Does a GLOBAL FLOOD truly seem like the BEST explanation for seashells on mountains? (2)

USincognito

a post by Alan Smithee
Supporter
Dec 25, 2003
42,058
16,810
Dallas
✟870,741.00
Country
United States
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Private
It changed when Neil Tyson learned he could make money off of it.

Yeah, that was it. It couldn't possibly be due to the fact that as more information was learned about the solar system astronomers and astrophysicists needed to use more precise language and classifications. It had to be about one man wanting money.

:doh:
 
Upvote 0

createdtoworship

In the grip of grace
Mar 13, 2004
18,941
1,758
West Coast USA
✟33,173.00
Country
United States
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Married
Ahhh, so I see your possible problem. You have no idea what I mean by the term "technical definition"! You appear to assume that common definition is the same thing.

Sorry, I thought you were following the debate. No, there was no technical definition of a planet prior to 2006. The word Planet is much older but the technical definition is not.

If you wish to define all "worlds" orbiting a star, be my guest. You will run into the exact same problems as the IAU did. Will you count the larger KBO's as planets? You will have to.

This is kind of why they decided to define more strictly.

I would hope you would have a better understanding of science and technical defintions before you launch into a scientific discussion.



You could possibly be more wrong but I would be hard pressed to figure out how that would be.



Not even close.

oh I am following the debate just fine,

sound's like you are making up definitions,

never heard of "technical" definition.

I have heard of scientific definitions,

philosophic definitions,

etc.

never the technical one.

please propound your case....
 
Upvote 0

createdtoworship

In the grip of grace
Mar 13, 2004
18,941
1,758
West Coast USA
✟33,173.00
Country
United States
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Married
And, of course, that is precisely why I brought up (and others brought up other examples) of terms in the Bible apparently changing.

Whether it was a translation issue or a change in classification. AV1611VET is "KJV Only" which means only the language of 17th century England as it was used in the Bible is considered.

In his defense he ends up having to make up entirely new types of animals ("fowled bats" as he calls them) in order to maintain his KJV Only literalism. It isn't even a good defense, it is a strange excursion for a literalist to take.

the other poster is correct,

the Bible does not change in the original manuscripts and is 97% or greater in accuracy to this alleged original texts.

Some crossing of T's dotting of i's etc are different with different manuscripst but like I said it's less than 3% of the text.

according to "evidence that demands a verdict"

I could post the chapter for you to read if you wish.

but AV1611

is correct too.

the 1611 is a very good translation, but there are 3 revisions of the 1611.

I personally like I believe it's the 3rd revision of the 1611.

the first had a lot of errors, I mean they were real bad. But I believe they corrected 90% of them in the first revision.

(even critics will say that there may have been revisions but it was all one process of translation, not separate)
http://www.biblebelievers.com/Reagan_myth-early.html

either way. It didn't come out correct at first.

but like I said the original copies of manuscripts only have a 3% error rating, and those are only miniscule grammatical items not changing of phrases, thoughts or verses. The complete text is available, we know for sure what God said and what He did not.


that is no longer a question.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

createdtoworship

In the grip of grace
Mar 13, 2004
18,941
1,758
West Coast USA
✟33,173.00
Country
United States
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Married
WRONG! There was not technical definition for "Planet" prior to 2006 (info)

Science decided to codify the definition more strictly and in light of what we know about the Kuyper Belt Objects and stuff out there Pluto fell into a new category of "Dwarf Planet".



No. No it doesn't. His point is a word game. It says nothing about science other than people hadn't developed a strict technical definition for Planet until 2006.

If that is an indictment of science then I think that it misses the point altogether!

So before there was a genus and species for, say, a certain dinosaur, are we to assume that that dinosaur never existed????

even in your link which is wikipedia,

is says nothing of a "technical" definition,

I assume you mean the scientific definition?
 
Upvote 0

CabVet

Question everything
Dec 7, 2011
11,738
176
Los Altos, CA
✟28,402.00
Faith
Agnostic
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Others
even in your link which is wikipedia,

is says nothing of a "technical" definition,

I assume you mean the scientific definition?

You can't let this go, can you? Ok then, so here we go.

