Talk:Planet - Revision history

GStoner: /* Creationism View */

2008-11-21T14:36:51Z

‎Creationism View

GStoner: /* Creationism View */

2008-11-21T14:36:18Z

‎Creationism View

GStoner: /* Creationism View */ new section

2008-11-21T14:35:51Z

‎Creationism View: new section

Airdish at 18:10, March 26, 2007

2007-03-26T18:10:03Z

Huey gunna getcha at 18:03, March 26, 2007

2007-03-26T18:03:50Z

Airdish at 18:02, March 26, 2007

2007-03-26T18:02:38Z

ColinR at 18:01, March 26, 2007

2007-03-26T18:01:04Z

ColinR: New page: It should be noted that the IAU definition of a planet is currently undergoing close scrutiny and debate. After all, according to the current definition, Neptune shouldn't be a planet eit...

2007-03-26T18:00:55Z

New page: It should be noted that the IAU definition of a planet is currently undergoing close scrutiny and debate. After all, according to the current definition, Neptune shouldn't be a planet eit...

New page

It should be noted that the IAU definition of a planet is currently undergoing close scrutiny and debate. After all, according to the current definition, Neptune shouldn't be a planet either. (Pluto's and Neptune's orbits cross over each other. [[User:ColinR|ColinR]][[User_talk:ColinR|talk]] 14:00, 26 March 2007 (EDT)

← Older revision		Revision as of 14:36, November 21, 2008
Line 9:		Line 9:
	== Creationism View ==		== Creationism View ==

−	The Young Earth Creationism View is not relevant enough unless it can offer a valid explanation of planetary creation instead of the section just stating "explanations of the planet formation are inadequate and contra-evidential". [[GStoner]]	+	The Young Earth Creationism View is not relevant enough unless it can offer a valid explanation of planetary creation instead of the section just stating "explanations of the planet formation are inadequate and contra-evidential". [[User:GStoner]]

← Older revision		Revision as of 14:36, November 21, 2008
Line 9:		Line 9:
	== Creationism View ==		== Creationism View ==

−	The Young Earth Creationism View is not relevant enough unless it can offer a valid explanation of planetary creation instead of the section just stating "explanations of the planet formation are inadequate and contra-evidential".	+	The Young Earth Creationism View is not relevant enough unless it can offer a valid explanation of planetary creation instead of the section just stating "explanations of the planet formation are inadequate and contra-evidential". [[GStoner]]

← Older revision		Revision as of 14:35, November 21, 2008
Line 6:		Line 6:

	There is a subtle difference between the definition for a planet in our solar system or one orbiting a star other than the sun. The rationale for giving a "loose definition" was to avoid getting lost in minutiae. Changing to "is" is fine until a proper article is done. [[User:Airdish\|Airdish]] 14:10, 26 March 2007 (EDT)		There is a subtle difference between the definition for a planet in our solar system or one orbiting a star other than the sun. The rationale for giving a "loose definition" was to avoid getting lost in minutiae. Changing to "is" is fine until a proper article is done. [[User:Airdish\|Airdish]] 14:10, 26 March 2007 (EDT)
		+
		+	== Creationism View ==
		+
		+	The Young Earth Creationism View is not relevant enough unless it can offer a valid explanation of planetary creation instead of the section just stating "explanations of the planet formation are inadequate and contra-evidential".

← Older revision		Revision as of 18:10, March 26, 2007
Line 4:		Line 4:

	Duly noted. Thanks for the heads-up. --[[User:Huey gunna getcha\|Huey gunna getcha]] 14:03, 26 March 2007 (EDT)		Duly noted. Thanks for the heads-up. --[[User:Huey gunna getcha\|Huey gunna getcha]] 14:03, 26 March 2007 (EDT)
		+
		+	There is a subtle difference between the definition for a planet in our solar system or one orbiting a star other than the sun. The rationale for giving a "loose definition" was to avoid getting lost in minutiae. Changing to "is" is fine until a proper article is done. [[User:Airdish\|Airdish]] 14:10, 26 March 2007 (EDT)

← Older revision		Revision as of 18:03, March 26, 2007
Line 2:		Line 2:

	:Oh yeh, I agree (i'm not happy with the revised definition at all) but I just thought I'd get the ball rolling, when I have more time I'll get to a more thorough article unless someone gets to it first. [[User:Airdish\|Airdish]] 14:02, 26 March 2007 (EDT)		:Oh yeh, I agree (i'm not happy with the revised definition at all) but I just thought I'd get the ball rolling, when I have more time I'll get to a more thorough article unless someone gets to it first. [[User:Airdish\|Airdish]] 14:02, 26 March 2007 (EDT)
		+
		+	Duly noted. Thanks for the heads-up. --[[User:Huey gunna getcha\|Huey gunna getcha]] 14:03, 26 March 2007 (EDT)

← Older revision		Revision as of 18:02, March 26, 2007
Line 1:		Line 1:
	It should be noted that the IAU definition of a planet is currently undergoing close scrutiny and debate. After all, according to the current definition, Neptune shouldn't be a planet either. (Pluto's and Neptune's orbits cross over each other.) <font color="FFD700">[[User:ColinR\|ColinR]]</font><sup><font color="000000">[[User_talk:ColinR\|talk]]</font></sup> 14:00, 26 March 2007 (EDT)		It should be noted that the IAU definition of a planet is currently undergoing close scrutiny and debate. After all, according to the current definition, Neptune shouldn't be a planet either. (Pluto's and Neptune's orbits cross over each other.) <font color="FFD700">[[User:ColinR\|ColinR]]</font><sup><font color="000000">[[User_talk:ColinR\|talk]]</font></sup> 14:00, 26 March 2007 (EDT)
		+
		+	:Oh yeh, I agree (i'm not happy with the revised definition at all) but I just thought I'd get the ball rolling, when I have more time I'll get to a more thorough article unless someone gets to it first. [[User:Airdish\|Airdish]] 14:02, 26 March 2007 (EDT)

← Older revision		Revision as of 18:01, March 26, 2007
Line 1:		Line 1:
−	It should be noted that the IAU definition of a planet is currently undergoing close scrutiny and debate. After all, according to the current definition, Neptune shouldn't be a planet either. (Pluto's and Neptune's orbits cross over each other. <font color="FFD700">[[User:ColinR\|ColinR]]</font><sup><font color="000000">[[User_talk:ColinR\|talk]]</font></sup> 14:00, 26 March 2007 (EDT)	+	It should be noted that the IAU definition of a planet is currently undergoing close scrutiny and debate. After all, according to the current definition, Neptune shouldn't be a planet either. (Pluto's and Neptune's orbits cross over each other.) <font color="FFD700">[[User:ColinR\|ColinR]]</font><sup><font color="000000">[[User_talk:ColinR\|talk]]</font></sup> 14:00, 26 March 2007 (EDT)