Is Gravity About To Get Plutoed?

[AV1611VET]

What do they gain from producing false and easily exposed results?

Corroboration.

 

[CabVet]

Did I say they lied?

Your word game is getting old, so here you go, yes, you did say they were lying. "Calibrating" equipment to give false results and "rigging" votes is lying. If you don't consider those things to be lying you have to recalibrate your moral compass.

As much as you'd like to think, this isn't about me; it's about how scientists will do what they have to do to get the results they're looking for ... from calibrating equipment, to rigging votes.

I will also give you another example of lying: when someone says scientists "calibrate equipment" and "rig votes" to "get the results they are looking for" without a shred of evidence to prove it.

 

[Elendur]

AV, I suspect you've either missed my post or avoided it. So here's the question again:

Why are you putting so much affection into a definition?

Perhaps I should skip that step and offer you the follow-up question.
Do you know the purpose of definitions?

 

[AV1611VET]

Your word game is getting old, so here you go, yes, you did say they were lying. "Calibrating" equipment to give false results and "rigging" votes is lying. If you don't consider those things to be lying you have to recalibrate your moral compass.

You seem to think I'm saying these guys are calibrating their equipment consciously; but they aren't ... they think they are, but in Truth, I believe they are doing Satan's work.

Yes, equipment needs to be calibrated, such as when a radar detector is calibrated to catch speeders on the highway; but when calibrations lead to deep time and no global floods and more than one Pangaea and so on and so forth, they are returning Satan's data, not God's.

If fossils are dated by the age of the rocks they are found in, and the age of the rocks they are found in date the fossils, Satan is laughing.

 

[AV1611VET]

AV, I suspect you've either missed my post or avoided it. So here's the question again:

Why are you putting so much affection into a definition?

Perhaps I should skip that step and offer you the follow-up question.
Do you know the purpose of definitions?

Who cares what I think? this thread isn't about me.

 

[CabVet]

You seem to think I'm saying these guys are calibrating their equipment consciously; but they aren't ... they think they are, but in Truth, I believe they are doing Satan's work.

Yes, equipment needs to be calibrated, such as when a radar detector is calibrated to catch speeders on the highway; but when calibrations lead to deep time and no global floods and more than one Pangaea and so on and so forth, they are returning Satan's data, not God's.

If fossils are dated by the age of the rocks they are found in, and the age of the rocks they are found in date the fossils, Satan is laughing.

You give too much credit to this Satan creature (and I say "creature" here in the correct sense of the word).

But that is not really what you said, is it? You said scientists were deliberately being dishonest when you said they (and I quote) would "do what they have to do to get the results they're looking for".

 

[seeking Christ]

You give too much credit to this Satan creature.

I rather like the idea of the Plutoing of gravity - and it could do wonders for the energy shortage!

 

[CabVet]

Who cares what I think? this thread isn't about me.

Actually, the thread is about opinions expressed by you, so what you think does matter.

 

[AV1611VET]

You give too much credit to this Satan creature (and I say "creature" here in the correct sense of the word).

But that is not really what you said, is it? You said scientists were deliberately being dishonest when you said they (and I quote) would "do what they have to do to get the results they're looking for".

Again, I'm done explaining myself.

This thread is not about me, or what I think.

 

[Elendur]

Who cares what I think? this thread isn't about me.

I care about what you think. Especially since you return to this special point repeatedly. I was thinking that I'd try to get down to why you're doing that and see if I could help. Or, if you're unwilling to change your (or my) mind, be content with that I tried.


Why are you putting so much affection into a definition?
or
Do you know the purpose of definitions?

 

[CabVet]

Again, I'm done explaining myself.

This thread is not about me, or what I think.

How about you try this: next time, instead of saying that scientists are being dishonest, just say that they are being mislead by satan.

 

[AV1611VET]

Actually, the thread is about opinions expressed by you, so what you think does matter.

No, it doesn't.