From thesaurus.com:

technical [tek-ni-kuhl]
Synonyms: abstruse, high-tech, industrial, mechanical, methodological, occupational, professional, restricted, scholarly, scientific, special, specialized, technological, vocational

Now that we left that behind, for the history of the definition:

"Before the discoveries of the early 21st century, astronomers had no real need for a formal definition for planets."

"Because a new planet is discovered infrequently, the IAU did not have any machinery for their definition and naming. After the discovery of Sedna, it set up a 19-member committee in 2005, with the British astronomer Iwan Williams in the chair, to consider the definition of a planet."

Source: IAU definition of planet - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

"Technically, there was never a scientific definition of the term Planet before 2006. When the Greeks observed the sky thousands of years ago, they discovered objects that acted differently than stars. These points of light seemed to wander around the sky throughout the year. We get the term "planet" from the Greek word "Planetes" - meaning wanderer."

"It was the recent discovery of an object larger than Pluto within the Kuiper Belt that changed everything. Is this object, now named Eris, our 10th planet since it is larger than Pluto? This discovery and the naming of this new object prompted the IAU to discuss a scientific definition for the term planet."

Source: Mission:Science
 
Upvote 0

Loudmouth

Contributor
Aug 26, 2003
51,417
6,141
Visit site
✟98,005.00
Faith
Agnostic
funny I see in the first google search a scientific definition from back in the 1600's
"modern scientific sense of "world that orbits a star" is from 1630s."

Using that definition, there are probably millions of planets in our solar system once we include the asteroid belt, Kuiper belt, and Oort cloud.

However language stears science terminology.

How so?
 
Upvote 0

Strathos

No one important
Dec 11, 2012
12,663
6,531
God's Earth
✟263,276.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Democrat
I will never understand the KJV only movement. To me it seems to verge on idolatry, they are arbitrarily assigning infallibility to one translation that was made 1600 years after the fact, as if Jesus Himself came down and translated it personally.
 
Upvote 0

StormanNorman

Newbie
Mar 5, 2013
619
3
✟8,295.00
Faith
Agnostic
Marital Status
Single
You can't let this go, can you? Ok then, so here we go.

From thesaurus.com:

technical [tek-ni-kuhl]
Synonyms: abstruse, high-tech, industrial, mechanical, methodological, occupational, professional, restricted, scholarly, scientific, special, specialized, technological, vocational

Now that we left that behind, for the history of the definition:

"Before the discoveries of the early 21st century, astronomers had no real need for a formal definition for planets."

"Because a new planet is discovered infrequently, the IAU did not have any machinery for their definition and naming. After the discovery of Sedna, it set up a 19-member committee in 2005, with the British astronomer Iwan Williams in the chair, to consider the definition of a planet."

Source: IAU definition of planet - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

"Technically, there was never a scientific definition of the term Planet before 2006. When the Greeks observed the sky thousands of years ago, they discovered objects that acted differently than stars. These points of light seemed to wander around the sky throughout the year. We get the term "planet" from the Greek word "Planetes" - meaning wanderer."

"It was the recent discovery of an object larger than Pluto within the Kuiper Belt that changed everything. Is this object, now named Eris, our 10th planet since it is larger than Pluto? This discovery and the naming of this new object prompted the IAU to discuss a scientific definition for the term planet."

Source: Mission:Science

You would think that this would put this whole Pluto nonsense to bed, but I'm not holding my breath .... :doh:
 
Upvote 0

Lucy Stulz

Well-Known Member
Apr 3, 2013
1,394
57
✟1,937.00
Faith
Other Religion
Marital Status
Married
even in your link which is wikipedia,

is says nothing of a "technical" definition,

I assume you mean the scientific definition?
:doh:

Scientific, technical either or. Doesn't matter. The fact is that the word Planet did not have a technically defined (scientific) definition prior to 2006. Which means that if someone could find something flying across the sky relative to the more "fixed" stars (I used "fixed" losely there) just like the ancients they might call it a "planet".

In 1939 when Pluto was first discovered we knew very little if anything about the Kuyper Belt or the fact there might be larger objects out there.

Since you don't like Wiki I'll point you to the International Astronomical Union webpage that outlines RESOLUTION 5A

(IAU 2006 General Assembly: Result of the IAU Resolution votes | Press Releases | IAU)

The IAU members gathered at the 2006 General Assembly agreed that a "planet" is defined as a celestial body that (a) is in orbit around the Sun, (b) has sufficient mass for its self-gravity to overcome rigid body forces so that it assumes a hydrostatic equilibrium (nearly round) shape, and (c) has cleared the neighbourhood around its orbit.

