To Be a Darwinist or To Be a Darwinist

[AV1611VET]

You ask the same questions (as statements) over and over,

That's right ... it keeps me from being accused of being inconsistent.

That way, I can be accused of other things.

... but refuse to acknowledge or accept the answers.

That's right ... I'm not obligated to accept the answers.

It is an interesting Hovind-esque tactic.

I don't know Mr. Hovind that well to be able to emulate him; and I wouldn't anyway.

Very disingenuous.

Thank you for your opinion.

 

[JustMeSee]

Thank you for your opinion.

You are quite welcome. It is an opinion based upon years of observation.

 

[RickG]

To Be a Darwinist or To Be a Darwinist

I wonder if that qualifies me to be a "Stenographer"? Nicholas Steno is considered to be one of the founders of modern stratigraphy and geology.

 

[AV1611VET]

AV, to anyone who has studied geologic processes in detail from an accredited institution can watch that video and see that Hovind is making stuff up.

QV the first three minutes of this video please:
Rock layers age - circular reasoning! - YouTube

You commented on it here: 183

 

[AV1611VET]

Yes, really.

I dare you to find a primary scientific source that defines macroevolution as an animal 'changing into' another animal.

And yet, other animals allegedly sprang up all thorough a timeline; from cyanobacteria to mankind, didn't they?

It may not have been incorporated into macroevolution's definition, but that's basically what it is saying.

Reality doesn't care what you think.

That's obvious ... just ask those who voted in favor of launching the Challenger, or were partying aboard the Deepwater Horizon, or who decided not to flee L'Aquila because they were told it was safe, or...

No. 'The Bible is right because The Bible says The Bibles is right' is circular logic. It's a naked assertion that gleans zero information.

The Bible is anything but circular reasoning, as It contains 66 separate books that corroborate each other, written over a period of 1500 years, from 40 different authors, living on 3 different continents, and representing every type of human author, from a fig picker to a king ... including one human author who was hostile to what he wrote, and one author that wanted to write on one subject, but was compelled to write something else ... and one author who stopped writing (in awe), and was told to continue.

Science is right because its methodology - experimentation, prediction, and numerous converging lines of critically robust evidence - is put to use in the real world, where it yields actual results and gleans actual information.

Is that why they had to pluto Pluto?

 

[Eight Foot Manchild]

QV the first three minutes of this video please:

Mr. Hovind (his claimed title of 'Dr.' is fraudulent) is the absolute bottom of the barrel when it comes to creationists. Even the blithering morons at AiG have distanced themselves from him and his 'theories' (READ: rectally extracted naked assertions).

Naturally, there's nothing here that can't be refuted with a passing glance at the real science,

Radiometric Dating and the Geological Time Scale

 

[RickG]

QV the first three minutes of this video please:
Rock layers age - circular reasoning! - YouTube

You commented on it here: 183

Thanks for posting that video. I hope everyone looking at this thread look at the video and will also go to the link you provided of my comments.

Hovind is doing nothing more than presenting false and misleading information in an attempt to make geologists look stupid. I stand by everything I have said. EVERYTHING!

 

[Eight Foot Manchild]

And yet, other animals allegedly sprang up all thorough a timeline; from cyanobacteria to mankind, didn't they?

NO.

Find me a primary scientific source that says that. I dare you.

That's obvious ... just ask those who voted in favor of launching the Challenger, or were partying aboard the Deepwater Horizon, or who decided not to flee L'Aquila because they were told it was safe, or...

So that's your defense when you make a blatantly false, easily refuted assertion?

'Here's some stuff science got wrong. Therefor, this naked assertion I just concocted must be valid.'

This is why logical fallacies, and how to avoid them, should be taught in grade school.

The Bible is anything but circular reasoning

I didn't say 'The Bible is circular reasoning'.

What I said was this:

'The Bible is right because The Bible says The Bibles is right' is circular logic.

Is that why they had to pluto Pluto?

I already corrected you on your usage of this asinine canard in another thread. Here it is again:

We changed our categorization of Pluto. Nothing about its nature changed. Nothing about our apprehension of its nature changed. No facts were altered in this process.

None of the information we've gleaned about Pluto was impacted in any way by this. A label changed. That's all.

I look forward to correcting you again when you conveniently forget this in the near future.

 

[AV1611VET]

Mr. Hovind (his claimed title of 'Dr.' is fraudulent) is the absolute bottom of the barrel when it comes to creationists. Even the blithering morons at AiG have distanced themselves from him and his 'theories' (READ: rectally extracted naked assertions).

Your colorless opinion of Mr. Hovind is noted.

If that's what science eventually does to a person, then you've been around it too long.

Naturally, there's nothing here that can't be refuted with a passing glance at the real science,

Radiometric Dating and the Geological Time Scale

Real science? what's real science? Pluto as our 9th planet? Phlotiston theory being taught? telling citizens it's safe to live in L'Aquila?

Or is real science curing smallpox, the Internet, putting cancer in remission, etc.?

Science runs on the No True Scotsman principle, doesn't it?

 

[AV1611VET]

I stand by everything I have said. EVERYTHING!

Your patriotism is unwavering, isn't it?

 

[Eight Foot Manchild]

Your colorless opinion of Mr. Hovind is noted.

If that's what science eventually does to a person, then you've been around it too long.

Real science? what's real science? Pluto as our 9th planet? Phlotiston theory being taught? telling citizens it's safe to live in L'Aquila?

Or is real science curing smallpox, the Internet, putting cancer in remission, etc.?

Vacuous canards. Already answered. Next...

Science runs on the No True Scotsman principle, doesn't it?

