So yes, horses and donkeys interbreed to give mules, but mules usually (even though they may mate happily) will not breed - that is to say they usually will not conceive. Are they the same kind under your system? What is the difference between your 'kind' and a specie?
No, it's telling that your terms are absurd. And the absurdity of your terms is very telling that you did not answer - otherwise you could just show me where!
You act like you are incapable of reading. You know where it is. Why do I have any obligation to enlighten you? You have proven yourself to be unworthy of effort on my part.
See? Totally absurd! Did Jimmy really think he was going to get the car and the house just like that? No, but he knew his dad wouldn't do that and figured if his dad buys into this 2-year-old-logic, then his dad won't make him answer the question, and thereby Jimmy gets away with lying. But it's not honest fair logic!
LOL You are the one that believes in the Bible. Do you remember the story of the pot of porridge and birthright? If it is good enough for your God, certainly it is good enough for you : )
I have re-stated the same things over and over!
Did you know that the definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over and expecting different results. I am pretty sure you are certifiable.
Where did I say that you did lie without demonstrating that you did lie?
You really are insane aren't you. You claimed that I lied about answering your Pluto question, without evidence, in fact you lied. Why don't you show where I didn't answer your question? You claim to have already done it. Do it again. You really are hilarious : )
Are they the same kind under your system? What is the difference between your 'kind' and a specie?
Yup, according to my "Distinct original kinds" classification system Horses, Donkeys, and Zebras are all the same kind - that is to say they all descended from the same original kind. They are difference species, but the same kind.
You act like you are incapable of reading. You know where it is.
Thanks for the clue. Are you talking about
this: Said LeGrande:Using the rotating earth as your frame of reference and recognizing that the light that you see originated 6.8 hours earlier from Plutos actual position, yes, from your perspective, Plutos apparent position is off by 102 degrees (close enough for government work anyway : ) ).
and you're saying that that's an answer to
my question here? Now all we need is for you to calculate the same difference between gravitational and optical angles for Pluto at any given instant for and observer on earth!
See? I asked for the difference between gravitational and optical angles for Pluto, at a given instant, for an observer on the earth! Is that what you answered? No!. You went into detail about 6.8 hours and so on and so forth, and didn't even mention gravity! Remember, I asked about an observer on the earth at a given instant. 6.8 hours is hardly an instant. But you talked about 6.8 hours - so you clearly addressed some related issues, but not the ones I asked about!
So how about answering the [pluto 102deg] question I
did ask, as I asked it? Did you do that already?
By the way, I've also repeatedly asked about the angular displacement between gravitational direction and optical direction for a reasonably stationary heavenly body that is 12 light hours away from the earth. (stationary compared to the earth.) And you haven't answered that one either, as far as I can tell. Are you refusing to answer that one, or did I just miss it?
Why do I have any obligation to enlighten you? You have proven yourself to be unworthy of effort on my part.
You certainly have no obligation to post on FR to be sure. But I thought that you might want to show your integrity by backing up your claims - your claims that you did answer the question that I did ask, and your claims that I have lied to you or that I have argued an incorrect point.
LOL You are the one that believes in the Bible. Do you remember the story of the pot of porridge and birthright? If it is good enough for your God, certainly it is good enough for you : )
This is pretty funny! Here we are trying to discuss scientific issues and you keep talking about religion! Which one of us is the bible thumper anyway! (PS: I don't get your point about Esau.)
You claimed that I lied about answering your Pluto question, without evidence, in fact you lied.
Well, I still haven't found where you answered the question that I asked. You may have answered a number of question that I didn't ask - but as far as I can tell, you haven't answered the question that I
did ask. Furthermore, your reluctance to even make your above alleged answer (which I'm saying isn't the answer to my question) coupled with your unwillingness to answer my question when presented numerous times as a "yes or no" question leads me to believe you really don't want to answer it - which would explain why your "answer" actually doesn't answer my question, and why you're unwilling to come right out and say "Yes, in the described scenario of 102 degrees, Pluto won't even be in the night sky when you look up and see it overhead - it'll be about 102 degrees off." This also explains your refusal to answer about a heavenly body 12 light hours away.
You recently
spoke about how honest people you know are willing to stand behind what they say. Are you an honest person? Do you stand behind what you say? If so, then you shouldn't have any trouble whatsoever standing behind what you say and clarifying your answer so that it directly and exactly answers my question!
Thanks,
-Jesse