Information icon.svg Nominations and campaigning for the RationalWiki 2020 Moderator Election are completed. Voting is live now, until 20:00 UTC, 1 December!


From RationalWiki
Jump to: navigation, search
Icon astronomy.svg

This Astronomy related article has not received a brainstar for quality. Please consider expanding the article appropriately. See RationalWiki:Article rating for more information.

Editorial notes
  • Needs a debunking of the YEC claims


Anyone? Tytalk 22:45, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

personally, stubby as it is, i rather enjoy these science articles. they are rat.ional; they are what we factually know about other worlds. and it's just "lay person" cool.Pink mowse.pngGodotThe Peyote God awaits 22:48, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

I've made it unambiguously topical ... by noting our friends the creationists taking an interest in it. - David Gerard (talk) 19:36, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

I de-orphaned it (*performs Raise Undead on parent*), but I think that this will be the only link to it for the foreseeable future.--ZooGuard (talk) 18:10, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

I think this article should stay in. Forget about the name of the planet. Its existence, and its recent discovery, are critical to different efforts of rational thinking. One is that we (as humans) are discovering new celestial objects on a daily basis, and the fact that one is actually within our own solar system is striking as it reinforces that we DON'T know everything about the Universe, even in our own backyard (relatively speaking). With other celestial bodies, this throws creationists, astrologers and religious-types for a loop, casting doubt on what they so stubbornly uphold and then try to retcon into their own system of beliefs (for if they don't, they lose legitimacy/authority). --Sethpeck (talk) 17:12, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

Nevermind that their reactions are usually "Oh, well, we've known this all along" or "Oh, well, it's so far away it has no bearing on our charts"...or some other BS --Sethpeck (talk) 17:27, 10 November 2011 (UTC)