Difference between revisions of "Talk:Bode's Law"

From Conservapedia
Jump to: navigation, search
m (moved Talk:Titius-Bode law to Talk:Bode's Law: better-known name)
(I have a lot of faith in God, so I'm expressing it here, okay?)
 
Line 1: Line 1:
 
{{copied from|site=CreationWiki|user=[[User:TerryH|TerryH]]<sup>[[User talk:TerryH|Talk]]</sup>|site user=Temlakos}}
 
{{copied from|site=CreationWiki|user=[[User:TerryH|TerryH]]<sup>[[User talk:TerryH|Talk]]</sup>|site user=Temlakos}}
 +
 +
==Intro==
 +
*Only Neptune, Pluto and other distant bodies It was, until the discovery of [[Neptune]], held to be a valid predictor of the positions of the [[planet]]s.
 +
*but that one exception has convinced mainstream [[Astronomy|astronomers]] to reject the law as invalid. A small number of contrarian astronomers, including at least one creationist, now suggest that the law ought to stand after all.
 +
 +
The above is a bit too argumentative for an intro. If there's debate about Bode's Law, let's add it to the body of the article first; then, rewrite the intro. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] <sup>[[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]]</sup> 18:32, 20 December 2010 (EST)

Latest revision as of 17:32, 20 December 2010

! This article or part thereof was copied from CreationWiki but the copied text was originally written by me, TerryHTalk, (under the name Temlakos) and does not include alterations made by others on that site. Conservlogo.png

Intro

  • Only Neptune, Pluto and other distant bodies It was, until the discovery of Neptune, held to be a valid predictor of the positions of the planets.
  • but that one exception has convinced mainstream astronomers to reject the law as invalid. A small number of contrarian astronomers, including at least one creationist, now suggest that the law ought to stand after all.

The above is a bit too argumentative for an intro. If there's debate about Bode's Law, let's add it to the body of the article first; then, rewrite the intro. --Ed Poor Talk 18:32, 20 December 2010 (EST)