[Kite]

Quote by: Technosoul Ha, now you know why I am not a scientist. Okay then add Saturn and drop the asteroid belt, the number of planets would still add up to what is needed to make the anology. In addition to your notation many planets also have moons and one could ask why our moon is counted and not all the moons.

Well why are you excluding the moon now? You cant pick and choose celestial objects just so they can add up to your magic number 10.

What is your opinon on the link The Birth of Earth 3

You can add on symbolic meaning to just about anything and make it look relevant.

Some objects have been detected in or near the Kuiper Belt. SPACE.com -- Discovery Hints at a Quadrillion Space Rocks Beyond Neptune Trans-Neptunian Objects - Explore the Cosmos | The Planetary Society I would venture to say that Pluto is part of the Kuiper Belt with the other objects making up that "sea" of icy objects. Therefore counting Pluto and the Kuiper Belt as "one" thing. One influence. As you know, even a theory can be re-interpreted due to addictional findings or data. I am not talking about absolutes here. And this idea has lots of room in it for debating - because of it's very nature.

Astronomy is not a field that is up for interpretation. Photographic and mathematical evidence make it kind of hard to debate whether something is there or not.

None the less, if you ignore my clumsy way of presenting this idea, it is still evidence that perhaps religious stories are really based on scientific knowledge about the solar system, etc.

Or perhaps it is based on the 10 layers on my subway sandwich. Symbolic meaning can be applied to anything, unless there is a passage in the Bible that specifically mentions 10 planets orbiting the sun (which, coincidentally, wouldn't have happened, since the Heliocentric model of the solar system didn't come around until after the death of Christ) then there is nothing definitive at all, simply conjecture.

I must insert however that none of the Creationist oganizations took part in constructing this idea as I outlined. And most religions would reject the idea faster then would a scientific journal. And I doubt it scientists would see any point in adding such to a book about the history of science. None the less, it works for me. In other words, many myths and religious stories are a spin-off of discoveries known to ancient scientists. How then would they know? That would be another debate.

If religion and science go together so nicely as you say, then why has the church made every effort for the past 2000 years to denounce science?

Now (more explaination) if a planet impacted earth at the location of the astroid belt and moved it into our current orbit, then that would account for why we have an astroid belt, and also, our moon would be a left over part of the other planet that impacted earth. If that is the case then the moon would be made of slightly differenct kinds of rocks then what we have here on earth. You know the answer to that requirement.

No, thats not how the cosmos work. If anything, a large meteor might have hit the earth and glommed a chunk off of it and that chunk became the moon. Also, there is way too much material in the asteroid belt to have only come from earth.