Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
That's right ... it keeps me from being accused of being inconsistent.You ask the same questions (as statements) over and over,
That's right ... I'm not obligated to accept the answers.... but refuse to acknowledge or accept the answers.
I don't know Mr. Hovind that well to be able to emulate him; and I wouldn't anyway.It is an interesting Hovind-esque tactic.
Thank you for your opinion.Very disingenuous.
OP TITLE said:To Be a Darwinist or To Be a Darwinist
QV the first three minutes of this video please:AV, to anyone who has studied geologic processes in detail from an accredited institution can watch that video and see that Hovind is making stuff up.
And yet, other animals allegedly sprang up all thorough a timeline; from cyanobacteria to mankind, didn't they?Yes, really.
I dare you to find a primary scientific source that defines macroevolution as an animal 'changing into' another animal.
That's obvious ... just ask those who voted in favor of launching the Challenger, or were partying aboard the Deepwater Horizon, or who decided not to flee L'Aquila because they were told it was safe, or...Reality doesn't care what you think.
The Bible is anything but circular reasoning, as It contains 66 separate books that corroborate each other, written over a period of 1500 years, from 40 different authors, living on 3 different continents, and representing every type of human author, from a fig picker to a king ... including one human author who was hostile to what he wrote, and one author that wanted to write on one subject, but was compelled to write something else ... and one author who stopped writing (in awe), and was told to continue.No. 'The Bible is right because The Bible says The Bibles is right' is circular logic. It's a naked assertion that gleans zero information.
Is that why they had to pluto Pluto?Science is right because its methodology - experimentation, prediction, and numerous converging lines of critically robust evidence - is put to use in the real world, where it yields actual results and gleans actual information.
QV the first three minutes of this video please:
QV the first three minutes of this video please:
Rock layers age - circular reasoning! - YouTube
You commented on it here: 183
And yet, other animals allegedly sprang up all thorough a timeline; from cyanobacteria to mankind, didn't they?
That's obvious ... just ask those who voted in favor of launching the Challenger, or were partying aboard the Deepwater Horizon, or who decided not to flee L'Aquila because they were told it was safe, or...
The Bible is anything but circular reasoning
Eight Foot Manchild said:'The Bible is right because The Bible says The Bibles is right' is circular logic.
Is that why they had to pluto Pluto?
We changed our categorization of Pluto. Nothing about its nature changed. Nothing about our apprehension of its nature changed. No facts were altered in this process.
Your colorless opinion of Mr. Hovind is noted.Mr. Hovind (his claimed title of 'Dr.' is fraudulent) is the absolute bottom of the barrel when it comes to creationists. Even the blithering morons at AiG have distanced themselves from him and his 'theories' (READ: rectally extracted naked assertions).
Real science? what's real science? Pluto as our 9th planet? Phlotiston theory being taught? telling citizens it's safe to live in L'Aquila?Naturally, there's nothing here that can't be refuted with a passing glance at the real science,
Radiometric Dating and the Geological Time Scale
Your patriotism is unwavering, isn't it?I stand by everything I have said. EVERYTHING!
Your colorless opinion of Mr. Hovind is noted.
If that's what science eventually does to a person, then you've been around it too long.
Real science? what's real science? Pluto as our 9th planet? Phlotiston theory being taught? telling citizens it's safe to live in L'Aquila?
Or is real science curing smallpox, the Internet, putting cancer in remission, etc.?
Science runs on the No True Scotsman principle, doesn't it?
Your patriotism is unwavering, isn't it?
You can start by correcting this:None of the information we've gleaned about Pluto was impacted in any way by this. A label changed. That's all.
I look forward to correcting you again when you conveniently forget this in the near future.
