Is Gravity About To Get Plutoed?

[Subduction Zone]

You have been both Plutoed and subducted, due to missing obvious signs of translation, and still being oblivious to them. Thus, your credibility on the matter is shot. (Look up Hebrewisms if you would ever dare raise your head on the subject again)

I said that I was not an expert on language from the start. How is my credibility shot? I rely on the expertise of others and they all say that Matthew was written in Greek originally. A few wacko sites rely on one poorly preserved quote to claim that Matthew was written in Aramaic.

It seems that you are trying to grant yourself some expertise that is not warranted.

 

[seeking Christ]

How is my credibility shot? I rely on the expertise of others and they all say that Matthew was written in Greek originally.

Wallowing in ignorance is not so becoming for one who advances the arguments you make, and I have already furnished you with everything you need to correct that. That you prefer not to speaks volumes.

 

[Tomk80]

Hmm, interesting question.

I am sure that they have their own form of peer review. My question, how would a historian perform an experiment? Perhaps the same way that paleontologists do. I suppose they could even write theories about how past events happened.

In a sense I don't see why the scientific method could not be applied to history. The question is do they apply it?

How would an epidemiologist perform an experiment. Except in rare cases, not. The scientific method is not limited to experiments only.

Given the source that you quote, how is that not applying the scientific method? They propose a hypothesis, that Matthew is originally Greek. They find evidence that could confirm or falisfy this hypothesis, in this case tell-tale signs of translation. I fail to see how this is not the scientific method.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Wallowing in ignorance is not so becoming for one who advances the arguments you make, and I have already furnished you with everything you need to correct that. That you prefer not to speaks volumes.

Sorry, now your credibility is shot. You have given nothing. By the way, you do not even know what wallowing in ignorance is, let me guess, your are a creationist, right?

 

[Subduction Zone]

How would an epidemiologist perform an experiment. Except in rare cases, not. The scientific method is not limited to experiments only.

Given the source that you quote, how is that not applying the scientific method? They propose a hypothesis, that Matthew is originally Greek. They find evidence that could confirm or falisfy this hypothesis, in this case tell-tale signs of translation. I fail to see how this is not the scientific method.

I agree. A good historian can use all sorts of tools. The scientific method is not limited to science.

 

[Tomk80]

I agree. A good historian can use all sorts of tools. The scientific method is not limited to science.

I think you ment "the scientific method is not liimted to experiments"?

 

[Mr. Pedantic]

Of course not ... the ends justifies the means, doesn't it?

I'm getting confused by all your doublethink. Would you mind laying it out a bit more clearly for those who don't deal in convoluted conspiracy theories on a daily basis?

 

[Subduction Zone]

I think you ment "the scientific method is not liimted to experiments"?

Hah! Very good. Now let's see if I can at least get you for a spelling error without invoking Muphry's Law: "ment"?

 

[RainbowDashIsBestPony]

The Pluto issue is a sore spot with me.

Why exactly do you care so much? How is your life affected by Pluto's status?

 

[AV1611VET]

Why exactly do you care so much? How is your life affected by Pluto's status?

Let's not make this thread about me, okay?

Otherwise, they'll be showing up to let me know that they think I'm narcissistic, and even egoistic.

 

[Tomk80]

Hah! Very good. Now let's see if I can at least get you for a spelling error without invoking Muphry's Law: "ment"?

 

[RainbowDashIsBestPony]

Let's not make this thread about me, okay?

Otherwise, they'll be showing up to let me know that they think I'm narcissistic, and even egoistic.

Ok, I respect your right to decline the question.

 

[Strathos]

So what is the point here? That science adapts and improves as new information is discovered? And this is somehow a bad thing?

 

[CabVet]

So what is the point here? That science adapts and improves as new information is discovered? And this is somehow a bad thing?

According to AV (and many others here), science is always bad. If science does not change and keep making the same mistakes, it is bad. If science self-corrects and improve, it is bad. In other words, whatever does not agree 100% with their views is bad.

 

[RickG]

According to AV (and many others here), science is always bad. If science does not change and keep making the same mistakes, it is bad. If science self-corrects and improve, it is bad. In other words, whatever does not agree 100% with their views is bad.

For what it is worth, most Christians don't have to stick their heads in the sand and deny everything that doesn't fit their world views.

 

[CabVet]

For what it is worth, most Christians don't have to stick their heads in the sand and deny everything that doesn't fit their world views.

While I agree with you that many Christians are reasonable, I would not say that "most" are. But my sampling can be biased .

 

[RickG]

While I agree with you that many Christians are reasonable, I would not say that "most" are. But my sampling can be biased .

Well, that is only my opinion, as well as experience; but I do admit that there is a denomination here in the Southeast that is the dominant denomination by far that is pretty much up AV's alley. But that's not the rest of the country and definitely not the world.

 

[Quincunx]

While I agree with you that many Christians are reasonable, I would not say that "most" are. But my sampling can be biased .

I'm going to go out on a limb and say your sample may be biased.

Most of the Christians I know personally (and that's almost everyone I know to one extent or another) most are quite reasonable. In fact many of the scientists I have worked with are Christian or people of faith.

What you see on this type of board is a sampling of only the most obdurate, or anti-science or extreme.

That's kind of why many of us like to talk to them: they are far more fun than regular Christians.

It's hard to get a regular Christian to say the kinds of things we get from YEC or others of that end of the spectrum.

 

[Quincunx]

According to AV (and many others here), science is always bad.

AV's going to correct you on this one. It will sound hollow for a guy who used to say "Science can take a hike", but he likes to pontificate how he feels scientists are blessing from God. But when the scientists fail to toe AV's line then they run into problems with him.

Just so long as the scientists don't get too uppity and demand to use science in everything they are OK with AV.

If science does not change and keep making the same mistakes, it is bad. If science self-corrects and improve, it is bad. In other words, whatever does not agree 100% with their views is bad.

This is very true. It is a no-win game for the scientists. Folks like AV keep this "fail pool" alive so they can fish out whatever science they "like" and hold it up at arms length to show you how "balanced" and "fair" they are toward science.

Actually it's just a puddle they allow the scientists to exist in and can be easily flushed when necessary.

 

[Quincunx]

Let's not make this thread about me, okay?

Hmmm, so the man who seems to have invented the verb "plutoed" and who brings up Pluto on every opportunity to somehow make a statement about science's flaws wantsthis to not be about him?

Otherwise, they'll be showing up to let me know that they think I'm narcissistic, and even egoistic.

Well, it is very narcissistic and egotistical to repeatedly act like a point is meaningful to science when it is actually a massive ignorance of the topic and to never seem to internalize what countless scientists have already told you time and time and time and time and time again.