Pluto is no longer a planet....yes, the learned scientific community has admitted to their little plunder...so Pluto does not qualify as a planet but is just a tag along to our planetary system.
And this does make quite good logic as the scientific community has downgraded the human species into an evolved life form with no special intent or purpose other than to survive. They also see little reasons to protect life at any stage of the way especially if it might help produce something that will help their research programs. (I know that there are many ethical scientist out there who don't get the chance to rebut a lot of this group and for good reason...blacklisting.)
So now we see many astromnomers eating their words and accepting their falability...of course they will blame it on the new technology that allows them to peer deeper into the universe and not that they jumped to the wrong conclusion to begin with.
Just my observation...
33 comments
It's not really a fallibility. A fallibility would be thinking, say, mercury was a non-metal only to find that it really is a metal. There is no intrinsic definition of a planet in the same way that mercury is definitely an element and a metal. Metals and elements would still exist if humans didn't. The definitions of a planet are arbitrary and human-made, though. We haven't discovered any new properties of Pluto that mean we must call it something else. We've just decided to move these arbitrary boundaries for the sake of convenience.
@TDR
heh. Do you think she's aware of the irony in her own username?
Pluto is no longer a planet....yes, the learned scientific community has admitted to their little plunder Plunder? Yes, the scientific community rode out into space on their Harley space-choppers and in their mean-looking leather jackets, making off with all the priceless treasures and teen girls of the pseudo-planet. (Damn teenage hoodlum scientists! Get real jobs!) They even left beer bottles all over the nearest Lagrangian point.And this does make quite good logic as the scientific community has downgraded the human species into an evolved life form with no special intent or purpose other than to survive. Actually, the scientific community doesn't have an official opinion on the purpose of mankind. Good reason: our purpose is not a scientific question. Ignoring that question (as they should) is not the same as "downgrading" us.
I know that there are many ethical scientist out there who don't get the chance to rebut a lot of this group and for good reason...blacklisting. Has anyone ever produced any evidence of any blacklisting? By anyone? For any reason?
And you still haven't demonstrated any unethical things that need to be rebut.
of course they will blame it on the new technology that allows them to peer deeper into the universe Anything wrong with that? No!
I find most deities don't actually give a purpose in life either. They usually give long lists of stuff you're NOT supposed to do, but precious little about what you are. Tell me, anywhere in the bible, for example, where it defines the purpose of human existence. It says "god created you, therefore he wants you to exist", but even if you believe that, what does he want you to DO while you exist?
This came about simply because a body that appears to be larger than Pluto has been found in the Kuiper Belt. Presently designated as 2003 UB313, it has been given the unofficial name of "Xena." Since there was no formal definition of what a planet was, there was a rather heated debate about if Xena was the 10th planet or not. If the IAU (International Astronomy Union)had accepted another proposal for defining what a planet is, the solar system would have grown to 12 planets. But I think they did the right thing. As one astronomer has said, "if Pluto was located where Earth is, it would thaw out and grow a tail (much like a comet). Now, what kind of behavior is that for a planet?"
Observations:
of course they will blame it on the new technology that allows them to peer deeper into the universe and not that they jumped to the wrong conclusion to begin with.
"Pluto is no longer a planet....yes, the learned scientific community has admitted to their little plunder.."
1. It is “blunder” not plunder. I do not think they are trying to steal the diamonds of Pluto, at least not yet.
Someone needs to pull out that Asimov quote again about how fundies seem to think that something that isn't 100% right must be 100% wrong.
Its a definition change, geeze. Like when you guys say hell is really and absence of god and not god getting off on settin us alight.
I for one didn't count on the Pluto Controversy to go on like this. It makes a lot of sense in hindsight however.
The fact that Pluto isn't a planet NOW doesn't change the fact that it USED to be. Definitions change. It's really no different than saying something like "The hot color for clothes this summer is red!" and then NEXT summer saying it's blue. The fact that it changed doesn't in ANY WAY change the fact that it USED to be the hot color as well, right?
Pluto is no longer a planet....yes, the learned scientific community has admitted to their little plunder... ...so Pluto does not qualify as a planet but is just a tag along to our planetary system.
Under the newly-made definition for "planet," no. Pluto is one of many chunks of rock floating around in the greater Sol area.
And this does make quite good logic as the scientific community has downgraded the human species into an evolved life form...
Science hasn't "downgraded" anyone. Humans are decended from apes, whether or not we know about it, and whether or not you consider this a "downgrade" from being made of dirt by a sadistic anal-retentive guy with a beard.
...with no special intent or purpose other than to survive.
Science doesn't say anything about anyone's "purpose." Your purpose is self-chosen; no one can hand one to you. You chose your purpose, I chose mine, everyone else will choose theirs, and no one can be told that they don't have one.
The problem is that your chosen purpose is to do whatever your priest or pastor says God wants you to do. The more science advances, the more obvious it becomes that God doesn't exist. If God doesn't exist, your chosen purpose was a waste of time, and your priest or pastor lied to you and cheated you out of a chunk of your life. Since you have too much invested psychologically in the god hypothesis, you can't accept that it's wrong and seek to rationalize it away using any feeble argument necessary.
They also see little reasons to protect life at any stage of the way...
Let me guess, this is about stem cells?
...especially if it might help produce something that will help their research programs.
Look, buddy, let me explain this to you: Stem cells not used in experiments are thrown out. Yes, they're destroyed ANYWAY. Understand?
(Of course, I have to give you a little bit of doubt benefit. You didn't actually mention stem cells, and may have been talking about the painful experiments performed on adults. In that case, I actually have to agree with you; painful experiments are not justified by the fact that the victim is not human.)
(I know that there are many ethical scientist out there who don't get the chance to rebut a lot of this group and for good reason...blacklisting.)
Oh, right. Blacklisting. Yeah, there are scientists out there being blacklisted because they insist on calling Pluto a "planet." Now if you'll excuse me, I need to call my broker; I'm going to invest in aluminum, refineries, and foil.
So now we see many astromnomers eating their words and accepting their falability...
No, they did that at the start. Scientists always admit that they're fallible; that's why everything is tested. That's why results are published. That's why everything must be repeatable . It's the theists who claim that they're infallible.
...Or does "falability" mean "a tendency to be right?"
...of course they will blame it on the new technology that allows them to peer deeper into the universe and not that they jumped to the wrong conclusion to begin with.
Scientists are blaming technology for the fact that they chose to refine the definition for "planet?" WTF?
Just my observation...
Your "observation" was tinted; maybe you should take off the bullshit-colored glasses.
@AmosHas anyone ever produced any evidence of any blacklisting? By anyone? For any reason?
Yes. My grandfather, by the government, for political reasons.
It was during the McCarthy era, and he taught (accurate) Russian history.
That doesn't help out Clevermom much, though. Oh well, at least she's funny to have around.
Whoosaclevermom? You are! Yes you are!
"Pluto is no longer a planet...."
Yes it is. According to the IAU definition it is a "dwarf planet" rather than a major planet, but it is still a planet (NASA ).
In science, unlike in religion, changing the definition of a thing doesn't change the thing itself because things that science studies actually exists in observable reality. I understand your confusion since you are probably used to thinking that things that exists in your head are more real than things in that are actually observable by everyone.
Confused?
So were we! You can find all of this, and more, on Fundies Say the Darndest Things!
To post a comment, you'll need to Sign in or Register . Making an account also allows you to claim credit for submitting quotes, and to vote on quotes and comments. You don't even need to give us your email address.
