Posted on 08/10/2008 4:30:27 AM PDT by Soliton
Gods, fairies, magic and the like are ways of saying "we don't know," and one simply can't base a scientific theory on a set of assumptions that includes "and something we don't know, but you can imagine it to be anything you like, happens here."
Science is a discipline, a rewarding endeavour to understand things in relation to other things and their interactions. The theory of evolution is not a belief; it is a scientifically useful model. As more data support it, it might be a threat to certain beliefs, but it is not a threat to belief in a creator, because science can never explain existence itself.
(Excerpt) Read more at canada.com ...
too true, good luck!
I am the same way too, but often I am surprised by where the thought process takes me. I was truly shocked when I discovered that there are no accurate prophecies in the Bible. I had always just assumed that some of the prophecies had to be accurate, but none of them are. Illusions are sometimes more real than reality.
You are obviously reading it rong. :)
Check out Isaiah 53 - This is an Old Testament prophecy that foretold the coming of the Messiah (Jesus Christ) before he was even born - his purpose, the method of his death, the rejection by his own people, etc. Every bit of it came to be.
http://bible.crosswalk.com/OnlineStudyBible/bible.cgi?new=1&word=isaiah+53§ion=0&version=niv&language=en
Here it is in print:
1 Who has believed our message and to whom has the arm of the Lord been revealed? 2 He grew up before him like a tender shoot, and like a root out of dry ground. He had no beauty or majesty to attract us to him, nothing in his appearance that we should desire him. 3 He was despised and rejected by men, a man of sorrows, and familiar with suffering. Like one from whom men hide their faces he was despised, and we esteemed him not. 4 Surely he took up our infirmities and carried our sorrows, yet we considered him stricken by God, smitten by him, and afflicted. 5 But he was pierced for our transgressions, he was crushed for our iniquities; the punishment that brought us peace was upon him, and by his wounds we are healed. 6 We all, like sheep, have gone astray, each of us has turned to his own way; and the Lord has laid on him the iniquity of us all. 7 He was oppressed and afflicted, yet he did not open his mouth; he was led like a lamb to the slaughter, and as a sheep before her shearers is silent, so he did not open his mouth. 8 By oppression and judgment he was taken away. And who can speak of his descendants? For he was cut off from the land of the living; for the transgression of my people he was stricken. 9 He was assigned a grave with the wicked, and with the rich in his death, though he had done no violence, nor was any deceit in his mouth. 10 Yet it was the Lord's will to crush him and cause him to suffer, and though the Lord makes his life a guilt offering, he will see his offspring and prolong his days, and the will of the Lord will prosper in his hand. 11 After the suffering of his soul, he will see the light of life and be satisfied; by his knowledge my righteous servant will justify many, and he will bear their iniquities. 12 Therefore I will give him a portion among the great, and he will divide the spoils with the strong, because he poured out his life unto death, and was numbered with the transgressors. For he bore the sin of many, and made intercession for the transgressors.
In a post last week you told me you are an atheist - I find it interesting that you spend your time on FR in the Religion section? Do you see yourself as an antagonist, or someone who is seeking and would like to be proven wrong, or none of the above? Just curious ...
Have you read the book by Josh McDowell, Evidence that Demands a Verdict? He's a former atheist who read the Bible set out to disprove Christianity and could not do so. You might enjoy reading it.
I actually applied the Scientific Method to the Bible when I read it and there's a song that captures my results perfectly - "Evidence" by 4Him with lyrics that say, "I can't get past the evidence - of you" - "you" referring to God himself.
That's my story and I'm sticking to it. It's awesome to have an absolute like Christ to stand upon. He's a foundation that can not be shaken even when our own world's quake with circumstances. Consider the temporal versus the eternal and that helps to put things in perspective.
Obviously : )
Let us take a look at the prophecy : )
2 He grew up before him like a tender shoot, and like a root out of dry ground.
Was Mary barren? I don't think so.
He had no beauty or majesty to attract us to him, nothing in his appearance that we should desire him.
Was Christ ugly? All the references I have seen indicate that he was comely, "And the Word became flesh, and dwelt among us, and we saw His glory, glory as of the only begotten from the Father, full of grace and truth." That doesn't sound stricken by God to me.
5 But he was pierced for our transgressions, he was crushed for our iniquities; the punishment that brought us peace was upon him, and by his wounds we are healed.
When was Christ crushed? He wasn't. Am I healed by his wounds? I don't think so.
And who can speak of his descendants?
Christ had descendants? Are they Gods too? Are you a Dan Brown follower?
He was assigned a grave with the wicked
Was Christ buried in a grave of the wicked? I think not.
though he had done no violence
Christ didn't whip and drive out the money changers?
he will see his offspring and prolong his days, and the will of the Lord will prosper in his hand.
My, my, my I don't even know what to say. That obviously didn't happen. I almost feel sorry for your feeble attempt at trying to show a true prophecy.
Therefore I will give him a portion among the great, and he will divide the spoils with the strong,
Obviously this isn't a reference to Christ, unless God is schizophrenic.
Every bit of it came to be.
I just pointed out that the bulk of the prophecy never happened or wasn't true. Did you even read the prophecy before you offered it up? I especially liked the part about Christ having kids and an extended life.
In a post last week you told me you are an atheist - I find it interesting that you spend your time on FR in the Religion section? Do you see yourself as an antagonist, or someone who is seeking and would like to be proven wrong, or none of the above? Just curious ...
I am a seeker of truth. In general I am trying to understand why people like you believe the way you do. I find it fascinating that people believe an illusion, despite seeming to see the reality at the same time. In other words, I find how you deal with cognitive dissonance fascinating.
That's my story and I'm sticking to it. It's awesome to have an absolute like Christ to stand upon. He's a foundation that can not be shaken even when our own world's quake with circumstances. Consider the temporal versus the eternal and that helps to put things in perspective.
: ) And that is what I find fascinating, your faith trumps everything. Challenges to your faith actually reinforce your belief, that is incredibly powerful. It is a power harnessed by armies, religion, leaders, etc. You would be willing to lay down your life because of your belief. It explains the Muslim suicide bombers thinking.
I find trying to understand that kind of thinking, fascinating : ) I think it is tied directly to the belief in prophecy, which in turn is all about control of the future.
“Scientists accept scientific criticism.”
LOL-——unless they’re on the algoreacle’s payroll.
More later - con calls from 2-3 and 4-5 CST :)
Was Mary barren? I don't think so.
Not sure how you arrived at that out of that verse.
He had no beauty or majesty to attract us to him, nothing in his appearance that we should desire him.
Was Christ ugly? All the references I have seen indicate that he was comely, "And the Word became flesh, and dwelt among us, and we saw His glory, glory as of the only begotten from the Father, full of grace and truth." That doesn't sound stricken by God to me.
His appeal and power were not based on the way he looked but on who he is. By definition, glory and beauty are not the same thing.
5 But he was pierced for our transgressions, he was crushed for our iniquities; the punishment that brought us peace was upon him, and by his wounds we are healed.
When was Christ crushed? He wasn't. Am I healed by his wounds? I don't think so.
He was crushed in spirit (not physically) before the crucifixion (Luke 22:44 - And being in anguish, he prayed more earnestly, and his sweat was like drops of blood falling to the ground.)
And who can speak of his descendants?
Christ had descendants? Are they Gods too? Are you a Dan Brown follower?
Believers, that's me and all other Christians, are heirs and descendants of Christ (see the promises to Christians in the New Testament).
He was assigned a grave with the wicked
Was Christ buried in a grave of the wicked? I think not.
Christ was on one cross among three crosses - the other two men being crucified were thieves (wicked) whereas Christ was unblemished (holy).
though he had done no violence
Christ didn't whip and drive out the money changers?
He did - that was righteous violence - Christ's violence was not out of hatred but out of love and defense for the Father.
he will see his offspring and prolong his days, and the will of the Lord will prosper in his hand.
My, my, my I don't even know what to say. That obviously didn't happen. I almost feel sorry for your feeble attempt at trying to show a true prophecy.
There's nothing feeble about the Word of God. No pity is required for me. I'm an heir of the King. :)
Therefore I will give him a portion among the great, and he will divide the spoils with the strong,
Obviously this isn't a reference to Christ, unless God is schizophrenic.
Every bit of it came to be.
I just pointed out that the bulk of the prophecy never happened or wasn't true. Did you even read the prophecy before you offered it up? I especially liked the part about Christ having kids and an extended life.
None of the prophecy is wrong and it was fulfilled in the New Testament (read the crucifixion account in Matthew, Mark, Luke, John).
I am a seeker of truth. In general I am trying to understand why people like you believe the way you do. I find it fascinating that people believe an illusion, despite seeming to see the reality at the same time. In other words, I find how you deal with cognitive dissonance fascinating.
For me it's not an illusion. It's reality. Otherwise, why bother? I have an extremely full and busy life. Affiliating myself with a God who doesn't exist would be a waste of my time. He's real and the relationship I have with him is real. Even though he can not be seen, he is fully responsive, fully acts on my best interests (even if they don't always feel like it) all while managing the universe the way he chooses. He's not a puppet master. He's a sovereign God and Father.
: ) And that is what I find fascinating, your faith trumps everything.
True, it does.
I find trying to understand that kind of thinking, fascinating : ) I think it is tied directly to the belief in prophecy, which in turn is all about control of the future.
Only God is in control of the future. Believers are the sheep that hear and follow his voice and follow him, the great Shepherd (see Psalm 23). I personally focus little on prophecy and focus more on Him. He's the one who has it all mapped out so I really don't need to worry about it because I take Him at His Word.
> Cool! So you believe you are God? In some strange way I guess that makes sense, since you believe that he is your literal father. Do you get power over life and death too? I guess you would have to, being God and all. Are you going to strike me down for blasphemy against you? Inquiring minds want to know.
One last thing before I let you go God, what did you do with all the anti matter when you created the universe?
I see that your comprehension problem reaches beyond your attemps to read the Bible and on to those who try to help you decipher truth.
I don’t expect you to read that accurately and at this point further communication with you would simply be “casting pearls before swine.”
It’s time for me to “dust my feet” of the dirt gathered trying to communicate with you.
You are lying when you say that I have refused to answer your question about Pluto. I answered it several times.
It's easy to say "You're lying" to someone, but I notice that you did not provide a link showing where you answered it! You may have "answered" several questions that I did not ask, but you still have not answered my question as to how much angularly displaced will be the gravitational pull of Pluto from the optical angle of Pluto when the earth turns 102 degrees in the time it takes light to reach earth from Pluto, for an observer on earth. Will it be about 102 degrees, or not? If you did answer that question, please point out where, and show me to be the lier you keep accusing me of.
Simply because you don't understand simple ideas like the speed of light, frame of reference, etc. and don't accept my answer doesn't make my answer a non answer.
But if it's an answer to a question I didn't ask, and it's not an answer to the question I did ask, then it is a non-answer to the question I did ask. But this is just more of your theme of making statements without backing them up! (By the way, I perfectly understand simple ideas like the speed of light, frame of reference, and stellar aberration and light-time correction.)
It does make you a reprobate and a serial liar though.
Easy to say, much harder and more meaningful to demonstrate. Please link to at least a single thing that I said that was a lie! Do you go through life in the real world with people around you accusing them of lying all the while refusing to give a single reference of when and where?
I think you owe Soliton an apology. Almost every posting you have made contains a lie or at least an error (which is much the same thing).
Wow! How many times are you going to make the empty accusation of me being a lier without providing a single reference? This is like a theme of yours, from what I can tell. What is your goal? you know I won't be convinced by your factless mantra. Nobody else will either. I guess there's only one person that will pay attention to your unsubstantiated accusations - and that is you! And that is why you keep saying them over and over without evidence - to convince the one person who listens to you even though you have no evidence, and that person is you!
Your posts are proof that Soliton is correct when he says that you can't go through the day without lying.
Again, no proof whatosever! But then why should I be surprised. The sun's gravity is 2.1 degrees ahead of its optical position you say, and everybody at nasa knows about it, and yet you can't provide a single reference for it.
So why not just answer yes or no to my simple question? Why insist in talking about other things? My question is so simple. Either the gravitational pull is about 102 degrees ahead or it's not. What's so hard about that? Please? we've come so far, a couple more yes or no's won't hurt anything. (I'll want to know about a reasonably stationary heavenly body which is 12 light hours away next.)
Thanks,
-Jesse
Ahh, my eighth cursing : ) I do believe that the dusting of the feet is the most popular.
I wish you luck in your dream world.
Here is the summary of your kinds. If they can produce fertile offspring they are the same kind, if they can mate they are the same kind, if they look similar they are the same kind. LOL how funny : ) I don't think I even need to reply about that silly system, all one species no less.
It is clear that God did not intend to make life invincible, and that he designed it with vulnerabilities because that is what he wanted to do.
What do descending testicles have to with invincibility? 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. I think I have just lost any respect I had for you.
If you did answer that question, please point out where, and show me to be the lier you keep accusing me of.
If I go back and show you were I answered it, what will you do for me? 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.
(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 : )
Wow! How many times are you going to make the empty accusation of me being a lier without providing a single reference?
I will go dig it up if you like, 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.
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.
Said LeGrande: if they can mate they are the same kind,Said mrjesse: 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 paid better attention then you think. I happen to know the difference between mating and breeding. There were times when we took the cow across the street to mate with the bull. They mated alright to be sure, but a few weeks later, that cow was back in heat (in case you don't know, that means she wants to go to the bull again and ought to conceive. Cows aren't like people - cows only mate when the cow is "in heat" which means she's at the right time to conceive.) So anyway, sometimes the cow and the bull would happily mate, but then the cow came back in heat - and then the farmer says "She's still not bread."
