Puzzles of Our Cosmic Neighbourhood

Like all thing in this universe:

"The more we know, the less we know we know"

I think that a lot of people can remember the rocky (iron?) planets: Mercury, Venus, Earth and Mars, but then struggle with the order of the rest. I was like that until I was looking at a book with my son, which pointed out that the sequence begins and ends with SUN. i.e. the Sun in the middle and Saturn, Uranus, Neptune on the outside; then you've just got to know that Jupiter is the first of the gas giants.

Of course this relies on Pluto/Charon not being a planet and Tyche not being discovered yet!

I'm not preaching, that's different.

This whole forum is about presentation of ideas and opinions about many different fields so people can make their own determination and solutions to issues and questions they have.

I'm simply bringing a viable perspective to the table. Each person decides on their own whether the thinking process or approach to particular issues or problems have merit. Preaching would say "you have to believe a particular way". My previous Post was simply food for thought.

"young earth Intelligent Design" perpetual motion and free energy, are all pseudo-science and have no place in this forum....No need to respond, I'm not interested in discussing this any further...

Philistene! Just imagine how boring exploration would be without a designer to take the credit! Oh, wait, God didsigned it so no need to think further!

What arrogance to make such claims!

(Intelligent Design, Theistic Evolution, Creation, etc.) for what we see, are they displaying arrogance?.........Yes, it is the ultimate arrogance to think in those ways that reflect only on one's belief system. Projecting oneself into the equation of creation is nothing less than a loathing for the thing that is truly fascinating...ie CREATION is fascinating.... creationism is pandering to an easy explanation.

"...for they being ignorant of God's righteousness, and going about to establish their own righteousness, have not submitted themselves unto the righteousness of God" Romans X 2-5

I think you missed the point that those who state definitively that evolution/big bang, etc. is the only reasonable explanation of what we see is "arrogance". If you apply that to those who hold to the creation scenario you have to apply it to the evolutionists as well, after all, evolutionism is a belief system as well .

"Projecting oneself into the equation of creation is nothing less than a loathing for the thing that is truly fascinating...ie CREATION is fascinating.... creationism is pandering to an easy explanation." Holding to a belief that creation is plausible doesn't display any arrogance, just like holding the idea that evolution is the cause of what we see. I don't see how holding to a creationist viewpoint is "projecting oneself into the equation". We have nothing to add to or subtract from regarding the explanation of what we see by having a creationist viewpoint. Our origin has nothing to do with us as mankind.

"creationism is pandering to an easy explanation." Who says what we see in our Universe as needing to be complicated in it's inception? Just because it is complex doesn't mean it's beginning was complicated.

I like to see that you're familiar with the Bible, although your application of those verses has little to do with the context of what is being said by the Apostle Paul. How about Genesis 1:1, "In the begninning God created...." It's not hard to understand, just hard to believe, if you don't want to recognize and be accountable to the God of Creation.

If one were to take the first part of Genesis and skip the Adam and Eve 'addition' one would see that the events portrayed are a systemic observation of astronomic/geological events in the correct order. Whoever wrote it was a keen observer....brilliant I would add!

Your mistake is thinking that evolution scientists hold onto a belief system similar to creationism. Nothing can be further from the truth. Though I doubt that they'd apply creationism to their platform I'm sure that if evidence to the contrary were the order of a new discovery then the acceptance of same would implicate a rethink. Can creationism be so versatile? Since when does dogmatic thinking allow for anything other than strict adherence? It can't because the foundation it's based on is more of a 'need' than actual proof.

"Your mistake is thinking that evolution scientists hold onto a belief system similar to creationism."

I'm not sure what you mean by this? There are no similarities between creationism and evolutionary ideologies. They are diametrically opposed. Creationism is intricate, complex organisms which occurred by design by a Designer. Evolution on the other hand seeks to explain how you get from chaos and disaster (big bang or whatever) and wind up with the same intricate, complex organisms; order out of disorder, which defy natural laws. Things always move from a higher order to a lesser order. Just park your car outside for a few years and watch the process of deterioration, due to natural law. Just eat whatever you want without doing any health maintenance on your body and see what happens, due to natural law.

"Since when does dogmatic thinking allow for anything other than strict adherence? It can't because the foundation it's based on is more of a 'need' than actual proof."

I agree with your statement above. There are few people who are more dogmatic and vehement in their thinking than die-hard evolutionists. Their "need" is to somehow try and explain away what we are and what we see so they won't be accountable to the Creator for their actions. They claim to be open-minded but the claim is as far as it goes.

Evolution is not an ideology nor can it ever be one. It's the study of environmentally caused mutation. Would you or I be any less human if the link was proven to indeed be an ancient ape? Why would that prospect offend?

Pls understand, I don't mean to belittle your faith. I just see a danger in what creationism stands for and how it can be used.

Re: (Randall's post #3) "I think that a lot of people can remember the rocky (iron?) planets: Mercury, Venus, Earth and Mars, but then struggle with the order of the rest."

_{And, with all due respect to posts 4&5} ... nearly half-a-century ago, the good schools with which I was blessed to be a part taught us the old phrase: "Mary's Violet Eyes Make John Stay Up Nights Pacing". And, we learned the few associated-details that were known at that time.

We hadn't yet forgotten (or given-up-on) the "guiding principles" upon which our country's founders ESTABLISHED this great Republic (not "democracy").

The question in the OP is "What's left to know in our Solar System?" The article is necessarily LITTERED with questions that answer that query; from "does liquid water exist just 3km beneath Europa's surface?" to: "Where's the Methane on Mars coming from?"

All GREAT questions, the answers to which WILL come to us ... given time ... "one way or another".

Having said it elsewhere as well, I trust that we will learn to seek these answers in appropriate fashion, without doing so by:

("apologies" Ray, John, Michael, et al ...)

A few decades ago I learned the phrase:

My Very Educated Mother Just Served Us Nine Pies

Today I looked on line and saw this link which has a few mnemonics for remembering the planets (whether nine or eight).

It's the mindset we start from that leads to different conclusions of old earth evolution or young earth Intelligent Design.

Intelligent Design can apply to an old earth as well as a young earth. You are applying your biases as is everyone. Intelligent Design and evolution are not mutually exclusive. Yes, you are preaching.

Scientists want to understand the mechanics of this hexagon-shaped storm on Saturn

Hmm... Some ancient witch must have put a hex on it.