Discussion about scientific issues as they relate to God and Christianity including archaeology, origins of life, the universe, intelligent design, evolution, etc.
This article caught my eye for this statement made by an astronomer.
Martin Hendry, a senior lecturer in astronomy at Glasgow University and member of the IAU, said: "Unless the science underlying this is rigorous, how can we expect to agree on a definition that will be not only understood by ourselves, but other forms of life if and when we encounter them?"
How's that for throwing in a new factor?
Bart
Dogmatism is the comfortable intellectual framework of self-righteousness. Self-righteousness is more decadent than the worst sexual sin. ~ Dan Allender
Pluto is no longer a planet. The reaction all over the world has been one of shock, horror, and an overwhelming sorrow. Yet this news should have come as a surprise to no one. The disappearance of Pluto was predicted over a quarter of a century ago: http://www.maryellenandtom.com/2002/pla ... utoart.gif
"How can we expect to agree on a definition that will be not only understood by ourselves, but other forms of life if and when we encounter them?"
I think I would be willing to tke my chances on that problem. I vote that we get rid of what was called Pluto, as a planet. That would leave us free to get rid of the horrible name "Uranus," and rename that poor planet "Pluto."
AttentionKMartShoppers wrote:What's wrong with Uranus?
Nothing as far as I can see... (Sorry I couldn't resist...).
The heart cannot rejoice in what the mind rejects as false - Galileo
We learn from history that we do not learn from history - Georg Friedrich Wilhelm Hegel
Finally, brothers, whatever is true, whatever is noble, whatever is right, whatever is pure, whatever is lovely, whatever is admirable, if anything is excellent or praiseworthy, think about such things. -Philippians 4:8
