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

AV1611VET · May 27, 2013

Mr Strawberry said:
Why?

Hey, scientist, remember me saying this?

AV1611VET said:
If the answer isn't Pluto, then don't tell me facts don't change and expect me to believe you.

Mr Strawberry · May 27, 2013

I can see this could be traumatic for someone who bases a large part of his worldview on the importance of labels, but definitions can change, 'christian'.

AV1611VET · May 27, 2013

Mr Strawberry said:
I can see this could be traumatic for someone who bases a large part of his worldview on the importance of labels, but definitions can change, 'christian'.

LOL ... who's the one traumatized?

It appears asking what our 9th planet is, is causing one to go 404.

(Unless, of course, you're withholding the answer until the last minute. )

Mr Strawberry · May 27, 2013

AV1611VET said:
LOL ... who's the one traumatized?

It appears asking what our 9th planet is, is causing one to go 404.

(Unless, of course, you're withholding the answer until the last minute. )

No one but you cares that Pluto isn't defined as a planet any more. You are the one who views it as a personal insult to God, something you seem keen to avoid admitting again.

AV1611VET · May 27, 2013

Mr Strawberry said:
No one but you cares that Pluto isn't defined as a planet any more. You are the one who views it as a personal insult to God, something you seem keen to avoid admitting again.

For the sake of appeasement, let's pretend Pluto doesn't even exist.

What's our 9th planet?

Herman Hedning · May 27, 2013

AV1611VET said:
For the sake of appeasement, let's pretend Pluto doesn't even exist.

What's our 9th planet?

Can you first tell us who's the 45th president of the United States?

Mr Strawberry · May 27, 2013

AV1611VET said:
For the sake of appeasement, let's assume Pluto doesn't even exist.

What's our 9th planet?

You know there isn't one...at the time of writing.

AV1611VET · May 27, 2013

Mr Strawberry said:
You know there isn't one...at the time of writing.

I honestly thought it was Ceres.

Hmmm ... learn something new every other day, I guess.

TLK Valentine · May 27, 2013

AV1611VET said:
I honestly thought it was Ceres.

Hmmm ... learn something new every other day, I guess.

And, if you follow your standard M.O., ignore it immediately after.

Lucy Stulz · May 27, 2013

Mr Strawberry said:
I can see this could be traumatic for someone who bases a large part of his worldview on the importance of labels, but definitions can change, 'christian'.

Note how our local literalist who cleaves solely to one english translation of the Bible quickly makes up entirely NEW ANIMALS when the WORDS of the Bible appears to have changed!

But if a scientist tries creating a definition, then the pharisee will let not one jot or tittle be moved.

createdtoworship · May 27, 2013

Lucy Stulz said:
Note how our local literalist who cleaves solely to one english translation of the Bible quickly makes up entirely NEW ANIMALS when the WORDS of the Bible appears to have changed!

But if a scientist tries creating a definition, then the pharisee will let not one jot or tittle be moved.

Just because He believes that about the Bible, it's not the same as believing that about science. That would be a non sequitor. It doesn't follow the arguments, plus it is sort of a jab at him personally which makes it double fallacy (also ad hominem).

rikerjoe · May 27, 2013

AV1611VET said:
Wasn't it a fact at one time that Pluto was our 9th planet?

If Pluto didn't change, the number sure did.

The fact that Pluto exist and orbit the sun is still there. The definition of "planet" changed and so our conclusion that Pluto is a planet changed.

Pluto is still there though.

Bungle_Bear · May 27, 2013

AV1611VET said:
Wasn't it a fact at one time that Pluto was our 9th planet?

If Pluto didn't change, the number sure did.

Just as a matter of interest, what does "room" mean? Or "meat"?

From Luke 14:

7 And he put forth a parable to those which were bidden, when he marked how they chose out the chief rooms; saying unto them.
8 When thou art bidden of any man to a wedding, sit not down in the highest room; lest a more honourable man than thou be bidden of him;
9 And he that bade thee and him come and say to thee, Give this man place; and thou begin with shame to take the lowest room.
10 But when thou art bidden, go and sit down in the lowest room; that when he that bade thee cometh, he may say unto thee, Friend, go up higher: then shalt thou have worship in the presence of them that sit at meat with thee.

