- Jun 18, 2006
- 3,855,653
- 52,517
- Country
- United States
- Gender
- Male
- Faith
- Baptist
- Marital Status
- Married
- Politics
- US-Republican
Did you see the answer to your question in that reply?
Upvote
0
Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
Pluto is still Pluto. Why does it matter a jot to you or anyone that it's not classified as a planet anymore? What does it change?
Here, Warden ...
Scientific Misconduct Incidents
... knock yourself out.
Apple Sky, please take notes as to how my answers to their questions are being handled.
Some people just don't want to hear it.
Did you see the answer to your question in that reply?
I never said that scientists don't lie or are incapable of lying. That's you putting words in my mouth.
But calling ALL scientists dishonest because of the actions of a minority is dishonesty in itself.
Because your view on 'trusting God' does not match the same as others 'trusting God', which means that even if they do trust God but do so in the respect that Bible is not a literal work of literature and the world does not conform to literal reading of the Bible, then you're still going to call any scientist dishonest.
Do you remember saying this:
That Pluto is still Pluto. Yes, it's still an object floating in space beyond Neptune with the classification of Pluto. That much has not changed and will not change. Whether it's a planet or not is what changed, but it's still Pluto.
Did you read the part of my quote before the part you coloured, or did you just choose to ignore that?
Name a specific living scientist who is dishonest and why you think they are dishonest or retract your slur.
But the IAU felt they had to change from honest to dishonest to get Pluto demoted, didn't they?
Evidently they felt they couldn't get Pluto demoted from an honest vote, so they demoted Pluto using a dishonest one.
From this post ...
... and taking my Wikipedia article into consideration ... do you feel a retraction is necessary?
Because your view on 'trusting God' does not match the same as others 'trusting God', which means that even if they do trust God but do so in the respect that Bible is not a literal work of literature and the world does not conform to literal reading of the Bible, then you're still going to call any scientist dishonest.
What does it change about Pluto ...
... that it no longer being a planet means that it suddenly warrants calling scientists across the world and all disciplines dishonest?
You're arguing with me over something I didn't say.
Nothing.
So why should you or I or anyone get their panties in a twist that a very, very, VERY small number of scientists in the world decided to change the descriptive definition of Pluto?
Must not have been too small.
If they were that small, how did Pluto get demoted at all?
Astronomer Marla Geha has clarified that not all members of the Union were needed to vote on the classification issue: only those whose work is directly related to planetary studies.
Remember this, from my Pluto Issue thread?
Only four percent of the IAU voted on the controversial demotion of Pluto, and most are not planetary scientists.
And I remember repeatedly asking you, along with others asking, why it matters so much at all to you for you to bring it up IN EVERY THREAD YOU TAKE PART IN.
Because Pluto is an excellent poster child against those who think science walks on water.
I don't know what revival meeting she attended, but whatever charlatan, rip-off con-man was running the show needs jail time.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?