Kylie's Pluto Challenge

[AV1611VET]

The disasters which overtook the Hindenburg, the Titanic and the Deepwater Horizon were the fault of engineers, not scientists.

Let's pretend you're right.

No scientists died in any of those tragedies?

 

[Speedwell]

Let's pretend you're right.

No scientists died in any of those tragedies?

I don't know the occupations of the passengers on the Titanic or the Hindenburg--you could look it up, but if any scientists died in those disasters it was by coincidence, not because they were involved other than as passengers. No scientists died on Deepwater Horizon. All of the victims were engineers or technicians.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

Speaking of fail, it took three men dying on the launch pad in a fire before the brainiacs at NASA built the hatches to open inward, instead of outward.

You got that the wrong way around; the hatch was redesigned from opening inward to open outward. It was originally designed to be secure against opening to external vacuum, not for opening under over-pressure due to fire at ground level. It's easy to be clever with hindsight, but the main error was pressurization with pure oxygen (intended to allow a lower cabin pressure, so that, under expected conditions, the inward opening hatch was easier to open at ground level).

Of course, it too was designed by engineers.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

I know that thalidomide was intentionally created as a pre-natal drug...

I don't think that's right - after it was developed it was found to be a good anti-emetic and sedative, which happened to work well for morning sickness.

 

[AV1611VET]

You got that the wrong way around;

Okay.

Thanks for the 411.

 

[Kylie]

Is that what you see in my posts?

I'll bet you see geocentrism in the Bible too, don't you?

Maybe you need a better pair of glasses?

A literal reading of the Bible does support that.

You ARE a Biblical literalist, aren't you? Or is that only when it's convenient?

 

[Kylie]

I usually don't discuss why I think thalidomide was created.

I can assure you it wasn't to "gloat."

But then, I don't want to take the wind out your sails, either.

You might find something worse to [falsely] accuse me of.

Rubbish. I've never seen you mention it without gloating. Every single time, you have used it in the sense of, "Science created Thalidomide, and that was very harmful. That proves science is not all good, therefore religion is better, specifically my personal interpretation of Christianity. So Christianity is better than science."

You've done the same thing with Pluto (hence this thread), and the Challenger disaster.

You only ever bring up these things in a lame attempt to rub our noses in the fact that science is not perfect (and we never said it was).

 

[AV1611VET]

A literal reading of the Bible does support that.

You are a literalist now, are you?

You ARE a Biblical literalist, aren't you?

Yes.

Or is that only when it's convenient?

When it's called for.

Funny how you become one though, when you think it's convenient.

 

[AV1611VET]

You only ever bring up these things in a lame attempt to rub our noses in the fact that science is not perfect (and we never said it was).

LOL

You have no clue why I bring up Pluto, do you?

You only post here when you're not busy with about three other things; so you miss a lot of what I say.

Case in point:

Why do I bring up Pluto?

1. To show that science isn't perfect?
2. To show scientists will stoop to rigging votes to further their agenda?

 

[Kylie]

You are a literalist now, are you?

Why do you think an atheist would ever be a Biblical literalist? I'm simply someone who understands that if a passage of text says, "Joe walked down the street", then a literal interpretation of that means that there was a person named Joe, and he walked down the street.

Yes.

Do you believe that EVERY PART of the Bible is intended to be interpreted literally?

When it's called for.

So Biblical literalism can take a hike, huh?

Or is it better to say that you will interpret the Bible literally, unless it suits you to do otherwise.

Perhaps it is best to say, "Anything other than AV's opinion can take a hike"?

Funny how you become one though, when you think it's convenient.

When have I ever claimed that a literal interpretation of the Bible is correct?

On the other hand, I am capable of understanding what a literal interpretation of the Bible says. And when you, as a Biblical literalist, say something that contradicts a literal interpretation of the Bible, I feel that I should call you out on it. I mean, you would NEVER pick and choose what parts of the Bible are meant to be literal and what parts of the Bible are meant to be metaphorical, would you? No, of course not. Because, as you say, the Bible trumps everything - including your own opinion!