Is your bible wrong or have the meanings and definitions of "room" and "meat" changed?

Lucy Stulz · May 27, 2013

gradyll said:
Just because He believes that about the Bible, it's not the same as believing that about science. That would be a non sequitor. It doesn't follow the arguments, plus it is sort of a jab at him personally which makes it double fallacy (also ad hominem).

Actually the ad hominem fallacy is to leverage a personal attack as a means of calling into question the content of their statement without dealing with the content of the statement. Otherwise it is just a personal attack.

But in point of fact AV wishes to question science based on definitions of terms (not technical concepts, since prior to about 2005 there was no technical definition in astronomy for the word planet).

But he holds a very restrictive interpretation of the bible. So his rules are being usedto critique the bible exactly as he has established.

I cannot help it if he didn't plan out his strategy better. (that last is called a personal jab, but not an ad hominem since I am not using a critique of him to address the technical point.)

USincognito · May 27, 2013

Mr Strawberry said:
You only have a bee in your bonnet about it because it screws up something in the Bible about 9 something or others, or something you think the Bible says about the number 9. I'm sure you can remind us as you're in such a sulk about what has been done your interpretation of the Bible by the evil scientists. Not that anybody else cares very much except you.

The Bible doesn't mention Pluto at all, so the Bible can take a hike!

createdtoworship · May 28, 2013

Lucy Stulz said:
Actually the ad hominem fallacy is to leverage a personal attack as a means of calling into question the content of their statement without dealing with the content of the statement. Otherwise it is just a personal attack.

But in point of fact AV wishes to question science based on definitions of terms (not technical concepts, since prior to about 2005 there was no technical definition in astronomy for the word planet).

But he holds a very restrictive interpretation of the bible. So his rules are being usedto critique the bible exactly as he has established.

I cannot help it if he didn't plan out his strategy better. (that last is called a personal jab, but not an ad hominem since I am not using a critique of him to address the technical point.)

are you saying he made no statements?

not sure what you are recommending regarding this definition of ad hominem.

usually an ad hominem involves statements yes, but so does a personal jab or whatever you call it.

unless you are just being rude and jabbing them out of thin air with no conversations going.

createdtoworship · May 28, 2013

rikerjoe said:
The fact that Pluto exist and orbit the sun is still there. The definition of "planet" changed and so our conclusion that Pluto is a planet changed.

Pluto is still there though.

that would be a confession of science changing.

which was his original point.

TLK Valentine · May 28, 2013

gradyll said:
Just because He believes that about the Bible, it's not the same as believing that about science. That would be a non sequitor. It doesn't follow the arguments, plus it is sort of a jab at him personally which makes it double fallacy (also ad hominem).

Actually, it's a double standard -- but nothing we're not used to seeing.

TLK Valentine · May 28, 2013

gradyll said:
that would be a confession of science changing.

which was his original point.

Except science didn't change -- language did.

Pluto is still up there, and we still know where it is, thanks to science.

It's still everything it was before but for a decision to narrow the definition of a single word: "planet."

createdtoworship · May 28, 2013

TLK Valentine said:
Except science didn't change -- language did.

Pluto is still up there, and we still know where it is, thanks to science.

It's still everything it was before but for a decision to narrow the definition of a single word: "planet."

the truth is that language changed the scientific definition.

so both changed.

and that proves his point even moreso.

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

SCIENCE CAN TAKE A HIKE

Newbie

SCIENCE CAN TAKE A HIKE

Newbie

SCIENCE CAN TAKE A HIKE

Hiking is fun

Newbie

SCIENCE CAN TAKE A HIKE

I've already read the books you want burned.

Well-Known Member

In the grip of grace

rikerjoe

Guest

Whoot!

Well-Known Member

a post by Alan Smithee

In the grip of grace

In the grip of grace

I've already read the books you want burned.

I've already read the books you want burned.

In the grip of grace

Similar threads

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency