Pluto 2000

[Belk]

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.

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.

 

[thaumaturgy]

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.

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.

 

[Naraoia]

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.

Speaking of Charon, I find the idea of a "binary plutoid" incredibly cool for some reason.

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.

Silly thaumaturgy, those bats were fowl. They just went extinct with the four-legged grasshoppers or something.

Come to think of it, it's been a while since I heard of those from AV's keyboard.

 

[AV1611VET]

Come to think of it, it's been a while since I heard of those from AV's keyboard.

Have you seen this thread?

Following is a list of animals found in the Bible:

1. fowled bat
2. behemoth
3. leviathan
4. four-legged grasshopper
5. satyr
6. unicorn
7. dragon
8. straw-eating lions
9. whalefish
10. cud-chewing hare

I contend that these animals are problematic for evolutionists.

 

[Naraoia]

Have you seen this thread?

That was over a year ago.

Not that I miss behemoths and unicorns, mind you

 

[AV1611VET]

That was over a year ago.

Not that I miss behemoths and unicorns, mind you

... Anyway you look at them, they're lovable creatures, eh?

 

[Split Rock]

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.

YES!!!! I RULE!!!!

 

[Split Rock]

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

These might be problematic for evolutionary biologists, IF any of them were real. Of course, they are not.

Many of these are not what you portray, in any case.

1. Fowled bat: Nothing "fowled" about bats. Just means that bats were included with birds in a category.
2. Behemoth: This is an individual, not a species. Mostly symbolic.
3. Leviathan: same as above.
4. Four-legged grasshopper: I really just think the over-sized front legs were considered "arms" and does not mean they only had 4 legs.
5. Satyr: Symbolic
6. Unicorn: probably a rhino
7. Dragon: mythological and symbolic
8. Straw-eating lions: This only refers to the future, not the past.
9. Whalefish: Like the fowled bats, whales were considered "fish." Just a category thing.
10. Cud-chewing hare: based on misunderstanding of hare behavior.

 

[thaumaturgy]

Have you seen this thread?

The "Fowled bat" is a problem for evolution????

LOL.

No. Sorry.

 

[BananaSlug]

So... it's 2012 and Pluto is still an issue here? Just read my sig.

 

[Freodin]

1. You will not tell us what the official technical definition of the word "planet" was in the year 2000

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'"

I just read Mike Brown's book recently, and mentiones these different ways of defining a number of times. It's an interesting read, and I would recommend it especially for AV to read. "How I killed Pluto..."

Did you know that there isn't an official technical definition for "continent" either? Good thing that it is rather unlikely we will discover a new continent floating around on earth.

 

[driewerf]

Have you seen this thread?

Originally Posted by AV1611VET

Following is a list of animals found in the Bible:

1. fowled bat
2. behemoth
3. leviathan
4. four-legged grasshopper
5. satyr
6. unicorn
7. dragon
8. straw-eating lions
9. whalefish
10. cud-chewing hare

I contend that these animals are problematic for evolutionists.
http://www.christianforums.com/t7554234/#post57313441
​

Well, I had that post in mind, indeed, when I wrote this post:
http://www.christianforums.com/t7664435-7/#post60749452

 

[USincognito]

Speaking of Charon, I find the idea of a "binary plutoid" incredibly cool for some reason.

At the very least it would make a cool band name.

Rick Rocket and the Binary Plutoids

Their first album can the "The Bible can take a hike!"

 

[thaumaturgy]

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'"

And there you have the answer!

 

[thaumaturgy]

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.

 

[BananaSlug]

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.

I just can't understand the problem, scientific definitions and classifications change as new evidence is gathered. It is the strength of the scientific method; yet he acts as if it's a weakness.

 

[AV1611VET]

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.

 

[thaumaturgy]

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.

You seem to be exceptionally out of your depth today, AV.

 

[AV1611VET]

I just can't understand the problem, scientific definitions and classifications change as new evidence is gathered.

Yes ... science leaves a trail of redactions in its wake; but let someone quote the Bible and ... oh, man ... look out!

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

 

[AV1611VET]

You seem to be exceptionally out of your depth today, AV.

Just today?

I've never said that before?

QV please:

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.