Where are the dinosaurs?

[USincognito]

Mmmm. Dark chocolate.

 

[Nabobalis]

Evidence to a closed heart is as a gun to a serial killer.

What are you on?

 

[Lion Hearted Man]

What are you on?

I'm thinking schizotypal personality disorder

 

[JustMeSee]

Do bots count sheep at night?

 

[AV1611VET]

And why was Pluto reclassified as a dwarf planet?

One member here can't seem to grasp what actually occured.

You?

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.

 

[AV1611VET]

Make that two.

You too?

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.

 

[TeddyReceptus]

Makes sense to me.

Then scientists can know all about dinosaur physiology, but no dinosaurs around to physiologize with.

I mean ... they may as well study dinosaur psychology; in case they meet one, they can reintroduce it into society?

Do you know how scientists do this magic trick?

Because most life forms share some commonality. That's kind of the value of evolution as a concept. So when scientists find that some dinosarus have hips very much like a BIRD it doesn't completely destroy their world view that there's also a bird-lizard hybrid (archeopteryx) and that allows them to make some inferences about how dinosaurs, lizards and birds are related.

Now it's an overstatement to say scientists understand the physiology of dinosaurs. There's still debate. Quite a lot actually as I understand it.

But without a basis for understanding biology from one type of animal to another there's no knowledge. See, Creationoists couldn't even explain to you why apes and humans share ~99% of their DNA. To a Creationist there is no explanation. It's totally random chance that God opted to re-use DNA sequences form one animal to another. He could have done anything else he wanted to. He could have made Si atoms a slightly different size and gave them a lot more ability to concatenate like a C atom and made a whole bunch of animals based on Si atoms but he didn't do that here on earth, did he? He could have made chimps completely different genetically from humans which would really help creationists in denying any sort of link betweens humans and primates, but he didn't, did he?

No, with Creationism there is no "knowledge", with science there's a reasonable framework that allows more information to be gathered tested and understood.

I kind of feel sorry for Creationists because they ultimately wind up with the answer "God Did It" and that's a killer for investigation. No fun, no knowledge.

 

[Nabobalis]

You too?

And? The reclassification happened, it won't be changed, it will always be a dwarf planet.

 

[TeddyReceptus]

We don't fully understand decay.

So is that why there are absolutely NO REFERENCES WHATSOEVER about organic tissue decay, oxidation, biological mastication, none of that?

Wow. I feel edu-mo-cated now!

 

[selfinflikted]

I think my head just asploded.

 

[TeddyReceptus]

And why was Pluto reclassified as a dwarf planet?

Because scientists are DUMB! Dumb dumb dumb! Here's how it went down:

0. God created the word "Planet". It has a "perfected meaning" since God came up with it. God put the word in dictionaries.
1. Scientists discovered the word "Planet"
2. Scientists applied the word "Planet"
3. Pluto got the word "Planet" assigned to it.
4. Scientists discovered that Pluto couldn't have the word "Planet" applied to it.
5. Scientists demoted Pluto and then HID THE EVIDENCE.
6. Now scientists have to hide from God since they abused his Holy Word ("Planet")

This man is the ring leader of this evil cabal:

"I'm coming to devour your children! Bwa hahahahaha!"

One member here can't seem to grasp what actually occured.

Oh I think this member knows all too well! This is a classic case where Scientists made a HUGE error. One that calls into question everything go back to our basics of understanding of all things in nature.

It's just CRAZEEEE!

 

[TeddyReceptus]

Can we revise our views about dinosaurs?

No. Dinosaurs have been decreed to be one thing. They cannot ever be changed. It is written in the holy books of yore that they are a particular thing and science can NEVER revise anything.

So let it be written, so let it be done!

 

[Split Rock]

Because scientists are DUMB! Dumb dumb dumb! Here's how it went down:

0. God created the word "Planet". It has a "perfected meaning" since God came up with it. God put the word in dictionaries.
1. Scientists discovered the word "Planet"
2. Scientists applied the word "Planet"
3. Pluto got the word "Planet" assigned to it.
4. Scientists discovered that Pluto couldn't have the word "Planet" applied to it.
5. Scientists demoted Pluto and then HID THE EVIDENCE.
6. Now scientists have to hide from God since they abused his Holy Word ("Planet")

You forgot one part:

4.5: Scientists hold a RIGGED vote.

That's the part AVET likes...

