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.
Now I hope this is not a veiled personal attack on me.Wow -- just wow.
If you can't see crooks in your own backyard, I'm done.
It's just a method. Happens to be the most effective tool we have for learning about the physical universe. You're trying to make too much of it. It's methodologically no different than plumbing.Science is either myopic, blind, or omniscient.
Take your pick.
Which changes nothing at all but a name. For people who don't get what science does, maybe this matters. For the rest of us, it's inconsequential.From planet to dwarf planet is nothing more than a name change to reflect a more accurate astronomical understanding.
Science is a way of learning about how the universe, and life on our planet, came to exist and how they operate. It does this from a purely naturalistic standpoint. If you think that’s myopic, fine. It’s your prerogative. For sure, science isn’t perfect, but what human endeavor is? To me, it’s as obvious as the sun in the sky that a scientific outlook is infinitely more accurate, more reliable, and more useful than any ancient religious scriptures or beliefs have ever been.
Which changes nothing at all but a name.
It's just a method. Happens to be the most effective tool we have for learning about the physical universe. You're trying to make too much of it. It's methodologically no different than plumbing.
Now I hope this is not a veiled personal attack on me.
Do I need to remind you of the trouble you got yourself into for labeling me as a crook for supporting Pluto's demotion.
It intrigues me not only do you have the inability of respectfully disagreeing with the science but have a need of questioning the morality, ethics and possible criminality of those over a trivial reclassification of an object in space.
Once again your critical thinking skills are letting you down.You didn't even come to mind.
In fact, you've made it plain you're not even an astronomer.
Stick to headlights.
It was a hypothetical, and you know it.
In fact, it was a hypothetical you made up.
I called the IAU crooks, and you hypothetically injected yourself in with their mindset to see what I would call you.
You probably thought I'd contradict myself and make an excuse for you.
Mamma mia.
Give it up, chief.
Oh, please.
Again, stick to fixing headlights.
And have a happy new year!
It was use of science that fixed the headlamp problem with engineering providing a supportive role.
It's interesting that there isn't a desperate push to give Ceres its planet status back... I guess that wouldn't support a return to childhood rhymes or numeralogical associations with certain religious interpretations.
Someone once pointed out that the Periodic Table once started out with about ten elements.
It is now 120 or so.
What's the problem with naming other planets in our solar system?
it's in a space so small the oscillations are measured in units of h-bar.This is a tempest not just in a teapot, but a thimble—and a tiny thimble at that.
A la. Bender B. Rodriquez: Let's start our own astronomical union with blackjack and ..., nah, nevermind the astronomy. (There is a little more that goes in the ellipsis, but I don't know if it would violate the TOS.)I’d suggest that if astronomers offended by Pluto’s demotion can’t get a re-vote, then they should consider forming their own astronomical union and vote to restore Pluto’s previous status. I’d never pay dues to any organization that I thought was wrong-headed.
In 1969, I submitted to my 9th grade science teacher a drawing of our solar system with Pluto as our ninth planet.
Was that good science?
I'm willing to bet that your ninth grade drawing of the solar system... using 1969's science, is still a whole lot closer than anything you could possibly do today... using 1611's KJV.
Or perhaps you'd prefer the periodic table, how many elements does your vaunted KJV tell us are in that?
Trying to use the Bible as a science book is like trying to use Bill Gate's diary as a computer manual.
It seems to me that the problem with the bible lies in trying to use it as an authority on just about anything, and you're a perfect example why, whereas science provides us with a means of testing its validity, the bible provides us with no such control. It's right simply because @AV1611VET says it's right. Any authority that can't be tested, ultimately can't be trusted either.
SCIENCE CAN TAKE A HIKE.
?I suppose I should learn to expect to hear that from those who call those other things "flying squirrels."
Can you answer this question by Abraham Lincoln?But for the record, it's more than a name change.
?It's a number change as well.
No. The first attempt at a periodic table, by Lothar Meyer, had 28 elements. Classical science in antiquity had 9 known elements until the medieval period, when there were about 13. In the 1600s, phosphorus was added. And the Andean Native Americans knew about platinum, which would bring it to 15. Then after the Renaissance, more became known.Someone once pointed out that the Periodic Table once started out with about ten elements.
You missed it one more time. The Bible isn't about making testable predictions about the physical universe; therefore, the Bible is not part of science.There you have it, folks.
Science in a nutshell.
Science can't test the Bible, therefore the Bible ultimately can't be trusted.
It's been a long and productive hike since the Ionian Greeks got it underway.SCIENCE CAN TAKE A HIKE.
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?