The Pluto Issue

[Cabal]

This isn't about agreeing with scientists it's about not caring. Nobody cares. You're not a moron if you disagree with the scientists, you're a moron if it you care vehemently about how we define Pluto. Who cares. It isn't an issue.

Doubly so if you're not really interested in the definition of planet but are just using it as pointless saber-rattling against a field you have an obvious prejudice against anyway (y'know, the kind of Pharisaical thinking that redefines a literal description of religious fundamentalists as "scientists").

 

[Split Rock]

Like I said before -- if nothing has changed but the name of it, then I'm sure no one will mind if we leave Pluto as our 9th planet?

You can "leave it" as our 9th planet if you want.
You can claim Embedded Age is The Word of God.
You can claim you are percecuted and ostracized here because of who you are. rather than the things you post.
No one cares anymore.

A "few" others?

Someone needs to read the Wikipedia article, doesn't he?

Three states care -- one cares enough that it's in legislation.

As I said before, that is a legislature that needs to get its priorities straight.

In addition, the word "Pluto" was made the 2006 word-of-the-year to mock the decision.

By who? I bet it was a rigged backroom vote, too.

So the next time scientists rig a vote, and anyone who dares disagree with that rigged vote -- (including the scientists who voted, "nay") -- is considered a "moron", I'll wear that badge as a title of respect.

Scientists define scientific terms anyway they want. If you don't like it, you can Take A Hike. It's not up to you.

(You just gotta love scientists. Agree with them, or you're a 'moron'.)

Post stupid falsehoods, and you will be called a moron.

 

[LittleLambofJesus]

(You just gotta love scientists. Agree with them, or you're a 'moron'.)

Or a heretic?
What about the Galileo controversy within the RCC?

http://www.catholic.com/library/Galileo_Controversy.asp

It is commonly believed that the Catholic Church persecuted Galileo for abandoning the geocentric (earth-at-the-center) view of the solar system for the heliocentric (sun-at-the-center) view.


http://novan.com/galileo.htm

Galileo vs the Catholic Church
The 350 year old debate continues.

 

[AV1611VET]

It is commonly believed that the Catholic Church persecuted Galileo for abandoning the geocentric (earth-at-the-center) view of the solar system for the heliocentric (sun-at-the-center) view.

I don't think just the Catholics persecuted Galileo for that.

I also believe his contemporaries would have [and did] "persecuted" him as well.

At the time, geocentrism was in transition to heliocentrism, and the Catholic church stands out more than contemporary science because the Catholics held out the longest.

If you read the Wikipedia article, Galileo's "persecution" was actually a blessing in disguise, as his house arrest allowed him to concentrate on two other issues he was working on at the time without interruption.

 

[knowledgeIsPower]

AVET I feel I need to ask this again considering you seem to have not yet answered it for me:

Why do you care about the definition of Pluto? How does it influence your life or the lives of anyone else around you in any way?

 

[AV1611VET]

AVET I feel I need to ask this again considering you seem to have not yet answered it for me:

Why do you care about the definition of Pluto? How does it influence your life or the lives of anyone else around you in any way?

Okay, you want my answer -- it's going to be sweet and frank.

Keep in mind that this is just my opinion, though; and I don't intend to spend another ten posts defending it.

The "Pluto issue" -- in my opinion -- exposes you Internet scientists for the charlatans I think you really are.

When it was first posted here -- 100% of those that I saw respond -- automatically -- (and I can't stress this word enough) -- automatically agreed with the vote.

No one -- (that I know of) -- researched it first.

This tells me that when someone makes a post about ... say ... embedded age, and it is quickly and automatically dismissed as coming from the mind of [what I was called] "a freak in a freak show", the speed and spontaneity with which you guys arrive at your conclusion is bogus.

QV for an example of my rant on this topic: 47.

 

[Cabal]

No one -- (that I know of) -- researched it first.

And you'd be wrong. I knew about the background of the issue - and I daresay I wasn't the only one. And I still didn't think it was worth making the big deal over that some made it into.

This tells me that when someone makes a post about ... say ... embedded age, and it is quickly and automatically dismissed as coming from the mind of [what I was called] "a freak in a freak show", the speed and spontaneity with which you guys arrive at your conclusion is bogus.

It isn't automatically dismissed - it was pwned into the ground in discussion when you first brought it up, and even the bulk of newbies discuss the ramefications of the idea and come to the same conclusion.

The fact that it's an utterly untenable idea has nothing to do with us. I'm sure it's easier to face the notion that we're all teaming up against you than the fact you might be laughably wrong, but so what's new?

 

[Cabal]

If you read the Wikipedia article, Galileo's "persecution" was actually a blessing in disguise, as his house arrest allowed him to concentrate on two other issues he was working on at the time without interruption.

So the end justifies the means. FABULOUS

 

[knowledgeIsPower]

Okay, you want my answer -- it's going to be sweet and frank.

Keep in mind that this is just my opinion, though; and I don't intend to spend another ten posts defending it.

The "Pluto issue" -- in my opinion -- exposes you Internet scientists for the charlatans I think you really are.

When it was first posted here -- 100% of those that I saw respond -- automatically -- (and I can't stress this word enough) -- automatically agreed with the vote.

No one -- (that I know of) -- researched it first.

This tells me that when someone makes a post about ... say ... embedded age, and it is quickly and automatically dismissed as coming from the mind of [what I was called] "a freak in a freak show", the speed and spontaneity with which you guys arrive at your conclusion is bogus.

QV for an example of my rant on this topic: 47.

OK while this is great it doesn't explain why you care about the definition of Pluto and how it influences anything in your life or the lives of those around you. This is what I asked and I would appreciate an answer.

Personally I don't really care what the scientific community wants to call Pluto. They want to call it a planet that is cool. They want to call it a dwarf planet due to some refinement of the definition of a planet or some other discovery then fine. I really couldn't care less. I'm just totally perplexed as to why you care. I will use whatever definition they decide because quite frankly it just alleviates confusion. Language is about communicating and a definition doesn't change anything physically so why care? Use whatever definition causes the least confusion and enables the most effective communication.

I also feel I need to ask what the heck is an "Internet scientist"?

 

[AV1611VET]

I also feel I need to ask what the heck is an "Internet scientist"?

I could talk all day on what I think an Internet scientist is; but I'll shorten it down and say that I think he's a person that acts (emphasis on "acts") like he's really interested in learning something (you know -- like a real scientist); then, when you give him some basic doctrine or deep theology, his rebuttal is usually automatic, quick and rude.

I've even been told my answers are something I've made up out of thin air, when the answer itself is commonly taught as basic doctrine.

But that's just part of what I think an Internet scientist is.

He also wants the Bible at the back of the school bus; but then, behind closed doors, he can't stop asking one question after another.

I could go on, but I won't.

 

[knowledgeIsPower]

I could talk all day on what I think an Internet scientist is; but I'll shorten it down and say that I think he's a person that acts (emphasis on "acts") like he's really interested in learning something (you know -- like a real scientist); then, when you give him some basic doctrine or deep theology, his rebuttal is usually automatic, quick and rude.

I've even been told my answers are something I've made up out of thin air, when the answer itself is commonly taught as basic doctrine.

But that's just part of what I think an Internet scientist is.

He also wants the Bible at the back of the school bus; but then, behind closed doors, he can't stop asking one question after another.

I could go on, but I won't.

I put it to you that a scientist is someone that wants to study something when presented with observable phenomena. If there is no observable phenomenon then there is no reason to conduct a scientific study.

If you expect a scientist to take doctrine seriously for the simple reason that it is doctrine then you don't understand what a scientist is. By all means let that be a personal belief but as a scientist, as a professional, you shouldn't take something seriously without observable phenomena associated with it.

If you expect a scientist to take it seriously then I think you might be confusing scientists with historians or theologians.

 

[Nabobalis]

I could talk all day on what I think an Internet scientist is; but I'll shorten it down and say that I think he's a person that acts (emphasis on "acts") like he's really interested in learning something (you know -- like a real scientist); then, when you give him some basic doctrine or deep theology, his rebuttal is usually automatic, quick and rude.

I've even been told my answers are something I've made up out of thin air, when the answer itself is commonly taught as basic doctrine.

But that's just part of what I think an Internet scientist is.

He also wants the Bible at the back of the school bus; but then, behind closed doors, he can't stop asking one question after another.

I could go on, but I won't.

Some examples please? Otherwise you have no foot to stand on.

On the Pluto issue again (sigh). The definition of a planet was defined to constrain the number of planets as more Pluto sized objects have been found and further out also( If I recall). It was voted and its done, it is no an issue.

It is still a planet but a small one.

 

[AV1611VET]

I put it to you that a scientist is someone that wants to study something when presented with observable phenomena.

No kidding???

How many times have I told you guys to keep your myopic science out of a discussion on theology until you can build a machine that can do this:

2 Kings 6:17 And Elisha prayed, and said, LORD, I pray thee, open his eyes, that he may see. And the LORD opened the eyes of the young man; and he saw: and, behold, the mountain was full of horses and chariots of fire round about Elisha.

If there is no observable phenomenon then there is no reason to conduct a scientific study.

Or give a scientific rebuttal.

If you expect a scientist to take doctrine seriously for the simple reason that it is doctrine then you don't understand what a scientist is.

You guys are the ones asking the questions.

How do you want us to answer? sans Bible?

By all means let that be a personal belief but as a scientist, as a professional, you shouldn't take something seriously without observable phenomena associated with it.

That's why I'm not an Internet scientist.

 

[LittleLambofJesus]

How many times have I told you guys to keep your myopic science out of a discussion on theology until you can build a machine that can do this:

2 Kings 6:17 And Elisha prayed, and said, LORD, I pray thee, open his eyes, that he may see. And the LORD opened the eyes of the young man; and he saw: and, behold, the mountain was full of horses and chariots of fire round about Elisha.

How do you want us to answer? sans Bible?.......

Great verse AV!
Notice what our Lord also says in Revelation 3:18

http://www.christianforums.com/t7508993-6/#post55974979
Blind clerk rod and reel

Reve 3:18 I am together-advising to thee to buy beside of Me gold, having been fired out of fire, that thou should be being rich,
and garments, white, that thou may be being about-cast/clothed and no may be being made manifest the vileness of the nakedness of thee,
and eye-salve to annoint the eyes of thee, that thou may be seeing
[Luke 16:19-26/John 9:39]

 

[AV1611VET]

It was voted and its done, it is no an issue.

That's what you'd like us to think, isn't it?

Just take what science feeds us without question?

Well, fyi, some don't bow to McGraw-Hill:

Reception to the IAU decision was mixed. While some accepted the reclassification, others seek to overturn the decision with online petitions urging the IAU to consider reinstatement.

Time will tell if it's 'done' or not.

It's time some of us plebeians stand up to your clipboards and say, "Enough is enough."

 

[knowledgeIsPower]

No kidding???

<removed pointless ranting involving something about horses on fire>

Indeed. No kidding.

Or give a scientific rebuttal.

If you make claims about the physical then expect to be met with concise rebuttals of your claims about the physical. If you don't like it then stop talking about the physical.

You guys are the ones asking the questions.

Yes. Asking questions. About the morality of various acts and about the physical aspects of events mentioned in the bible.

How do you want us to answer? sans Bible?

No. Just to justify these things either in terms of morality in the case of those asking about morality and physically in the case of those asking about the physical. If you don't know just say so. Don't make up bullsh*t about the speed of light changing in some other medium or something. If you don't know say you don't know but don't make things up.

That's why I'm not an Internet scientist.

You're not any scientist.

 

[AV1611VET]

http://www.christianforums.com/t7508993-6/#post55974979
Blind clerk rod and reel

LOL -- you're a kook!

 

[LittleLambofJesus]

LOL -- you're a kook!

Sounds a lot like it could be symbolizing a lot of Christiandom and interpretations ehehe......

http://www.christianforums.com/t7510006/
Interpretating Scripture.. Everyone is Doing it!

 

[AV1611VET]

No. Just to justify these things either in terms of morality...

That doesn't work either, KIP.

You're not talking to a newbie here.

I've justified (more than once) why God didn't just wipe out the earth's population in a moment of time with a very moral point; only to have it ridiculed.

I think your "justify" is a loaded term, myself.

 

[LittleLambofJesus]

That doesn't work either, KIP.

You're not talking to a newbie here.

I've justified (more than once) why God didn't just wipe out the earth's population in a moment of time with a very moral point; only to have it ridiculed.

I think your "justify" is a loaded term, myself.

What about sanctified

http://www.christianforums.com/t7500928-2/#post56015202

quote: "We cannot separate sanctification from faith or justification. By faith we are justified through the works of Jesus Christ and we are sanctified by God's Spirit."