 

[USincognito]

Because scientists are DUMB! Dumb dumb dumb! Here's how it went down:{snip}

I didn't see anything in your list and excess verbiage that mentioned how scientists looked in the Bible - KJVO* - read where Pluto was mentioned in Job or Revelation or II Peter or where ever as a planet and therefore they had to cover that up by rigging the vote in order to tell YECs, Biblical Creationists, CNasal Ruby Propenentists, etc. to take a hike because thalidomide caused the Challenger disaster.

Clearly this is a scientific coverup to hide the fact that Science[sub]TM[/sub] blew up Pluto using thalidomide carried on the Challenger!

* King James Version Only for those of you who don't "speak the language".

 

[TeddyReceptus]

I didn't see anything in your list and excess verbiage that mentioned how scientists looked in the Bible - KJVO* - read where Pluto was mentioned in Job or Revelation or II Peter or where ever as a planet and therefore they had to cover that up by rigging the vote in order to tell YECs, Biblical Creationists, CNasal Ruby Propenentists, etc. to take a hike because thalidomide caused the Challenger disaster.

Clearly this is a scientific coverup to hide the fact that Science[sub]TM[/sub] blew up Pluto using thalidomide carried on the Challenger!

* King James Version Only for those of you who don't "speak the language".

Well, I mean all that goes without saying, right? Challenger-delivered Thalidomide to destroy Pluto is the ONLY way to explain everything ain't it?

 

[JoeyArnold]

No. Dinosaurs have been decreed to be one thing. They cannot ever be changed.

Why aren't we still in the dark ages or the middle ages?

 

[selfinflikted]

Why aren't we still in the dark ages or the middle ages?

Sadly, some of us still are.

 

[JoeyArnold]

Sadly, some of us still are.

Didn't Creationists discover the secret to jumping off a flat earth held up by turtles?

 

[TeddyReceptus]

Why aren't we still in the dark ages or the middle ages?

What are the middle ages? Are they 10-15? Or are they 30-40? What do dinosaurs say about middle ages? Are they dark? Are people from the dark ages turned into fossils yet? Are fossils from the Dark Ages? Did the remains of the Roman Empire stop themselves from being fossilized? How did they do that? Are the Romans going to come back to life like monsters in a movie? Do all monsters die and come back to life in order to be scarier? Do they use spoons in the afterlife? Do dinosaurs go to heaven? Is heaven big enough for all the dinosaurs to fit in and the Christians? Will the Christians ride dinosaurs in heaven? Does Jesus live on the same street in heavan as God? Does God have him over every day? Does he ever admire God's spoon collection? What about Nessie? Is Nessie in heaven? Will Nessie go to heaven when he dies? Will it be death #2 or #1 for Nessie? Nessie is a monster, right? Will it be scarier if Nessie dies and comes back to life like the mummy? Oh that's scary! What if the Mummy was to fight Nessie? Could the mummy beat Nessie? Could the mummy beat Nessie if the Mummy had a dinosaur army? What if that army was only allowed to arm themselves with spoons? Could they kill Nessie this way? How would they fight Nessie? Would Nessie just get angry? Can Nessie breathe fire? Did Nessie exist in the Dark Ages? How about the Middle Ages? Did Nessie eat King Arthur? What if Arthur was holding Excalibur when Nessie ate him? Would it hurt Nessie? Would Nessie have used a spoon to eat Arthur? What if Excalibur had been a spoon? Could Arthur have ruled England with a magical spoon? How woosey would Dark Age Britons have to be to be ruled by a man with a magical spoon? Wouldn't this allow Nessie to invade England from the North and eat all the Dark Age Britons? Would they scream? Would the scream have a british accent? Would it be a gaelic scream? Was there a word in Saxon for "spoon"? Would they have marshalled an army to fight off Nessie? What if they only brought spoons? Would Nessie retreat back up to Loch Ness and plan another attack? Would Nessie opt to attack England through a french proxy state? Would Nessie work with the Anjous to overthrow the English monarchs? How old does a lake monster have to be to be allowed to sit on the throne of England without a regent? Are all regents willing to work for a monster? Would Nessie's mom be willing to serve as regent? Did she have any spoons? Did she bronze Nessie's baby spoon? How about his baby shoes? Do shoes fit on pleisosaur fins? Wouldn't they be strangely shaped? If Nessie needed to hold a howitzer would he be able to do it? Would he be able to repel an invasion of Scotland by King Richard Longshanks?

 

[JoeyArnold]

Could the Mummy beat Nessie?

Wait, so who discovered that the earth was round instead of flat?