The Pluto Issue

[knowledgeIsPower]

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.

If you can't justify it then there is something wrong. Logic has failed somewhere. Either the failure is in the subject matter or in your interpretation of the subject matter or in your thought process itself.

In order to not be able to justify something it needs to be really kookoo. Justify is not a loaded term.

I really couldn't care less whether or not you're a newbie.

 

[Cabal]

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

Just take what science feeds us without question?

Reasonable questioning is fine. However, much of the time it is unreasonable.

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

First you'll need to learn what you're talking about. And that will, funnily enough, involve some actual learning about science. I personally think it's more than high time scientists stand up to this notion that uninformed criticism deserves as much attention as informed criticism.

 

[Cabal]

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.

Real scientists are interested in evidence. Creationists have nothing on that front.

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.

In your opinion, or the opinion of your denomination, it is basic doctrine.

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

Seeing as you don't have any understanding of what a scientist is, why should we care exactly?

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.

Bravo, AV - that'd be the public and private spheres - heard of them?

 

[Nabobalis]

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:

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."

Who says I take what science feeds me without question?

I don't get a degree by being a sheep.

Plus it is a non-issue. The definition of a planet will once again be redefined I believe in the next couple of years. That is the end of the matter. When it comes up for debate again, you should go to the conference and speak out.

Moaning on this forum about "Internet Scientists" is meaningless and not only that, rather rude to many of us who are real scientists(or trainee ones at least). Let alone the fact that you are using a computer made by the scientists you seek to demonise.


If you want to discuss the definition of a planet, start a thread and we can talk it over but if you just want to "score points" then carry on.

 

[LittleLambofJesus]

Moaning on this forum about "Internet Scientists" is meaningless and not only that, rather rude to many of us who are real scientists(or trainee ones at least). Let alone the fact that you are using a computer made by the scientists you seek to demonise.....

Not to mention Robotics

YouTube - I, NoBot - Part 1

 

[Nabobalis]

Not to mention Robotics

YouTube - I, NoBot - Part 1

It was a bad film, I think we should leave it at that before the nightmares begin again.

 

[LittleLambofJesus]

It was a bad film, I think we should leave it at that before the nightmares begin again.

I just like Will Smith a lot

YouTube - Will Smith - Men In Black[Official Music Video]

 

[Nabobalis]

I just like Will Smith a lot

YouTube - Will Smith - Men In Black[Official Music Video]

So did I until he became a supporter of Scientology.

 

[LittleLambofJesus]

So did I until he became a supporter of Scientology.

To each his own I suppose......

LLOJ now unsubscribes

 

[AV1611VET]

Who says I take what science feeds me without question?

You did -- or at least, you attempted to give it to me as advice.

Remember saying this?

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

 

[Rilke's Granddaughter]

You did -- or at least, you attempted to give it to me as advice.

Remember saying this?

You misunderstand: he is referring to a definition of a scientific term - these aren't arguable, anymore than you would argue that "up" means something other than "up."

When he states that he doesn't take what science feeds him uncritically, he is referring to the result of scientific research.

 

[Split Rock]

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.

This coming from a creationist who claims that "Embedded Age" is the Inerrant Word of God?? LOL!

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.

Wrong again. I think most of us did at least some research. This shouldn't have been hard to figure out, since we gave explanations as to why we accepted the new terminology. Of course, you don't remember them.. you have your own "pet" explanation (that we are all "internet charlatans") and you close your mind to everything else.

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.

We explained to you in some detail, why the predictions made by Embedded Age fails, and why this falsifies Embedded Age. All you do is close your mind and claim it doesn't matter. Now you calim we were being arbitrary. Wrong, again.

 

[AV1611VET]

We explained to you in some detail, why the predictions made by Embedded Age fails, and why this falsifies Embedded Age.

How about you stop pretending like you even know what it is.

 

[Split Rock]

How about you stop pretending like you even know what it is.

How about you stop pretending that you don't understand us, when we tell you something you don't want to hear?

 

[LittleLambofJesus]

How about you stop pretending that you don't understand us, when we tell you something you don't want to hear?

Hearing aids anyone?

http://www.olivetree.com/cgi-bin/EnglishBible.htm

Rotherham) Matthew 13:15 For the heart of this people hath become dense, and with their ears heavily have they heard, and their eyes have they closed,--lest once they should see with their eyes, and with their ear should hear, and with their hearts should understand and return, when I would certainly heal them.
[Isaiah 6:9, 10]

 

[Cabal]

How about you stop pretending that you don't understand us, when we tell you something you don't want to hear?

There's always some excuse. If it's not repeatedly insisting we don't understand the point after we've pwned it in the dust and back again several times, it's insisting that we're all ganging up on him without even analysing the points.

Anything, ANYTHING to avoid facing up to the fact that he might be wrong. Pitiable - but not to be encouraged.

 

[Nabobalis]

You did -- or at least, you attempted to give it to me as advice.

Remember saying this?

That was not what I mean't. That line you just quoted was stating a fact. The redefinition of a planet may of caused huge uproar in the news but in the scientific community it was more of a meh moment. Why? Because most know that it will be up for review again soon, since the definition used is lacking.

But like I said, if you want to talk about PLUTO and the definition of a planet start a thread and tell us how yo would define a planet and why the current definition is flawed.

 

[Sophrosyne]

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

Plutoed

The verb "to pluto" (preterite and past participle: "plutoed") was a neologism coined in the aftermath of its transition from planet to dwarf planet in the aftermath of the 2006 IAU decision. In January 2007, the American Dialect Society chose "plutoed" as its 2006 Word of the Year, defining "to pluto" as "to demote or devalue someone or something", "as happened to the former planet Pluto when the General Assembly of the International Astronomical Union decided Pluto no longer met its definition of a planet."[142][143]
Pluto - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[LifeToTheFullest!]

Everything you guys have ever accused us of doing, you end up doing yourselves.

'Cept of course the part about not believing just as you do and burning eternally in hell because a loving god expects justice.

Now maybe if we say something like... "If you don't believe in Pluto as a planet, you will be damned to the eternal lake of H2SO4 with ten foot pirahnas." Would that make you feel a little better?

Sheesh, you guys and your conflation. Really.

 

[driewerf]

'Cept of course the part about not believing just as you do and burning eternally in hell because a loving god expects justice.

Now maybe if we say something like... "If you don't believe in Pluto as a planet, you will be damned to the eternal lake of H2SO4 with ten foot pirahnas." Would that make you feel a little better?

Sheesh, you guys and your conflation. Really.

You forget the persecussion!
You have to add: "And we will make it forbidden to open any book in public school that mentions Pluto as a planet."