So when the Bible says, "the pillars of the earth are the LORD's, and he hath set the world upon them" in 1 Samuel, 2:8, a literal interpretation of this requires you to believe that there LITERALLY ARE pillars supporting the Earth.

Or do I need to add "literal" to the list of things you don't understand?

 

[Subduction Zone]

You are a literalist now, are you?Yes.When it's called for.

Funny how you become one though, when you think it's convenient.

In other words you are a literalist when it is convenient. We are literalists only to show that it is a false belief. In other words the anti-literalists are consistent. Literalists aren't. For them the Bible is more a matter of convenience than thought and introspection.

 

[Kylie]

LOL

You have no clue why I bring up Pluto, do you?

You only post here when you're not busy with about three other things; so you miss a lot of what I say.

Case in point:

Why do I bring up Pluto?

1. To show that science isn't perfect?
2. To show scientists will stoop to rigging votes to further their agenda?

My goodness...

What agenda is there that can not be accomplished if Pluto is categorised as a planet?

I can imagine it now...

Scientist #1: "Yes, our plan for world domination is proceeding as planned. Soon, we will be in control!"

Scientist#2: "Wait! I've found a flaw!"

Scientist #1: "What is it?"

Scientist #2: "Our plan will FAIL if people think Pluto is a planet! We must stop people from calling Pluto is a planet, or everything we have worked for will be lost!"

Scientist #1: No!

Scientist #2: What shall we do? Will we be ruined?

Scientist #1: Not if I cal help it! QUICK! Convene the IAC! I know how to solve it!

 

[Jimmy D]

You have no clue why I bring up Pluto, do you?

Says more about your ability to communicate your 'ideas' - seeing as you keep harping on about it on a daily basis. Maybe it's time to drop the childish riddles and explain yourself?

 

[AV1611VET]

Maybe it's time to drop the childish riddles and explain yourself?

Like that would help?

I've seen basic reading comprehension here fail -- and that by those who have been through the halls of higher academia.

If I can't explain myself very well, I'm certainly not going to lose any sleep over it.

If the Bible can't explain Itself to you guys, I'm certainly not going to feel bad that I can't.

I've see you guys willing to throw general relativity out the window, just so you can claim the Bible was written by idiots.

You'll go to any lengths to stay stupid.

 

[Jimmy D]

Like that would help?

I've seen basic reading comprehension here fail -- and that by those who have been through the halls of higher academia.

If I can't explain myself very well, I'm certainly not going to lose any sleep over it.

If the Bible can't explain Itself to you guys, I'm certainly not going to feel bad that I can't.

I've see you guys willing to throw general relativity out the window, just so you can claim the Bible was written by idiots.

You'll go to any lengths to stay stupid.

So you aren't going to explain why you bring up pluto all the time? You could have just said so, no need to throw a tantrum.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

Like that would help?

I've seen basic reading comprehension here fail -- and that by those who have been through the halls of higher academia.

If I can't explain myself very well, I'm certainly not going to lose any sleep over it.

If the Bible can't explain Itself to you guys, I'm certainly not going to feel bad that I can't.

I've see you guys willing to throw general relativity out the window, just so you can claim the Bible was written by idiots.

You'll go to any lengths to stay stupid.

Great argument

 

[AV1611VET]

So you aren't going to explain why you bring up pluto all the time?

I already explained why.

Pluto shows that scientists will stoop to rigging votes if they have to, to further their agenda.

Catch up, please.

 

[Jimmy D]

I already explained why.

Pluto shows that scientists will stoop to rigging votes if they have to, to further their agenda.

Catch up, please.

Doesn't make a great deal of sense, but consider me caught up.

 

[Speedwell]

I already explained why.

Pluto shows that scientists will stoop to rigging votes if they have to, to further their agenda.

Catch up, please.

What agenda were they pursuing that required the designation of Pluto to be changed?

 

[AV1611VET]

What agenda were they pursuing that required the designation of Pluto to be changed?

Who knows?

Scientists have to look busy at times, or they'll lose 1) their funding, and 2) public interest.

Why do you think Scientific American and Popular Science come out with new and/or improved stuff every month?

That's why our mailboxes get bombarded with all these nonsense mailings from the hospital, or AAA, or AARP or wherever.

They have to look busy.