Alien Life, Extrasolar Planets and Universal Atonement Part 2
Copyright 1994 - 2018 Bill's Bible Basics

Authored By  :
Bill Kochman

Published On :
July 14, 2007

Last Updated :
January 3, 2009

God And His Word Are Immutable, Clyde Tombaugh And Percival
Lowell Discover Pluto, Kuiper Disk And Kuiper Belt Objects,
Pluto Demoted To Dwarf Planet, Scientific Method, Theory Of
Evolution, Peer Pressure In Public School System, Extrasolar
Planets, Gliese 581 c And HD 202206 c, No Visual Observation,
Only Secondary Evidence, Detection Methods & Radial-Velocity
Survey, Faith To Believe, Faith Pleases God, Bible Is Proof,
Proof In God's Creation, Ignorant By Choice, Double Standard
Though One Were To Rise From The Dead, Endtime Lack Of Faith,
2004 Planetary Society Article And The 2M1207b Controversy

While due to its very nature, science requires flexibility,
and can very often fluctuate in its opinions, by comparison,
both God and His Word are immutable; that is to say, they're
unchanging and constant. In the following verses, we're also
told that God does not lie, and that His Word is established
forever. If He says that something is true, then it is; and
if He states that something will come to pass, then it most
certainly will:

"God is not a man, that he should lie; neither the son of
man, that he should repent: hath he said, and shall he not
do it? or hath he spoken, and shall he not make it good?"
Numbers 23:19, KJV

"LAMED. For ever, O LORD, thy word is settled in heaven."
Psalms 119:89, KJV

"I know that, whatsoever God doeth, it shall be for ever:
nothing can be put to it, nor any thing taken from it: and
God doeth it, that men should fear before him. That which
hath been is now; and that which is to be hath already been;
and God requireth that which is past."
Ecclesiastes 3:14-15, KJV

"Remember the former things of old: for I am God, and there
is none else; I am God, and there is none like me, Declaring
the end from the beginning, and from ancient times the
things that are not yet done, saying, My counsel shall
stand, and I will do all my pleasure:"
Isaiah 46:9-10, KJV

"God forbid: yea, let God be true, but every man a liar; as
it is written, That thou mightest be justified in thy
sayings, and mightest overcome when thou art judged."
Romans 3:4, KJV

"In hope of eternal life, which God, that cannot lie,
promised before the world began;"
Titus 1:2, KJV

"Every good gift and every perfect gift is from above, and
cometh down from the Father of lights, with whom is no
variableness, neither shadow of turning."
James 1:17, KJV

Please notice that in that last verse, in describing God as
the "Father of Lights", James uses the phrase "with whom is
no variableness, neither shadow of turning". In other words,
just like the Sun, which is indeed the "father of lights",
as well as the "greater light" mentioned in Genesis, which
continuously pours its light upon the Earth, resulting in
life on our planet, so too is our God. God is constant in
His Ways; and He, as well as His Word, can be trusted; just
like the morning Sun which never fails to rise day after day
and year after year. God the Father, and Jesus Christ His
Son, will always be there for us, regardless of how much
time has passed, and regardless of how many troubles may
come our way. As it is also written:

". . . lo, I am with you alway, even unto the end of the
world. Amen."
Matthew 28:20b, KJV

" . . . for he hath said, I will never leave thee, nor
forsake thee."
Hebrews 13:5, KJV

On the other hand, the same cannot always be said concerning
science; which has a propensity for wavering in it opinions
and theories on a regular basis. This certainly holds true
in the field of astronomy.

A clear case in point concerns the former outermost planet
in our Solar System: Pluto. Since its discovery on February
18, 1930 by Clyde Tombaugh, Pluto was classified as a planet.
As I point out in "The Nibiru Planet X Wormwood Controversy"
series, both Percival Lowell and Clyde Tombaugh were looking
for the mysterious Planet X in the vicinity of Neptune, when
Pluto's discovery was made. However, since the early 1990's,
with the discovery of over one thousand small icy objects in
the outer region of our Solar System, in a disk-shaped cloud
that astronomers refer to as the "Kuiper Disk", or "Kuiper
Belt", Pluto's status as a major planet came into question.

