there are degrees of maturity and learning among Christians. We don't get saved and immediately understand all things properly; we must learn things over a lifetime, and in the process, we come to change our minds on certain issues.

Why not?