if they can mate they are the same kind,
I never said that! That's absurd! I said "Interbreed." and I meant "Interbreed and conceive" (and have updated my page to say so.)
if they look similar they are the same kind. LOL how funny : )
What's so funny about it? Even today we have species which look similar but cannot interbreed and conceive which we both agree are related by common descent! For example, the break in any ring species.
I don't think I even need to reply about that silly system, all one species no less.
I don't see what's so silly about it and I didn't even say "all one kind" and I have no idea what you mean by "all one species." (I most certainly didn't say that!)
What do descending testicles have to with invincibility?
Invincibility would have more to do with jugular veins, but my guess is that God had in mind that men wouldn't be invincible as men either - ancient kings and queens often had their closest menservants castrated so they wouldn't be tempted to do things with queen that upset the king. But that's besides the point - natural process takes the easiest path - and to a person who is not bound by the dogma that "There is no God and it must have happened otherwise" some things in life do not look like the natural path of progression.
Your argument is specious to say the least. Basically you are saying that things are the way they are because God made them the way they are.
No, my argument is that "Some things in life do not appear to me to make sense if ASBE (all species by evolution) is true." You then counter "Well God wouldn't have done them that way either," to which I reply "You don't know that - God well may have done them that way."
I think I have just lost any respect I had for you.
Oh that's funny! first you say that I'm a "reprobate and a serial liar" and now you imply that you lost some respect for me?! Just how much respect do you have for people you think are reprobate and serial liars anyway? I guess you need some self-respect :-)
If I go back and show you were I answered it, what will you do for me?
Well, I'll probably then ask "What about a stationary heavenly body that is 12 light hours away."
But why should I have to do anything for you to get the truth? Is truth only available from you at the right price?
In any case, it'll show that at least some of your many unsubstantiated claims are true. And remember, this is the question that I'm seeking to have you answer:
When the earth turns 102 degrees in the time it takes light to reach it from Pluto, for an observer on earth, at a singe point in time, will the gravitational pull direction of Pluto be angularly displaced by about 102 degrees from its optical direction, assuming that the gravitational and actual positions are the same? So is it about 102 degrees displaced or not?
How about a public apology and an admission that you don't know anything about Science and your belief in God is a complete sham? I think that sounds about fair.
You haven't yet demonstrated that I was wrong or that my belief in God is a sham of any sort! Show me your best evidence and we'll take it from their. It is my goal to be honest and fair and if I come to realize that I've been wrong on some point I will publically apologize - but first why don't you show me where I've been wrong! Said mrjesse: (By the way, I perfectly understand simple ideas like the speed of light, frame of reference, and stellar aberration and light-time correction.)
If you did then you could answer the question yourself : )
I do understand those things, and I did answer the question. The problem is, my answer to the question (both in the case of the sun and pluto) is "About 20 arcseconds, mostly due to the fact that the earth flies through space on its orbit around the sun at about 67 thousand miles per hour which causes a stellar aberration of about 20 arcseconds, which is almost entirely unrelated to distance between earth and sun/pluto and is almost completely unrelated to the earth's rotational speed." not "2.1 degrees due to the rotational speed of the earth and the distance to the lightsource." If you think I'm wrong, please read up on it a little, and point out to me how I'm wrong.
I will go dig it up if you like,
Yes! Please do go dig it up! And for your searching pleasure, here are all the posts I've said and all the posts you've said to me, all in one long document, so you can search forwards and backwards and up and down till you found just what you want! Oh, and while you're at it, this will make it easy for you to find and show me where you answered my question, too!
but I want your promise that when I do that you will deny your belief in God. It isn't hard to do : ) Especially for a reprobate like you.
Why would I deny my belief in God just because you answer whether Pluto is 102 degrees ahead of where it appears at a given instant to an observer on the earth? How come I'm trying to discuss a scientific issue and you keep coming back to religion and trying to get me to denounce God? Is this what all atheistic scientists live and work for -- to try and get people to stop believing in God? Is that why evolutionists amass "evidence" that they say proves God didn't do it? Is that why so many atheistic professors ridicule belief in God in their lectures?
Think about that - maybe Good and Evil do exist! Maybe the Bible is true! Maybe those that aren't working for God are working for satan!
You already have my word (which, for me, is the same thing as a promise, since the Bible says to not swear by things but to just let one's yes be yes and one's no, no.) anyway you already have my word that it is my goal to be honest and fair and admit it and apologize when I realize I'm wrong. So just show us the evidence already! Your tactic of trying to bargain with evidence which you have not yet produced is nothing more then a sign of your own lack of ethics, trying to bargain with something you don't have for all I can tell. Bluffing is another word I guess. But I am beginning to think that in your set of ethics, anything goes as long as you can get away with it - which includes claiming you have evidence that you don't have, then trying to bargain with it, and bluffing. Am I wrong on that?
So, NO, I will not deny my belief in God unless you can unquestionably demonstrate that He in deed does not exist. And by God I mean God as described in the Bible - if you have to pick a translation, pick new or old King James version, (or the texts they were translated from, which is where we'll end up anyway if we start disputing over the meanings of words.)
So please, show me where I've been wrong, and show me where you've answered the 102 degree displacement question (as described above.) Remember, you've said "Almost every posting you have made contains a lie or at least an error (which is much the same thing)." so it should not be hard to find at least a few! And by the way, I disagree with you on an error being much the same thing as a lie. All dogs may bark, but not all things that bark are dogs. All lies may be errors, but not all errors are lies. They are two different words with different meanings - check any dictionary. All lies may be errors, but they are intentional errors. Not all errors are intentional and therefor not all errors are lies. You've accused me of being a liar many many times and have not yet once shown where I've lied! That just wouldn't work in real life with the people in your life - I'm suspecting you only do it here because you think you can get away with it.
Thanks,
-Jesse Thanks
I never said that! That's absurd! I said "Interbreed." and I meant "Interbreed and conceive" (and have updated my page to say so.)
I hate to have to be the one to break it to you but mating and breeding are the same thing. I know you grew up on a farm, but apparently you didn't pay much attention.
I don't see what's so silly about it and I didn't even say "all one kind" and I have no idea what you mean by "all one species." (I most certainly didn't say that!)
You said (paraphrasing) critters which look the same are the same kind. How does your systems differentiate between species and kinds? You seem to have created some kind of weird filing system that you alone knows how it works.
No, my argument is that "Some things in life do not appear to me to make sense if ASBE (all species by evolution) is true." You then counter "Well God wouldn't have done them that way either," to which I reply "You don't know that - God well may have done them that way."
You don't know what a species is. Until you figure that out it is pointless trying to point out your errors.
Oh that's funny! first you say that I'm a "reprobate and a serial liar" and now you imply that you lost some respect for me?! Just how much respect do you have for people you think are reprobate and serial liars anyway?
Oh I know quite a few serial reprobates that I have a lot of respect for. I have a lot of respect for poisonous snakes too. You, I now view like a turd under a rock, it is best to not move the rock too soon.
Why would I deny my belief in God just because you answer whether Pluto is 102 degrees ahead of where it appears at a given instant to an observer on the earth?
You called me a liar when I claimed to have answered the question. If you are wrong on that then certainly you can be wrong on your belief in God. I am just equating the two.
anyway you already have my word that it is my goal to be honest and fair and admit it and apologize when I realize I'm wrong.
You already broke that word a long time ago. You are a reprobate and reprobates have no honor.