ALTER2EGO -to- HUNTARD: Pluto is very much a planet. It was reclassified as a "dwarf planet", but it is a planet just the same.
If it was still a planet, it would be called a planet. Words have meanings, you know.
quote:What Is Pluto? Today, Pluto is called a "dwarf planet." A dwarf planet orbits the sun just like other planets, but it is smaller. A dwarf planet is so small it cannot clear other objects out of its path.
That they exhibit some similar characteristics as planets. This apparently has confused you into thinking they are completely similar. Which they aren't as your quote clearly states.
Besides, if you want to include dwarfplanets as normal planets, your original quote would still be wrong, as it says there are nine planets, but if we count the dwarfplanets as planets as well, there would be 13. So take your pick, either way, the quote is wrong.
Re: Precision in Nature: Evidence of God or Accidents?
ALTER2EGO -to- HUNTARD: Of course words have meaning. And the last source I quoted said Pluto is a "dwarf planet.' Remove the word "dwarf" and what are you left with?
Why would we remove the designation "dwarf", other then to fulffil your misconception that Pluto is a planet?
ALTER2EGO -to- HUNTARD: The confusion is yours. That's what happens when one decides to play along with the game of semantics that those in the scientific community tend to play.
Since Pluto is in fact a dwarfplanet and not a regular planet, I'm not the one who is confused.
As you can see, NASA, the last source I quoted, used the expression "just like other planets" when describing Pluto. That can only mean one thing: Pluto is indeed a planet.
No. As I explained to you, it means that it exhibits similar characteristics as planets. As you can read in your own quote, the difference between a dwarfplanet and a planet is that "A dwarf planet is so small it cannot clear other objects out of its path".
The first source I quoted was referring to the largest among the 13 when it said there are 9 planets in our solar system, obviously.
If they had done that they would've mentioned Eris, not Pluto (since Eris is bigger). So your quote is still wrong.
The routine of the scientific community is to exclude the smaller planets aka dwarf planets during the count.
That's something you've made up, because the routine when counting planets is counting planets, as well as wrong. It would've been Eris then.
Somewhere down the road, they may discover even smaller planets, at which point, they might decide to play more games of semantics with the word "planet."
They are not semantics, but important distinctions. Science changes to become ever more accurate.
In any event, the argument over what is a "planet" does not have any effect on the point of this thread: that precision in nature is evidence of intelligent design.
No, it does, however, demonstrate that your sources can't even get the simplest things right. Why should we trust them on anything at all then?