This thread shows that someone can post a single sentence from a science article ... no Bible mentioned, God not mentioned, no opinions expressed, etc., and the resulting influx of replies end up in over 100 posts doing nothing but throwing insults and questions at one another.

In other words, standard replies.

This thread demonstrates that atheists and Christians cannot even meet peacefully over one sentence from a science article.

 

[CabVet]

No, it doesn't.

This thread shows that someone can post a single sentence from a science article ... no Bible mentioned, God not mentioned, no opinions expressed, etc., and the resulting influx of replies end up in over 100 posts doing nothing but throwing insults and questions at one another.

In other words, standard replies.

This thread demonstrates that atheists and Christians cannot even meet peacefully over one sentence from a science article.

But that is not what you did, is it? You didn't really "post a sentence from a science article". You made your intentions with this thread very clear when you used the word "Plutoed" in the title.

I could very well start a thread with a "simple" Bible verse and be banned from this forum if I used some words in the title.

 

[AV1611VET]

But that is not what you did, is it? You didn't really "post a sentence from a science article". You made your intentions with this thread very clear when you used the word "Plutoed" in the title.

'Plutoed' is a valid word now, and is the American Dialect Society's word-of-the-year for 2006.

Okay with you if I use it?

 

[CabVet]

'Plutoed' is a valid word now, and is the American Dialect Society's word-of-the-year for 2006.

Okay with you if I use it?

Oh you can use whichever word you want. I know very well you are a master of turning seemingly harmless words very offensive, like calling people "scientists". I have two suggestions for you to propose for the American Dialect Society:

"Thalidomided": when a scientist, based on the scientific method, uses government power to stop the distribution of a drug.

"Challengered": when scientists warn management of imminent catastrophes and are ignored.

By the way, did you use the word as defined by the American Dialect Society? Or did you use it with some other meaning?

 

[AV1611VET]

By the way, did you use the word as defined by the American Dialect Society? Or did you use it with some other meaning?

I hope so!

Pluto may no longer be a planet, but it has a new claim to fame: "Plutoed" has been chosen 2006 Word of the Year by the American Dialect Society.

The society defined "to pluto" as "to demote or devalue someone or something, as happened to the former planet Pluto when the General Assembly of the International Astronomical Union decided Pluto no longer met its definition of a planet."

The former planet had some tough competition in the voting, which took place Friday at the ADS' annual meeting, held in Anaheim, California.

SOURCE

 

[seeking Christ]

I sense Plutoed will have tremendous applicability in poker.

 

[CabVet]

I hope so!

Then how does this:

Dr Famaey added, "If we account for our observations with a modified law of gravity, it makes perfect sense to replace the effective action of hypothetical dark matter with a force closely related to the distribution of visible matter."

In any way, shape, or form, "demotes" gravity?

 

[JustMeSee]

You seem to think I'm saying these guys are calibrating their equipment consciously; but they aren't ... they think they are, but in Truth, I believe they are doing Satan's work.

Yes, equipment needs to be calibrated, such as when a radar detector is calibrated to catch speeders on the highway; but when calibrations lead to deep time and no global floods and more than one Pangaea and so on and so forth, they are returning Satan's data, not God's.

If fossils are dated by the age of the rocks they are found in, and the age of the rocks they are found in date the fossils, Satan is laughing.

This is the gist of your attitude about scientists. This should be remembered when conversing with you on these sub-forums. It says a great deal about you and your impression of the motives of other members.

AV, the simple solution is for you to just think of Pluto as one of nine planets in our solar system.

 

[Tomk80]

No, it doesn't.

This thread shows that someone can post a single sentence from a science article ... no Bible mentioned, God not mentioned, no opinions expressed, etc., and the resulting influx of replies end up in over 100 posts doing nothing but throwing insults and questions at one another.

In other words, standard replies.

This thread demonstrates that atheists and Christians cannot even meet peacefully over one sentence from a science article.

This has to rank as one of the most deliberarely dishonest posts ever made on this forum. Ever.