That's why we say "You can't breed a horse with a panda" You well may be able to get them to mate -- but they ain't gonna breed and they ain't gonna produce cuddly little horses or anything else, either.
Please check out the dictionary to learn a little about the word breed. Then check out the word mate and you will see that they are two different words with almost entirely different meanings, and only a small area of overlap, and that I'm not making any of this up! "Mate" really has no implication as to whether offspring is produced. "Breed," on the other hand, has a heavy implication of producing offspring or bringing about something. Just think of of common uses - know of someone who breeds fancy dogs? that means they get more and more little dogs! Ever heard the phrase "Breeds contempt?" You will find that "breed" almost always comes just before something that is produced. "Mate," on the other hand, has no such implication beyond a hint. When was the last time a miniature horse breeder told you "Oh, I mate miniature horses?" While one could loosely use the word "breed" to mean "mate," the common meanings are just not the same and "breed" does strongly imply the causing of something. But in any case, for those not familiar with the English language (and I'm not even good at it, so to know less then me is even sadder!) anyway for those not familiar, I have specified "Breed (and conceive.)" which should remove all doubt!
So you are just wrong when you say "mating and breeding are the same thing."
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. Heh, there are cases where you say that two species are related even though they cannot interbreed (and produce offspring) - for example a ring species. Maybe "look the same" isn't the most elaborate way to describe it, so feel free to suggest a better way - but until then the way I have it works just fine. The fact is that if you see two critters, regardless of whether they can breed and conceive, if they look pretty much identical in shape and form, and you will quite likely conclude that they are related.
You don't know what a species is. Until you figure that out it is pointless trying to point out your errors.
I think I do know what a species is. I just demonstrated that you hadn't previously known what the word "breed" meant and I educated you on what it does mean (or rather dictionary.com educated you) so why not be a grown up and show me how I'm wrong and that I indeed don't know what a species is! Ill behaved children are those who call names and say mean things but have no idea how to fix them - I really would hope that you could be grown up enough to know that if you're going to accuse someone of something, demonstrate that your accusation is true, and if you inform them that they are wrong, show them how they are wrong and what right is. I hate to use an over-used phrase, but you really are not behaving very grown up. This very post to which I'm replying is full of examples of you calling me names and hurling unsubstantiated accusations.
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.
You still haven't pointed out where you answered my question. Why not? Why not show me that you did answer it? Maybe I just missed it. But I think you answered a question I didn't ask.
You already broke that word a long time ago. You are a reprobate and reprobates have no honor.
You still haven't provided a single - not even one - reference as to when I've lied, or even when I argued an incorrect point! You've accused me many times of lying without once explaining what I said and why it was a lie! Do you really think that by saying it over and over it'll become true? or that I'll believe it? or that anyone else will believe it? The only thing I can think of is that you are trying to convince yourself.
By the way, was my list of pings helpful?
Anyway, most people know that you just repeatedly calling me names and accusing me of lying without ever substantiating it - most people know that means you know you're wrong and refusing to admit it. Do you treat people in real life this way? Is that why you waste time on FR talking to people like me -- because all your real friends can't stand your constant unsubstantiated accusations?
Remember, the question I'm asking about pluto is this:
When the earth rotates about 102 degrees in the time it takes the light to reach it from Pluto, for an observer on the earth at a fixed point at a instant in time, will the gravitational and optical positions of Pluto be angularly displaced from eachother by about 102 degrees or not?
Is that the question you answered? Did you answer with a yes or no? I'll go back and look again if you will tell me whether that was the question you answered.
Thanks,
-Jesse
I'm sure you remember that it was Julius Caesar, not Caesar Augustus, who invaded Gaul.
You didn't click the link, and so missed out on the backstory. Soliton, on an earlier thread, attempted to rebut a point I was making about Julius Caesar, but did so by appealing to some artefacts having to do with Caesar Augustus, thereby indicating that he didn't know that the two were not one and the same. And this, after Soliton had just told me that I needed to "learn some history" (which, when my wife heard about it, she laughed out loud).
I was simply taking the opportunity to needle Soliton.
LOL Breeding doesn't happen without mating. But that isn't the point, you don't seem know what the definition of Species is and you have invented some ludicrous "same kind" definitions that says that anything that looks the same is the same kind. When you figure out the definition of species get back to me.
You still haven't pointed out where you answered my question. Why not?
I haven't pointed it out because you have not agreed to my terms. You have repeatedly called me a liar and said that I didn't answer you. I am now simply asking you to renounce your belief in God when I show you were I answered your question. That should be no problem for a reprobate like yourself : )
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.