- Jun 18, 2006
- 3,855,789
- 52,555
- Country
- United States
- Gender
- Male
- Faith
- Baptist
- Marital Status
- Married
- Politics
- US-Republican
That's what I thought.
I'll go ahead and take this...
... with a grain of salt.
Upvote
0
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.
That's what I thought.Perhaps I should mimic one of your better posts . . .
1
... with a grain of salt.Of course, you can not agree with any of those criticisms since they are science based. You told science to take a hike a long time ago, so you can't agree with them now.
... with a grain of salt.
You are the one rejecting reality, Loudmouth.When evidence contradicts your fantasy you throw out the evidence and cling to your fantasy. That's not a grain of salt. That is a self imposed separation from reality. When you feel like you want to return to reality then you can start talking about science, but not until then.
If you want to stick with your assumption that I can't agree with science because I 'told it to take a hike', that's certainly your prerogative; but don't expect me to believe it.
I can't believe he's doing this.You tell em AV.
Goodbye.So you are saying that the scientific method can be used to determine if humans and chimps share a common ancestor?
Goodbye.
If you told me to paint a Chess set, and I painted the Kings & Queens on the wrong color, and you asked me why I did that, and I said my dad always set it up that way ... would you count that against me?
Let's see: where do you stand on science?You are the one rejecting reality, Loudmouth.
Either that, or you have, by coincidence, missed the many, many, many times I've clarified my stance on science in general, and my user title specifically.
There are newbies here that probably know more about where I stand on science than you seem to do.
If you want to stick with your assumption that I can't agree with science because I 'told it to take a hike', that's certainly your prerogative; but don't expect me to believe it.
What does the Bible say about the planetary status of Pluto? Nothing, it is silent about it.My Boolean standards:
- Whatever the Bible supports: support.
- Whatever the Bible trumps: trump.
- If the Bible is silent and science supports it: support it.
- If the Bible is silent and science trumps it: trump it.
Which was done how?What changed was our classification of Pluto from planet to dwarf planet.
Which was done how?
I'm interested as to how you think it was done. Were there deaths involved? Did people wind up homeless or starve? We're people dancing naked in public? Were airplanes carpet-bombing super-AIDS on to third world countries? Please tell me what you thought the means was, because I'm sure it's bound to be entertaining.I'm not going to question your need to change Pluto's status.
I'm sure, if we lived long enough, we'd eventually be reclassified as humans; but I will question you as to if you know how it was done?
And, if so, if you feel the end justified the means?
Ya ... entertaining ... get your mindset established before you hear the other side.Please tell me what you thought the means was, because I'm sure it's bound to be entertaining.
Only four percent of the IAU voted on the controversial demotion of Pluto, and most are not planetary scientists. The vote was conducted in violation of the IAU's own bylaws on the last day of a two-week conference when most attendees already had left. No absentee voting was allowed. Supporters of the demotion resolution violated the IAU's own bylaws by putting this resolution on the General Assembly floor without first vetting it by the proper committee as IAU rules require. Also, many planetary scientists do not belong to the IAU and therefore had no say in this matter. When professional astronomers objecting to the demotion asked for a reopening of the planet debate at the 2009 IAU General Assembly, the IAU leadership adamantly refused. Why would they refuse to reopen a debate unless they were insecure about their stand? Meanwhile, this issue continues to be debated in other venues, such as the 2008 Great Planet Debate, held at the Johns Hopkins University Applied Physics Lab in August 2008 (which I personally attended), the American Geophysical Union, and the European Geophysical Union.
The IAU decision was immediately opposed in a formal petition by hundreds of professional astronomers led by Dr. Alan Stern, Principal Investigator of NASA’s New Horizons mission to Pluto. One reason the IAU definition makes no sense is it says dwarf planets are not planets at all! That is like saying a grizzly bear is not a bear, and it is inconsistent with the use of the term “dwarf” in astronomy, where dwarf stars are still stars, and dwarf galaxies are still galaxies. Also, the IAU definition classifies objects solely by where they are while ignoring what they are. If Earth were in Pluto’s orbit, according to the IAU definition, it would not be a planet either. A definition that takes the same object and makes it a planet in one location and not a planet in another is essentially useless.
Pluto is a planet because it is spherical, meaning it is large enough to be pulled into a round shape by its own gravity--a state known as hydrostatic equilibrium and characteristic of planets, not of shapeless asteroids held together by chemical bonds. These reasons are why many astronomers, lay people, and educators are either ignoring the demotion entirely or working to get it overturned. You can find out more by Googling "Laurel's Pluto Blog."
A decision should not be blindly accepted as some sort of gospel truth because a small number of people decreed it so. The IAU can decree the sky is green, but that doesn't make it any less blue.
Ya ... entertaining ... get your mindset established before you hear the other side.
Like I've said many times here, if I sponsored a team of scientists to find the Loch Ness Monster, and overheard one of you talking like that, I would demand he be removed from the team.
But for the record ... here's your show:
Which was done how?
I'm not going to question your need to change Pluto's status.
I'm sure, if we lived long enough, we'd eventually be reclassified as humans; but I will question you as to if you know how it was done?
And, if so, if you feel the end justified the means?
Your analogy is poor.If you changed your handle to "AV1611HORSE" would it make you into a literal HORSE?
One reason the IAU definition makes no sense is it says dwarf planets are not planets at all!
Your analogy is poor.
If I couldn't change my name to AV1611HORSE w/o a consensus of moderators, and if only a handful of moderators rigged a vote to change my name, then your analogy would be ... analogous.
Also ... did you read the post form Laurele?
Specifically this part?
Pluto is not a planet.
Your analogy is poor.
If I couldn't change my name to AV1611HORSE w/o a consensus of moderators, and if only a handful of moderators rigged a vote to change my name, then your analogy would be ... analogous.
Also ... did you read the post form Laurele?
Specifically this part?
Pluto is not a planet.
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?