Pluto 2000

No true Christian prior to 1492 would have thought that there was anyone living in the Antipodes because of what the Bible clearly says. People were found living in the Antipodes despite what the Bible says so:

The Bible can take a hike!

AV1611VET said:

Yes ... science leaves a trail of redactions in its wake;

Click to expand...

"redaction"? So are you ever going to answer the question? What was the "official technical definition of the word planet in the year 2000?"

Again, that will answer your question. So I can see why you refuse to answer it.

but let someone quote the Bible and ... oh, man ... look out!

Click to expand...

You mean the same bible that says not to suffer a witch to live so provided numerous people the opportunity to murder innocent women throughout history?

You think there are fewer "real witches" today so we don't have the need of more witch hangings?

We get yanked back to 3rd century B.C. Hebrew to tell us our English Version is wrong, don't we?

Click to expand...

Your repeated denial of a "history" to the Christian faith is no impediment to reality.

The Bible has been translated and re-translated and re-re-translated.

If you think that God was inspiring the translators, why do you think He originally left the Johanine Comma out of the available literature for Erasmus for the the first two editions of the Textus Receptus?

Did God just trip up and then say "Oh oopsy, better get the Church to get him a copy...I thought he was on the Distribution List".

Gimme a break.

You dance around inconvenient topics with more fervor than whirling dervish doing the tarantella!

So can I ask, for someone such as yourself who selectively ignores inconvenient topics as it suits your faith, how you have the hubris to question science when it faces its critiques day in and day out and is willing to deal with the "big questions" about what it has done?

AV1611VET said:

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.

Click to expand...

And, as with most thing that you continuously say, you are wrong.

Contrary to your heart-felt belief, the world does not run on the "AV said it, that settles it" Principle.

AV1611VET said:

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.

Click to expand...

I've read through this thread a bit, and I must confess, I still, after all this time, find it impossible to tell where you are being serious, and where you are being purposely absurd.

AV1611VET said:

I will admit that I have now come to accept Pluto as a Kuiper Belt Object / Trans-Neptunian Object, but I will still use Pluto as an excellent example of how Internet scientists automatically accept what they read from a science article, as well as use Pluto as an example of Internet scientists defending rigged votes.

Click to expand...

It is good you "accept" Pluto as a KBO, but that really isn't your say, now is it? It never was.

If you dislike the classification you can have a say in it but it will require more work than you are willing to put into it:

1. get degrees in Astronomy or Planetary Science
2. Become a member of the IAU (here)
3. Go back to the General Assembly and make a cogent case about how your classification system makes more sense than the one that seasoned astronomers came to (remember, this is only a matter of classification schemes. So yours will have an easy task of laying out a system that will not only allow Pluto to be a planet but will have to take into account a variety of other KBO's etc.)

It's easy enough.

But again, I'm concerned that you repeatedly ignore my simple request to give us the official technical definition of the word "Planet" in the year 2000. I can't imagine why you refuse to answer this question.

Those here who defend how Pluto was demoted have lost a lot of respect with me ... (and I'm sure they won't be losing any sleep over it).

Click to expand...

Well, I would actually sleep better if I had lost your respect over a scientific debate point! But that aside, why would anyone in their right mind think your "opinion" or "respect" matters when you seem to fail simple understanding of what is "at stake" in the Pluto debate.

You keep bringing it up as if it is a debate about science qua science, but you can't seem to get it through your head that it simply is a "nomenclature" issue!

You display a very juvenile understanding of science. You think the "map is the country" in a way. Don't worry, many who have no science background think of it like this. Just put on a lab coat and you think you are 90% of the way to being a scientist.

It is frustrating to many of us because you seem to think this is all some really "deep insight" you have here on this topic.

It is also displayed by your occasional attempts to sound super-science geeky by putting the genus and species for a living thing. I'm sure that by memorizing that "factoid" you have felt you have some deeper insight into the thing itself, but I suspect you really don't.

You have memorized a "classification". That's laudable but if your understanding of biology is as limited as your understanding of astronomy as displayed by your hounding on the Pluto issue, then I think it highly likely that just memorizing the genus and species is about where it ends for you.

AV1611VET said:

... but I will still use Pluto as an excellent example of how Internet scientists automatically accept what they read from a science article, as well as use Pluto as an example of Internet scientists defending rigged votes. ...

Click to expand...

Again, two wonderful examples of "things that AV always says, and is completely wrong about".

Perhaps in the way you keep citing a single poster's opinion about that whole topic... could we use it as "an excellent example of how AV automatically accepts what he reads from people who disagree with people AV disagrees with".

Or perhaps you could explain why all of us "internet scientists" who "automatically agree" with everything we read are wrong, while Laurele, who disagrees, is "automatically correct"?

AV1611VET said:

[timeout] My condolences for Spot, and to you too ... I'm sure it hurt. [/timeout]

Click to expand...

Thanks man.

AV1611VET said:

Hi, Granny --

I must confess ... I'm quite serious.

I will admit that I have now come to accept Pluto as a Kuiper Belt Object / Trans-Neptunian Object, but I will still use Pluto as an excellent example of how Internet scientists automatically accept what they read from a science article, as well as use Pluto as an example of Internet scientists defending rigged votes.

Those here who defend how Pluto was demoted have lost a lot of respect with me ... (and I'm sure they won't be losing any sleep over it).

Good to see you back!

Click to expand...

I did read the entire thread, and found the entire discussion terminally silly. I do admire your ability to keep such a thing going for so many days and pages, though, esp. given that you have obviously raised this before.

Perhaps it is that the point your opponents are making is so bleeding obvious that they are laboring under the delusion they can show it to you, and convince you of your error. Wasn't it Einstein that defined insanity as doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results?

AV1611VET said:

[timeout] My condolences for Spot, and to you too ... I'm sure it hurt. [/timeout]

Click to expand...

Since you are so fond of the little guy, perhaps you'll be happy that he has lots of friends out there to play with:

NASA - Hubble Discovers a Fifth Moon Orbiting Pluto