Yes, but why? Unless your point is that humans and their knowledge are fallible then I really don't understand why you keep bringing it up.
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.
I don't believe Pluto is a planet anymore.
If I read this right, Pluto is what is called a KBO or, more appropriately, TNO.
I could be wrong ... but it won't be the first time.
And don't worry, I plan to bring Pluto up often.
I don't believe Pluto is a planet anymore.
If I read this right, Pluto is what is called a KBO or, more appropriately, TNO.
I could be wrong ... but it won't be the first time.
And don't worry, I plan to bring Pluto up often.
Speaking of Charon, I find the idea of a "binary plutoid" incredibly cool for some reason.Not verbatim, but seriously, do you ever once see him mention Eris, Houmea, Makemake, Charon, Nix, Hydra, etc. in his rediculous Pluto nonsense? The existance of Plutoids/Dwarf planets and the "moons" of Pluto don't matter when it comes to his tired schtick.
Silly thaumaturgy, those bats were fowl. They just went extinct with the four-legged grasshoppers or something.But why?
But don't worry, we've all noted:
1. You will not tell us what the official technical definition of the word "planet" was in the year 2000
2. You will not address the counter example from Leviticus of bats as fowl
So we know all we need to know about your goals here.
Have you seen this thread?Come to think of it, it's been a while since I heard of those from AV's keyboard.
Following is a list of animals found in the Bible:
I contend that these animals are problematic for evolutionists.
- fowled bat
- behemoth
- leviathan
- four-legged grasshopper
- satyr
- unicorn
- dragon
- straw-eating lions
- whalefish
- cud-chewing hare
That was over a year ago.
Not that I miss behemoths and unicorns, mind you
He doesn't really care about Pluto being a dwarf planet or a planet. All he care about is using Pluto as an example of how science is often wrong, and therefore should not be applied in any situation where his religious dogma disagrees with science.
No, that is more his challanger thing I think. Let's let him answer in his own words. I'm curious as to why he keeps bringing this up.
Yes ... Split Rock is correct.
And for the record, if I read Laurele's post right, Pluto is not a planet -- dwarf or otherwise.
Have you seen this thread?
Following is a list of animals found in the Bible:
fowled bat
behemoth
leviathan
four-legged grasshopper
satyr
unicorn
dragon
straw-eating lions
whalefish
cud-chewing hare
I contend that these animals are problematic for evolutionists
Have you seen this thread?
I have to admit that I would be stumped with this question myself.1. You will not tell us what the official technical definition of the word "planet" was in the year 2000
Have you seen this thread?
Originally Posted by AV1611VET
Following is a list of animals found in the Bible:
I contend that these animals are problematic for evolutionists.
- fowled bat
- behemoth
- leviathan
- four-legged grasshopper
- satyr
- unicorn
- dragon
- straw-eating lions
- whalefish
- cud-chewing hare
http://www.christianforums.com/t7554234/#post57313441
Speaking of Charon, I find the idea of a "binary plutoid" incredibly cool for some reason.
I have to admit that I would be stumped with this question myself.
As far as I know, the problem behind the whole Pluto debate was that there wasn't an official technical definition of the word "planet". It was more of an organizatorical definition, like "Planets are all the objects that we group under the label of 'planets'"
So... it's 2012 and Pluto is still an issue here? Just read my sig.
No, the "issue" is AV's seeming inability to grasp a relatively simple concept. Most of us aren't discussing "Pluto" per se, but hoping that one day we can help AV understand why Pluto isn't a good critique of science.
So far it's proven nearly impossible, but we hold out hope.
There is no 'good critique of science,' outside of peer review, which is itself considered good science, is there?No, the "issue" is AV's seeming inability to grasp a relatively simple concept. Most of us aren't discussing "Pluto" per se, but hoping that one day we can help AV understand why Pluto isn't a good critique of science.
So far it's proven nearly impossible, but we hold out hope.
There is no 'good critique of science,' outside of peer review, which is itself considered good science, is there?
I've said this before, and I'll say it again: Science runs on the No True Scotsman Principle.
Yes ... science leaves a trail of redactions in its wake; but let someone quote the Bible and ... oh, man ... look out!I just can't understand the problem, scientific definitions and classifications change as new evidence is gathered.
Just today?You seem to be exceptionally out of your depth today, AV.
I know exactly why I'm "wrong".
Science runs on the No True Scotsman Principle --- that's why.
And guess what?
That's even wrong, isn't it?
Suit yourself -- but you guys are very good at sweeping your history under the carpet.
I've [exercised my rights and] said this before too: Science runs on the No True Scotsman Principle.
And again, if you don't like that, take it to the Geneva Convention.
Yes, yes -- I know -- science runs on the No True Scotsman Principle.
That's why I keep bringing these things up over and over; it's my way of saying I'm not buying science's innocence.
Because science runs on the No True Scotsman Principle?
How's come when something like the Challenger or Deepwater Horizon is successful, it's because science has improved our quality of life so well; but when something like the Challenger or Deepwater Horizon happens, it's suddenly corporate's fault?
These 'executive employees' you mentioned -- none of them are/were scientists?
This is why I say science runs on the No True Scotsman Principle.
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?