Micro to Macro

[Naraoia]

This is for you guys who think you know enough about [whatever] that you think you can critique the Bible with your myopic science: 1.

Please don't try and convince me there are no four-legged grasshoppers until you have scoured every square cm of this universe --- simultaneously.

I'm no longer trying to convince you of anything, as it's a completely futile effort in most cases. Plus it's harmful to my psychological well-being.

You'll just vote a change in the definitions as needed.

What's that called when you think we do it? 'Moving the goalpost'?

Precisely what goalposts were moved when "planet" was defined?

Go try and convince someone who's gullible enough to believe science over the Bible.

Signature-worthy material

It's your 4 legged insect. The Rust Monster, and it's eating a rusty sword!

Does the Manual say anything about its gut biota? It could be interesting

 

[atomweaver]

This is for you guys who think you know enough about [whatever] that you think you can critique the Bible with your myopic science: 1.

Please don't try and convince me there are no four-legged grasshoppers until you have scoured every square cm of this universe --- simultaneously.

This is strong evidence of the damaging effects of creationism on critical thinking skills; in order to maintain belief, the theocreologist must put the old Sagan quote on its head, and resort to appeals for extraordinary evidence (the simultaneous observation of the entire universe in a search for four legged insects) for very ordinary claims (insects have six legs).


Please heed this cautionary tale, kids; Stay in school, and stay off creationism. Doing so will keep you from going down the road of questioning the existence of six-legged insects, the ability of a functioning fire extinguisher to function, and the many other pitfalls that come from lacking the capability of discerning rational thoughts from irrational thoughts.

 

[AV1611VET]

I'm no longer trying to convince you of anything, as it's a completely futile effort in most cases. Plus it's harmful to my psychological well-being.

My three favorite posts of all time, in descending order:

1. 1
2. 1
3. 74

 

[Alunyel]

Does the Manual say anything about its gut biota? It could be interesting

Nah, just says how it likes to oxidize metal really quickly, then eat it.

If you want to know about the biology of it, why don't you ask AV? He quite clearly knows more than any of us about 4 legged insects.

 

[AV1611VET]

He quite clearly knows more than any of us about 4 legged insects.

All I know is they existed at one time --- if that's 'more than all of you know', I surely wouldn't boast about it.

 

[Alunyel]

All I know is they existed at one time --- if that's 'more than all of you know', I surely wouldn't boast about it.

Yeah, what we wouldn't give to know that.

Unfortunately for us, we don't just blindly believe things without evidence. A curse on our logical and free thinking minds! Life would be so much simpler if we knew things that were 100% bovine excrement.

Alas, we're only capable of knowing things that are actually true.

 

[AV1611VET]

Alas, we're only capable of knowing things that are actually true.

Like Pluto?

 

[Alunyel]

Last time I checked, Pluto existed.

I'm sure if you doubted that, you could invest in a telescope and see for yourself.

 

[AV1611VET]

Last time I checked, Pluto existed.

I didn't say it didn't.

I'm sure if you doubted that, you could invest in a telescope and see for yourself.

It was a telescope that led to Tombaugh's Folly in the first place.

 

[Freodin]

Like Pluto?

Have you ever considered Pluto under dispensionalist science?

 

[Alunyel]

I didn't say it didn't.It was a telescope that led to Tombaugh's Folly in the first place.

Of course, telescopes are all wrong.

All those little lights in the sky are really part of the heavens, put there by God to guide us at sea.

They're not huge burning balls of H and He, no, not at all. God made them all specifically for us.

Talk about self-centered.

 

[AV1611VET]

They're not huge burning balls of H and He, no, not at all. God made them all specifically for us.

Didn't you just tell me to use a telescope if I wanted to confirm the existence of Pluto?

Last time I checked, Pluto existed.

I'm sure if you doubted that, you could invest in a telescope and see for yourself.

Now you're talking about stars?

You kinda went [way] out of the neighborhood, didn't you?

Talk about self-centered.

Why do I get the impression sometimes that you guys shift the focus just so you can ad-hom or facepalm us?

 

[Wiccan_Child]

I didn't say it didn't.

Then why bring it up? A change in terminology just means that we're updating our vocabulary to better deal with new data. Back in the day, 'planet' had an obvious meaning. Nowadays, it's not so clear what constitutes a planet.

The objects in question exist, which is all science cares about. What we Anglophones choose to call them is neither here nor there.

It was a telescope that led to Tombaugh's Folly in the first place.

What folly was this? He did discover Pluto, regardless of how we classify it.

 

[Hespera]

Why do I get the impression sometimes that you guys shift the focus just so you can ad-hom or facepalm us?

Maybe because people's impressions are often actually projections?

You dont seem to like the ad hom, so why do you do it, like right here?

If there is a problem with interpreting or applying the golden rule, Im sure someone here can explain it.

 

[AV1611VET]

Then why bring it up?

Did you see the quote that started all this?

Viz.:

Alas, we're only capable of knowing things that are actually true.