This means that the Solar System consists of eight "planets" Mercury, Venus, Earth, Mars, Jupiter, Saturn, Uranus and Neptune. A new distinct class of objects called "dwarf planets" was also decided. It was agreed that "planets" and "dwarf planets" are two distinct classes of objects. The first members of the "dwarf planet" category are Ceres, Pluto and 2003 UB313 (temporary name). More "dwarf planets" are expected to be announced by the IAU in the coming months and years. Currently a dozen candidate "dwarf planets" are listed on IAU's "dwarf planet" watchlist, which keeps changing as new objects are found and the physics of the existing candidates becomes better known.

Honestly the fact you are even finding something to debate on this baffles me. I really don't get what you and AV1611VET see in this debate point. I mean no offense but it appears to betray a fundamental and shockingly low threshold for understanding the topic.
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

Lucy Stulz

Well-Known Member
Apr 3, 2013
1,394
57
✟1,937.00
Faith
Other Religion
Marital Status
Married
It changed when Neil Tyson learned he could make money off of it.

Ummmm...what about all the other astronomers who voted for the change? Are they rich too? Or did Neal DeGrasse Tyson strong arm everyone and intimidate them likea mafia don?

Must be a fanstastical wonder-world some of you guys inhabit in which an astronomer in a relatively prestigious position already somehow "cashes" in on a technical definition.

Oh, yeah, and if you can't address the technical point, then personal attacks serve the same purpose to elevate God, right?
 
Upvote 0

CabVet

Question everything
Dec 7, 2011
11,738
176
Los Altos, CA
✟28,402.00
Faith
Agnostic
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Others
I will never understand the KJV only movement. To me it seems to verge on idolatry, they are arbitrarily assigning infallibility to one translation that was made 1600 years after the fact, as if Jesus Himself came down and translated it personally.

Oh but AV goes one step further. He thinks Adam and Eve spoke KJ era English and that is what will be spoken in heaven.
 
Upvote 0

AV1611VET

SCIENCE CAN TAKE A HIKE
Supporter
Jun 18, 2006
3,850,678
51,424
Guam
✟4,896,959.00
Country
United States
Faith
Baptist
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Republican
Ummmm...what about all the other astronomers who voted for the change?
It was a rigged vote, in my opinion.

QV:
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.
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.
 
Upvote 0

CabVet

Question everything
Dec 7, 2011
11,738
176
Los Altos, CA
✟28,402.00
Faith
Agnostic
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Others
It was a rigged vote, in my opinion.

In my opinion it was the right decision, otherwise we would have 23 "planets" in the solar system now, and possibly many more in the future. And if that was the case you would be here complaining just as much about the growing number of new "planets" instead of the "demotion" of Pluto.
 
Upvote 0

AV1611VET

SCIENCE CAN TAKE A HIKE
Supporter
Jun 18, 2006
3,850,678
51,424
Guam
✟4,896,959.00
Country
United States
Faith
Baptist
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Republican
In my opinion it was the right decision, otherwise we would have 23 "planets" in the solar system now, and possibly many more in the future.
So it doesn't matter if it was rigged or not? so long as it was right in your eyes?

Did you read her comment about "too many planets"?
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

AV1611VET

SCIENCE CAN TAKE A HIKE
Supporter
Jun 18, 2006
3,850,678
51,424
Guam
✟4,896,959.00
Country
United States
Faith
Baptist
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Republican
Why won't you ask yourself those same questions? Why does it matter to you if Pluto falls into the newly defined dwarf planet group?

9 is a groovy number.
 
Upvote 0

CabVet

Question everything
Dec 7, 2011
11,738
176
Los Altos, CA
✟28,402.00
Faith
Agnostic
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Others
9 is a groovy number.

Your numerology is failed. If Pluto is back in, so will be many others and 9 won't be the number (as I said, closer to 23, perhaps more). What you are looking for is a new definition that neither matches the old, nor the current one, but one to make the number of planets coincide with what some consider completion (nine).
 
Upvote 0

CabVet

Question everything
Dec 7, 2011
11,738
176
Los Altos, CA
✟28,402.00
Faith
Agnostic
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Others
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums