Re: An Encounter with Kent Hovind

In article <1141415445.757651.281880@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>,
eyelessgame <aamp@xxxxxxx> wrote:

Ye Old One wrote:
On Fri, 03 Mar 2006 01:29:47 GMT, John Harshman
<jharshman.diespamdie@xxxxxxxxxxx> enriched this group when s/he
wrote:

Ye Old One wrote:

On 2 Mar 2006 13:30:24 -0800, mccoy@xxxxxxxxxx enriched this group
when s/he wrote:


Nice dodge....the common contention is that the Bible is properly
translated with God's guidance so that the meaning is not lost....so
stars are stars in the common usage....which means all the twinkly bits

that we see in the night sky.

Ken


Answer: No. The bottom line is that the meaning or a word is always
found by looking up the context of the word.


Did you look up the word "literal" in the dictionary?


Also, it's common
knowledge that the planets do not twinkle but the distance stars do.


Wrong again. Oh you do keep making a habit of being wrong.

But the planets don't generally twinkle. I presume it's because their
angular size is so much greater, and thus they are much less subject to
the little transient atmospheric stuff that affects the stars.

That really only applies to the brightest (Venus, Jupiter and Mars
when closest) and on seeing conditions. In general there may be a
little less twinkling, but most of the time it is there.

Huh, that's not my experience. Mars (at a fair distance) and Saturn are
both up right now in the mid-evening sky, and both are visually much
steadier than any of the other winter-sky bright stars. The angular
size difference is not subtle between a planet and a star. Even Uranus
is visibly steadier, even in a telescope with low enough power not to
show its disc.

Er, to naked eye it certainly is a subtle difference. Naked eye,
planets and stars are all points. Mars vs. Aldebaran, being near
each other now and of similar color, do serve to demonstrate that
even if the planet's image twinkles or wavers, it's nevertheless
steadier than the star's. Under poor seeing conditions, though,
I've seen even a very bright (large) Venus twinkling high in the sky.

Mercury sometimes shimmers a bit, but that's because it's always low in
the sky and thus viewed through really awful air.


--
Robert Grumbine http://www.radix.net/~bobg/ Science faqs and amateur activities notes and links.
Sagredo (Galileo Galilei) "You present these recondite matters with too much
evidence and ease; this great facility makes them less appreciated than they
would be had they been presented in a more abstruse manner." Two New Sciences

.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: An Encounter with Kent Hovind
    ... stars are stars in the common usage....which means all the twinkly ... that we see in the night sky. ... But the planets don't generally twinkle. ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: Re: An Encounter with Kent Hovind
    ... enriched this group when s/he ... stars are stars in the common usage....which means all the twinkly ... But the planets don't generally twinkle. ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: Re: An Encounter with Kent Hovind
    ... enriched this group when s/he ... stars are stars in the common usage....which means all the twinkly bits ... But the planets don't generally twinkle. ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: An Encounter with Kent Hovind
    ... enriched this group when s/he ... stars are stars in the common usage....which means all the twinkly bits ... But the planets don't generally twinkle. ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: A rant from Bill Mahers recent show:
    ... That morning, when I was looking at what I supposed was Venus, it appeared like there was another planet or a star almost touching Venus at about the 7:00 position. ... Hmm, well, I certainly wont say you were seeing things, but there are no other planets or very bright stars near Venus in the sky right now. ...
    (rec.sport.football.college)