Here's the progression:

1. 1920 - 2006 = we know Pluto to be a planet is true
2. 2006 - [a revote?] = we know Pluto not to be a Planet is true

Let's play with this mindset a little more:

1. 1960's = we know Thalidomide to be a wonder drug
2. 2009 = we know Thalidomide to be a drug

1. 1986 = 'go' for throttle-up
2. 1986 = R.I.P.

We 'know' alchemy, phlogiston, atoms, aliens...

On and on it goes --- where it stops, nobody kno... er... does kno... er... nevermind.

I'm tired of you "scientists" telling me you know something one day, then revoking it the next.

 

[Split Rock]

Did you see the quote that started all this?

Viz.:Here's the progression:

1. 1920 - 2006 = we know Pluto to be a planet is true
2. 2006 - [a revote?] = we know Pluto not to be a Planet is true

It was a planet and still is a planet according to the old foggy definition. Now the term "planet" is different. Pluto does exist and it is in orbit around the Sun. There is no "folly" except from YOU.

Let's play with this mindset a little more:

Playing is all you sem to know how to do. I can't remember the last time you made a valid point here, despite all your thousands of posts.

1. 1986 = 'go' for throttle-up
2. 1986 = R.I.P.

What did we know now that we didn't know then from this example??

We 'know' alchemy, phlogiston, atoms, aliens...

On and on it goes --- where it stops, nobody kno... er... does kno... er... nevermind.

Alchemy is not science, though I am sure it was mentioned in scripture. You got a problem with atoms???

I'm tired of you "scientists" telling me you know something one day, then revoking it the next.

I'm tired of you Bible Christian/Creationists telling us The Rapture is coming and then postponing it again and again.

I'm tired of you Bible Christian/Creationists telling us you know things you clearly do not.

I'm tired of you Bible Christian/Creationists telling us you know God's Inerrant Word when you clearly cannot.

 

[Wiccan_Child]

Did you see the quote that started all this?

Viz.:Here's the progression:

1. 1920 - 2006 = we know Pluto to be a planet is true
2. 2006 - [a revote?] = we know Pluto not to be a Planet is true

Your conflation is showing: the word 'planet' in those two statements is not the same. Both statements are true, for given values of 'planet'.

Let's play with this mindset a little more:

1. 1960's = we know Thalidomide to be a wonder drug
2. 2009 = we know Thalidomide to be a drug

1. 1986 = 'go' for throttle-up
2. 1986 = R.I.P.

We 'know' alchemy, phlogiston, atoms, aliens...

On and on it goes --- where it stops, nobody kno... er... does kno... er... nevermind.

I'm tired of you "scientists" telling me you know something one day, then revoking it the next.

Again, you're tying yourself in semantic knots. You're confusing true epistemological knowledge with established scientific knowledge: the former is proven beyond all doubt, while the latter is only proven beyond all reasonable doubt.

Phlogiston and the luminiferous aether were perfectly valid concepts as far as the available evidence was concerned. But new data emerged, casting doubt on old conclusions and forcing a rethink.

You lament the changing conclusions of science, but that's its greatest strength: the ability to adapt to new data and reform its theories to better correspond to reality.

Classical mechanics is the quintessential example. Before the 20[sup]th[/sup] century, all the evidence seemed to support Newtonian physics. But new evidence emerged that showed classical mechanics to be not as universal as everyone thought: the very big and the very small behave differently to what Newton would have guessed.

Do you consider it a failing of science to adapt to this new data? Would you rather we stick to Newtonian mechanics?

Don't mistake a scientist's abbreviations for absolute, literal claims. You yourself undoubtedly use the word 'know' in as loose a way as scientists do.

 

[Hespera]

Your conflation is showing: the word 'planet' in those two statements is not the same. Both statements are true, for given values of 'planet'.


Again, you're tying yourself in semantic knots. You're confusing true epistemological knowledge with established scientific knowledge: the former is proven beyond all doubt, while the latter is only proven beyond all reasonable doubt.

Phlogiston and the luminiferous aether were perfectly valid concepts as far as the available evidence was concerned. But new data emerged, casting doubt on old conclusions and forcing a rethink.

You lament the changing conclusions of science, but that's its greatest strength: the ability to adapt to new data and reform its theories to better correspond to reality.

Classical mechanics is the quintessential example. Before the 20[sup]th[/sup] century, all the evidence seemed to support Newtonian physics. But new evidence emerged that showed classical mechanics to be not as universal as everyone thought: the very big and the very small behave differently to what Newton would have guessed.

Do you consider it a failing of science to adapt to this new data? Would you rather we stick to Newtonian mechanics?

Don't mistake a scientist's abbreviations for absolute, literal claims. You yourself undoubtedly use the word 'know' in as loose a way as scientists do.

All of that stuff is just "documentation" of a total poverty of things to use criticizing science.

 

[Wiccan_Child]

All of that stuff is just "documentation" of a total poverty of things to use criticizing science.

...huh?

 

[MoonLancer]

think about this

Pluto is still planet 1.0 but is not a planet 2.0. You seem to think that the definition of planet is immutable when it is not. that's your fault, not sciences.