Scientists get it wrong again

[Armoured]

How are we supposed to believe scientists about evolution when they can't even make up their minds about planets?

They've been teling us a Pluto isn't a planet for the last several years, but what's this?

​

Bam. Planet. CheckMATE evolution!

 

[gluadys]

How are we supposed to believe scientists about evolution when they can't even make up their minds about planets?

They've been teling us a Pluto isn't a planet for the last several years, but what's this?

​

Bam. Planet. CheckMATE evolution!

Good example of the weird illogic of creationism.

Astronomers make a slight change in the classification of a body orbiting the sun and this supposedly has something to do with a major theory in biology?

And since when does changing the label on something change what it actually is? Did the OP think that astronomers actually went out to Pluto and shrank it when they added the adjective "dwarf" to "planet"?

 

[Willtor]

How are we supposed to believe scientists about evolution when they can't even make up their minds about planets?

They've been teling us a Pluto isn't a planet for the last several years, but what's this?

​

Bam. Planet. CheckMATE evolution!

Brilliant! You know, Neil DeGrasse Tyson says random angry people accost him on the street about how he "killed Pluto." My wife related this to me and I thought she was pulling my leg but she heard him say it on NPR, so apparently people get really worked up about it.

As Gluadys says, one gets the impression that people think that something happened physically to Pluto. To be fair, though, I have not heard of it specially in association with creationism. Clearly, it's part of the same sort of scientific ignorance, but having the one misconception does not imply having the other.

That said, I wasn't on CF when Pluto was "demoted," though, so maybe there was a whole hoopla among creationists that I missed.

 

[Armoured]

Brilliant! You know, Neil DeGrasse Tyson says random angry people accost him on the street about how he "killed Pluto." My wife related this to me and I thought she was pulling my leg but she heard him say it on NPR, so apparently people get really worked up about it.

As Gluadys says, one gets the impression that people think that something happened physically to Pluto. To be fair, though, I have not heard of it specially in association with creationism. Clearly, it's part of the same sort of scientific ignorance, but having the one misconception does not imply having the other.

That said, I wasn't on CF when Pluto was "demoted," though, so maybe there was a whole hoopla among creationists that I missed.

Nothing happened to Pluto. The picture proves it. The point is that scientists started saying it wasn't a planet anymore. They've been proven wrong. If they can be so wrong about things like that, what else are they wrong about? Evolution, obviously. Global warming, too.

 

[Willtor]

Nothing happened to Pluto. The picture proves it. The point is that scientists started saying it wasn't a planet anymore. They've been proven wrong. If they can be so wrong about things like that, what else are they wrong about? Evolution, obviously. Global warming, too.

Also gravity. I've read both sides.

 

[sfs]

Note the feature just to the left of the Heart:

(from xkcd)

 

[Smidlee]

How are we supposed to believe scientists about evolution when they can't even make up their minds about planets?

They've been teling us a Pluto isn't a planet for the last several years, but what's this?

​

Bam. Planet. CheckMATE evolution!

Did Pluto change just because scientist stop calling it a planet or even Pluto? Does living systems die just because some scientist refuse to believe in intelligent design?

What "scientist says" doesn't change reality.

 

[Willtor]

Did Pluto change just because scientist stop calling it Pluto? Does living systems die just because some scientist refuse to be in intelligent design?

Neil DeGrasse Tyson deflated it. Didn't you look at sfs' XKCD diagram?

I didn't understand the second question.

 

[Smidlee]

A rose by any other name is still a rose. The word "planet" is a product of the human mind.

 

[Willtor]

A rose by any other name is still a rose. The word "planet" is a product of the human mind.

"A rose by any other name would smell as sweet," is the quote.

But, yeah, that's exactly right.

 

[Smidlee]

And just because "scientist says" man evolved doesn't turn a chimp into a scientist.

 

[Willtor]

And just because "scientist says" man evolved doesn't turn a chimp into a scientist.

That's right. In fact, if a chimp turned into a man, the scientist would be wrong.

 

[Smidlee]

That's right. In fact, if a chimp turned into a man, the scientist would be wrong.

I agree as it is idolatry. Man trying to explain himself away with his own intellect.

 

[Willtor]

I agree as it is idolatry. Man trying to explain himself away with his own intellect.

Creationists: 1
Reality: 0

 

[Smidlee]

Creationists: 1
Reality: 0

It's not a game. Truth is continue to stand no matter what game people play.

 

[Willtor]

It's not a game. Truth is continue to stand no matter what game people play.

Then stop trying to score points! Look at your post. Nobody has the motive you've attributed to a very large group of people. If you mix irrational arguments in with your rational ones, is that okay? If so, you don't care about truth. You care about scoring points.

 

[Smidlee]

Then stop trying to score points! Look at your post. Nobody has the motive you've attributed to a very large group of people. If you mix irrational arguments in with your rational ones, is that okay? If so, you don't care about truth. You care about scoring points.

What is irrational about my argument? What exactly is the point of this thread?

 

[Willtor]

What is irrational about my argument? What exactly is the point of this thread?

Your argument attributes a common motive to a very large and diverse group of people. It isn't a straight forward motive, either. It's a mustache-twirling motive. For that reason, it's probably wrong, without any data. Beyond that, you have data. You are talking both to Christians and non-Christians who assert that they have a different motive. So, maybe they all have the motive you've attributed, and they are all lying to you about that motive... for some reason. Etc. This is a point-scoring argument, not a truth-finding argument. The motive paints your opponents in a negative light, and perhaps people "on your team" will read and feel vindicated. But you can never use it to persuade an evolutionist, because he knows you are wrong about the motive you have attributed to him.

The thread is a joke, as far as I can tell. I don't think it was ever intended to involve reasoned discourse.

 

[gluadys]

A rose by any other name is still a rose. The word "planet" is a product of the human mind.

Yeah, and if people really want to talk about changing labels, why not consider that when the word "planet" was first coined it did not mean "a sizeable body of matter orbiting a star"; it meant "a star that wanders from one constellation to another". That is why Venus, Mars, etc. were thought to be stars and Earth was not classified as a planet. Something to remember whenever reading literature more than 500 years old.

 

[Armoured]

Yeah, and if people really want to talk about changing labels, why not consider that when the word "planet" was first coined it did not mean "a sizeable body of matter orbiting a star"; it meant "a star that wanders from one constellation to another". That is why Venus, Mars, etc. were thought to be stars and Earth was not classified as a planet. Something to remember whenever reading literature more than 500 years old.

Scientists thought planets were stars? Wrong again scientists! Another nail in evolution's coffin!