No. Science runs on an established methodology and standard of practice. If it fails to meet the criteria, it's pseudoscience at best.

 

[RickG]

Your patriotism is unwavering, isn't it?

I stand by it because everything I said about the Hovind video is true.

 

[AV1611VET]

None of the information we've gleaned about Pluto was impacted in any way by this. A label changed. That's all.

I look forward to correcting you again when you conveniently forget this in the near future.

You can start by correcting this:

Only four percent of the IAU voted on the controversial demotion of Pluto, and most are not planetary scientists. The vote was conducted in violation of the IAU's own bylaws on the last day of a two-week conference when most attendees already had left. No absentee voting was allowed. Supporters of the demotion resolution violated the IAU's own bylaws by putting this resolution on the General Assembly floor without first vetting it by the proper committee as IAU rules require. Also, many planetary scientists do not belong to the IAU and therefore had no say in this matter. When professional astronomers objecting to the demotion asked for a reopening of the planet debate at the 2009 IAU General Assembly, the IAU leadership adamantly refused. Why would they refuse to reopen a debate unless they were insecure about their stand? Meanwhile, this issue continues to be debated in other venues, such as the 2008 Great Planet Debate, held at the Johns Hopkins University Applied Physics Lab in August 2008 (which I personally attended), the American Geophysical Union, and the European Geophysical Union.


The IAU decision was immediately opposed in a formal petition by hundreds of professional astronomers led by Dr. Alan Stern, Principal Investigator of NASA’s New Horizons mission to Pluto. One reason the IAU definition makes no sense is it says dwarf planets are not planets at all! That is like saying a grizzly bear is not a bear, and it is inconsistent with the use of the term “dwarf” in astronomy, where dwarf stars are still stars, and dwarf galaxies are still galaxies. Also, the IAU definition classifies objects solely by where they are while ignoring what they are. If Earth were in Pluto’s orbit, according to the IAU definition, it would not be a planet either. A definition that takes the same object and makes it a planet in one location and not a planet in another is essentially useless.


Pluto is a planet because it is spherical, meaning it is large enough to be pulled into a round shape by its own gravity--a state known as hydrostatic equilibrium and characteristic of planets, not of shapeless asteroids held together by chemical bonds. These reasons are why many astronomers, lay people, and educators are either ignoring the demotion entirely or working to get it overturned. You can find out more by Googling "Laurel's Pluto Blog."
A decision should not be blindly accepted as some sort of gospel truth because a small number of people decreed it so. The IAU can decree the sky is green, but that doesn't make it any less blue.

Still think a label changed, that's all? there was a lot that went on before that label changed.

And speaking of a simple label change, QV please:

One argument often used in favor of demoting Pluto is the fact that another planet was discovered beyond Pluto and that with many more possible small planets in the Kuiper Belt, we could end up with "too many planets" in our solar system. Well, there is no such thing as too many planets. At one point, we thought Jupiter had four moons. Now we know it has 63, and more may be found. Should we limit the number of moons because otherwise, there will be too many to memorize? Should we limit the number of elements in the Periodic Table because kids won't be able to memorize that many? The fact is, memorization is not a very useful learning tool. At one point, we knew little more about the planets than their names and order from the Sun. That is not true today. It is more important that kids understand what distinguishes the different types of planets.

If we use the alternate, broader term that a planet is any non-self-luminous spheroidal body orbiting a star--which many planetary scientists prefer over the IAU definition--we can then use subcategories to distinguish the types of planets. While we previously recognized two subcategories, the terrestrials and the gas giants or jovians, the new discoveries show us there is a third class-the dwarf planets. These are planets because they are large enough to be rounded by their own gravity--a state known as hydrostatic equilibrium--but of the dwarf subcategory because they are not large enough to gravitationally dominate their orbits. In fact, Dr. Alan Stern, who first coined the term "dwarf planet," never intended for dwarf planets to not be considered planets at all. If this one area is amended so the IAU resolution establishes dwarf planets as a subclass of planets, much of the controversy would evaporate.

 

[AV1611VET]

No. Science runs on an established methodology and standard of practice.

Right ... that's why it changes with the weather, doesn't it?

How many times has the Periodic Table of the Elements been changed? how many times does this 'established methodology and standard of practice' add, delete, or modify a previous 'established methodology and standard of practice'?

Here's your 'established methodology and standard of practice': 74

 

[Eight Foot Manchild]

Still think a label changed, that's all?

Yes. All this mountain of text is that it was a contentious label change, which I already knew when it came up years ago.

 

[AV1611VET]

Still think a label changed, that's all?

Yes. All this mountain of text is that it was a contentious label change, which I already knew when it came up years ago.

Then your support of a rigged vote behind closed doors is noted.

 

[Eight Foot Manchild]

Right ... that's why it changes with the weather, doesn't it?

No. It changes - or much more often expands - through the furthering of the methodology.

 

[AV1611VET]

No. It changes - or much more often expands - through the furthering of the methodology.

Then don't tell me science doesn't run on the No True Scotsman principle and expect me to take it with anything other than a grain of salt.

 

[RickG]

AV, Pluto is no longer a planet because it does not fit the modern definition of a planet. If Pluto is classified as a planet, so must its moons be classified planets as well. Get over it.

 

[Eight Foot Manchild]

Then your support of a rigged vote behind closed doors is noted.

There's nothing to 'support'. That's a category error. You'll really say anything to make it look like you've scored a blow, won't you?

By the way, I haven't forgotten,

Find me a primary scientific source that says that [macroevolution is one animal 'chaning into' another animal]. I dare you.