Still think a label changed, that's all? there was a lot that went on before that label changed.Only four percent of the IAU voted on the controversial demotion of Pluto, and most are not planetary scientists. The vote was conducted in violation of the IAU's own bylaws on the last day of a two-week conference when most attendees already had left. No absentee voting was allowed. Supporters of the demotion resolution violated the IAU's own bylaws by putting this resolution on the General Assembly floor without first vetting it by the proper committee as IAU rules require. Also, many planetary scientists do not belong to the IAU and therefore had no say in this matter. When professional astronomers objecting to the demotion asked for a reopening of the planet debate at the 2009 IAU General Assembly, the IAU leadership adamantly refused. Why would they refuse to reopen a debate unless they were insecure about their stand? Meanwhile, this issue continues to be debated in other venues, such as the 2008 Great Planet Debate, held at the Johns Hopkins University Applied Physics Lab in August 2008 (which I personally attended), the American Geophysical Union, and the European Geophysical Union.
The IAU decision was immediately opposed in a formal petition by hundreds of professional astronomers led by Dr. Alan Stern, Principal Investigator of NASA’s New Horizons mission to Pluto. One reason the IAU definition makes no sense is it says dwarf planets are not planets at all! That is like saying a grizzly bear is not a bear, and it is inconsistent with the use of the term “dwarf” in astronomy, where dwarf stars are still stars, and dwarf galaxies are still galaxies. Also, the IAU definition classifies objects solely by where they are while ignoring what they are. If Earth were in Pluto’s orbit, according to the IAU definition, it would not be a planet either. A definition that takes the same object and makes it a planet in one location and not a planet in another is essentially useless.
Pluto is a planet because it is spherical, meaning it is large enough to be pulled into a round shape by its own gravity--a state known as hydrostatic equilibrium and characteristic of planets, not of shapeless asteroids held together by chemical bonds. These reasons are why many astronomers, lay people, and educators are either ignoring the demotion entirely or working to get it overturned. You can find out more by Googling "Laurel's Pluto Blog."
A decision should not be blindly accepted as some sort of gospel truth because a small number of people decreed it so. The IAU can decree the sky is green, but that doesn't make it any less blue.
One argument often used in favor of demoting Pluto is the fact that another planet was discovered beyond Pluto and that with many more possible small planets in the Kuiper Belt, we could end up with "too many planets" in our solar system. Well, there is no such thing as too many planets. At one point, we thought Jupiter had four moons. Now we know it has 63, and more may be found. Should we limit the number of moons because otherwise, there will be too many to memorize? Should we limit the number of elements in the Periodic Table because kids won't be able to memorize that many? The fact is, memorization is not a very useful learning tool. At one point, we knew little more about the planets than their names and order from the Sun. That is not true today. It is more important that kids understand what distinguishes the different types of planets.
If we use the alternate, broader term that a planet is any non-self-luminous spheroidal body orbiting a star--which many planetary scientists prefer over the IAU definition--we can then use subcategories to distinguish the types of planets. While we previously recognized two subcategories, the terrestrials and the gas giants or jovians, the new discoveries show us there is a third class-the dwarf planets. These are planets because they are large enough to be rounded by their own gravity--a state known as hydrostatic equilibrium--but of the dwarf subcategory because they are not large enough to gravitationally dominate their orbits. In fact, Dr. Alan Stern, who first coined the term "dwarf planet," never intended for dwarf planets to not be considered planets at all. If this one area is amended so the IAU resolution establishes dwarf planets as a subclass of planets, much of the controversy would evaporate.
Right ... that's why it changes with the weather, doesn't it?No. Science runs on an established methodology and standard of practice.
Still think a label changed, that's all?
Then your support of a rigged vote behind closed doors is noted.Still think a label changed, that's all?
Yes. All this mountain of text is that it was a contentious label change, which I already knew when it came up years ago.
Right ... that's why it changes with the weather, doesn't it?
Then don't tell me science doesn't run on the No True Scotsman principle and expect me to take it with anything other than a grain of salt.No. It changes - or much more often expands - through the furthering of the methodology.
Then your support of a rigged vote behind closed doors is noted.
Eight Foot Manchild said:Find me a primary scientific source that says that [macroevolution is one animal 'chaning into' another animal]. I dare you.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?