Although we have not observed this specific instance of rotation, using the knowledge we have used by observing the orbit of other planets and our own moon, we can extrapolate based on the data we do have. In the same way, by crushing a grape with a weight, and observing a different grape, we can extrapolate that this different grape will also be crushed by the weight.
Now, as far as the Genesis creation and Adam and Eve, I do not personally believe in the story literally. I take it as an allegory given to us to appreciate the beauty and majesty of god and his creation and benevolence, much in the same way Jesus gave us his parables to illuminate the might and grace of God.
You stated it orbited, has anyone seen it do a full rotation around the Sun? Do you not believe the Genesis account of creation then? What about Adam and Eve, do you believe they existed?
YIC
Jack
Although we have not observed this specific instance of rotation, using the knowledge we have used by observing the orbit of other planets and our own moon, we can extrapolate based on the data we do have. In the same way, by crushing a grape with a weight, and observing a different grape, we can extrapolate that this different grape will also be crushed by the weight.
Now, as far as the Genesis creation and Adam and Eve, I do not personally believe in the story literally. I take it as an allegory given to us to appreciate the beauty and majesty of god and his creation and benevolence, much in the same way Jesus gave us his parables to illuminate the might and grace of God.
Actually, science is based on observation. I would like to know why you refer to my faith as blind but not your own. I would like to say that I do not mean to offend, as I too am a man of god, and have accepted Jesus as my personal savior. I have done this because I have seen proof of his existence through the kindness of others. And I believe in science because I have observed the laws of nature and seen the forces of gravity at work. My faith is no more blind than yours; both are based on observation, and accepting what we see. As far as Pluto not actually been seen, it has in fact been observed in Paris University, as well as by MIT and the Hubble Telescope.
You stated it orbited, has anyone seen it do a full rotation around the Sun? Do you not believe the Genesis account of creation then? What about Adam and Eve, do you believe they existed?
Pluto was discovered (invented) in 1930. The orbit is supposed to be 248 years so nobody has actually seen it orbit the Sun. As with most of science it's all based on blind faith.
YIC
Jack
Actually, science is based on observation. I would like to know why you refer to my faith as blind but not your own. I would like to say that I do not mean to offend, as I too am a man of god, and have accepted Jesus as my personal savior. I have done this because I have seen proof of his existence through the kindness of others. And I believe in science because I have observed the laws of nature and seen the forces of gravity at work. My faith is no more blind than yours; both are based on observation, and accepting what we see. As far as Pluto not actually been seen, it has in fact been observed in Paris University, as well as by MIT and the Hubble Telescope.
we still very much accept that Pluto exists in the sky and is continuing its orbit around the sun.
Pluto was discovered (invented) in 1930. The orbit is supposed to be 248 years so nobody has actually seen it orbit the Sun. As with most of science it's all based on blind faith.
Planets as they are described by scientists is a solid proof of Creation, since their near-circular orbits are way too perfect to be the result of a gravitational collapse of a huge cloud of trillions of particles, each with random size and velocity. Contrary to common belief, celestial bodies do not magically align into perfection.
I'm afraid this is incorrect. Planets do not orbit in a perfectly circular way. Rather, their orbits are often eliptical. The Earth itself can be as close to the sun as 91,445,000 miles or as far as 94,555,000 miles. Further, as the Earth is rotating it is in fact "wobbling" on its axis, and is never rotating perfectly from pole to pole, in a perfect circle around the sun. So I'm going to go ahead and say that Planets are not used in an argument for creation in the manner that you described.
Further, as far as seeing Planets with your own eyes, it's as possible as you like.
That bright spot is Venus. The planet was not actually named by scientists after 'pagan' gods, but was named by the 'pagans' themselves. As such, it was not a deliberate act by scientists to offend Christians. They merely adopted the historical name as a matter of convenience.
I'm also going to second Spike's statement, that Pluto was indeed declassified due to size; it was not a matter of miscounting, we still very much accept that Pluto exists in the sky and is continuing its orbit around the sun.
Footage from the camera aboard the Mars Curiosity Rover in the final 2 minutes of it descent onto Mars. Is that enough proof? These images were beamed to Earth. Don't forget to read the article as well.
Also, scientists didn't count the planets wrong, they declassified Pluto as a planet due to its size, which is just a bit bigger than the Earths moon.
Here is another video for you, this shows life forms on the planet. The quality is a bit better than the one you posted. Since you believe everything without question you will find it very interesting,
Footage from the camera aboard the Mars Curiosity Rover in the final 2 minutes of it descent onto Mars. Is that enough proof? These images were beamed to Earth. Don't forget to read the article as well.
Also, scientists didn't count the planets wrong, they declassified Pluto as a planet due to its size, which is just a bit bigger than the Earths moon.
The Curiosity Mars Descent Imager captured the rover's descent to the surface of the red planet and its falling heat shield
Footage from the camera aboard the Mars Curiosity Rover in the final 2 minutes of it descent onto Mars. Is that enough proof? These images were beamed to Earth. Don't forget to read the article as well.
Also, scientists didn't count the planets wrong, they declassified Pluto as a planet due to its size, which is just a bit bigger than the Earths moon.
Planets as they are described by scientists is a solid proof of Creation, since their near-circular orbits are way too perfect to be the result of a gravitational collapse of a huge cloud of trillions of particles, each with random size and velocity. Contrary to common belief, celestial bodies do not magically align into perfection.
However, the Bible do not mention them orbiting the sun. This means that it is not very relevant if they exist or not.
This do not mean that the sky isn't important. Jesus did give us specific signs to look for that would indicate His return was imminent.
I'll believe in other planets when I see them with my own eyes. Even then I would have to use the bible to make sure that I am not being trick by the devil. (you can never be too sure, he's a crafty devil)
You really should decide between empirical evidence*, faith in sacred writings and superstitions. It can't be all three of them concomitantly.
*not that this path wouldn't fundamentally flawed, but nevermind fathoming that, I suppose
I'll believe in other planets when I see them with my own eyes. Even then I would have to use the bible to make sure that I am not being trick by the devil. (you can never be too sure, he's a crafty devil)
Leave a comment: