Replies

Assuming of course the people doing the research are being honest.

They are.

you making and holding onto the absurd claim about the sun's gravity and light are displaced by 2.1 degrees,

That is simply proof that you don't believe it takes light 8.3 minutes to get to the earth and that you don't think the earth is rotating. If you want to believe those two things be my guest : )

Even though spontaneous generation of life has zero proof for it (except that life exists) and lots of proof against it, it is still what is being taught!

What you are forgetting is that it is also being freely disclosed that we don't understand how it happened. That is called truth in advertising. Science has a lot more questions than answers to just about everything. It does have one thing though, it is much more accurate than the Bible : ) those three species are all the same kind. Just look at them! All leather upholstery, four wheel drive, etc. They (at least the still living ones) still interbreed to form generally sterile offspring.

That simply puts them in the same Genus, that is one step removed from being the same species. The same with us and the Great Apes. So now you are claiming Genus rather than specie, see how your line blurs?

I think you're asking me to prove the negative! You're the one claiming that it did happen, so prove it - don't ask me to prove that it didn't happen! I wasn't there watching it for a billion years.

You have it backwards. Science is not about proof it is about falsification. Because it is based on inductive logic all that is necessary to disprove it is a counter example. If you can show that the offspring are identical to the parents, genetically, then you would disprove TOE. Simple : )

As a matter of fact, there's a lot that just doesn't make sense to me.

That is why I am here, to teach you if you are willing to learn : ) Testicles are external because to produce sperm properly temperature control is very important. The jugulars and windpipe are in a vulnerable positions because mobility is sometimes more important than protection. Most everything in nature seems to be a compromise.

By the way, I do find my observation of the universe consistent with my faith.

Do you observe the earth floating in a sea of water? That would be an observation consistent with your faith wouldn't it?

Again, I'm super short on time.

That is simply proof that you don't believe it takes light 8.3 minutes to get to the earth and that you don't think the earth is rotating. If you want to believe those two things be my guest : )

I have no doubt that light takes about 8.3 minute from sun to earth, and I have no doubt that the earth rotates about 2.1 degrees per 8.3 minutes in relation to the sun. Now if the sun orbited the earth, you'd be right. But it doesn't - at least not much. So why won't you answer about Pluto? With Pluto at a distance which allows the world to rotate 102 degrees in the time it takes light to go from Pluto to Earth, to an observer on the earth at an instant in time, do you believe that Pluto's gravitational angle will really be about 102 degrees ahead of its optical apparent angle? Please answer that one. It's a simple yes or no question.

What you are forgetting is that it is also being freely disclosed that we don't understand how it happened.

I think you'll find that most highschool science textbooks are along the lines of "Here's how it happened" rather then "We don't know how it could have happened"

That simply puts them in the same Genus, that is one step removed from being the same species. The same with us and the Great Apes. So now you are claiming Genus rather than specie, see how your line blurs?

It looks to you like my line blurs, but that's because our two classification systems are incompatible. Both have a dogmatic assumption (yours is ASBE and mine is distinct kinds)

You have it backwards. Science is not about proof it is about falsification.

Ahh haha! You make it sound as if in science there needn't be any proof for an idea all there needs to be is lack of proof against it, which the purporter accepts as proof against it! If I say "God created everything" you say "Show me proof." but you say "It all happened from nothing" and I say "Show me proof" you say "Oh it's not about proof (in other words, proof is not needed) it's about lack of evidence against!"

That's even funny :-) So what's your best proof that God didn't make distinct kinds?

That is why I am here, to teach you if you are willing to learn : ) Testicles are external because to produce sperm properly temperature control is very important. The jugulars and windpipe are in a vulnerable positions because mobility is sometimes more important than protection.

Not all mammals testicles are hanging out in such a way to keep significantly cooled dangerously. Some, like horses I believe, are one of those - they are just under the skin to be sure, but not dangling. But in any case, considering the great risk to having such an important thing lost in battle I think would be a much greater force then just needing to keep cool. The force of evolutionary process which produced the eye and the brain I think well could have found a way to cause testicles to be able to handle the heat in order to be in were it's safe. Same with the jugulars - your unproven assumptions that "Oh it must have been better that way" doesn't convince me. You have no way of knowing that it would have not been better another way.

But see that's what happens when something about evolution doesn't make sense - you (and all evolutionary scientists) say "Oh well it must have some advantage" and you proceed to attribute it to some thing or another. And besides, when you say "It obviously is best that way or it wouldn't be that way" you're assuming ASBE is true in an almost circular way!

I would still love to hear your answer on the Pluto issue. If we can't agree on simple geometry, there's no wonder we can't figure other things out. It looks to me like you made a claim which you now know is absurd, but you don't want to admit it. But on the other hand, you can see that your claim when applied to Pluto, would be obviously wrong - who would believe that Pluto was not even in the night sky by the time it appeared overhead? Your refusal to answer the question along with your refusal to provide collaborating reports from anyone else and your refusal to provide any evidence against my claim (that the displacement is only about 20 arcseconds which is mostly due to stellar aberration) -- all this leads me to believe that you just won't admit that you are wrong. I wonder what else you're not admitting.

Thanks,

-Jesse