These cold objects, which astronomers refer to as Kuiper Belt
Objects, (KBO's), or Trans-Neptunian Objects, (TNO's), being
as they cross the orbit of the planet Neptune, are irregular
in shape, and the vast majority of them are much smaller in
size than Pluto itself. However, a few KBO's are as large as,
or even larger than Pluto, such as the KBO, Eris. Other KBO's
possess such exotic names as Quaoar, Varuna and Sedna. It is
theorized that over 70,000 objects populate the Kuiper Belt,
and more are discovered with each passing year. Furthermore,
the Kuiper Belt is believed to be the home of many periodic
comets, or short-period comets; that is, those comets which
have an orbital period of two hundred years or less.

For your information, Pluto is quite tiny in size, being six
times smaller than our own planet Earth. Not only that, but
this distant member of our Solar System is also smaller than
seven of our Solar System's moons; those being our own Moon;
as well as Jupiter's moons Io, Europa, Ganymede and Callisto;
Saturn's moon Titan; and Neptune's moon Triton. Because of
these facts, and others which I discuss in more detail in my
series "The Nibiru Planet X Wormwood Controversy", in August
of 2006, the International Astronomical Union announced a new
definition for the word "planet". Being as it failed to meet
the new criteria, Pluto was reclassified as a Dwarf Planet,
and lost its status as the ninth member of our Solar System.
It is now viewed as one of the larger members of the Kuiper
Belt. Similarly-sized KBO's are thus referred to as Plutinos.

It is also interesting to note that until the Hubble Space
Telescope was launched, images of Pluto and its small moon
Charon were nothing more than blurry, irregular-shaped blobs
of light. In fact, I possess one such image, being as it was
included in a nine-piece set which I received as a gift from
The Planetary Society some years ago, due to a contribution
that I had made to that organization. It is only as a result
of recent images taken by Hubble, that astronomers have been
able to determine that Pluto does in fact possess a spherical
shape similar to the eight planets in our Solar System; but
its surface features still remain totally indistinguishable.
Another factor which sets Pluto apart from the major bodies
of our Solar System, is that it has never been visited by a
manmade craft. There are plans, however, to change that
within this decade, if all goes according to plan.

While this story concerning Pluto may not seem relevant to
our current discussion on intelligent extraterrestrial life,
other than the fact that it clearly demonstrates how modern
science isn't always as perfect, or as constant in its views
as one would like to think, there is one point that you need
to remember as we proceed; and that is that the Pluto debate
has revolved around visual observations of this Dwarf Planet
by both men and machines.

Before proceeding to our next point of discussion, allow me
to briefly address another issue. I realize that some of you
who are reading this, who are more inclined to embrace the
scientific perspective, may object to the fact that I have
categorized science as being rather questionable in some of
its positions. As I mentioned earlier, I recognize that this
characteristic of science is the result of the very nature of
the scientific approach to understanding things. That is to
say, science demands that we first examine the evidence. It
is then followed by speculation and experimentation, during
which we offer various theories, and test those theories, in
order to determine if they continue to be true. If not, then
more examination is required, and additional experimentation
is conducted, and the analytical process continues until the
theories can either be substantiated by the results, or else
discarded due to a lack of strong supporting evidence. At
least they should be.

So, while I am not a scientist by profession, I do have a
general understanding of how the scientific method operates.
Nevertheless, as a Christian who has trusted in God for many
years, and who is convinced of the immutable nature of His
Word, I do not find this constant changing of opinion within
the various scientific disciplines to be confidence-building.

This is particularly true when it results in such ludicrous
conclusions as the theory of evolution, or Darwinism, (also
referred to as macro-evolution); which, quite frankly, is a
religion in its own right, because it does require a kind of
blind faith in order to accept it as being true, due to the
lack of concrete supporting evidence. In spite of all of the
intensive searching which has been conducted over the years,
the fact remains that no so-called "missing link" has ever
been discovered, because, in my view, it doesn't exist. Now,
if the "missing link" were to be found some day, I would be
inclined to attribute it to the invention of unscrupulous
men; (as has occurred in the past), or at the very least, to
the incorrect interpretation of whatever data may possibly
be presented at that time.

If evolution is the best that science, and the so-called
"wisdom" and "logic" of man, can offer us, then to be quite
frank, I'll gladly accept God's Word any day. At least God's
Word gives us humans credit for being intelligent creatures
from the very beginning. Not so with science, which falsely
promotes the belief that it took mankind thousands, if not
millions of years, just to figure out that by planting seeds
in the ground, he wouldn't have to keep migrating from place
to place every so often, in order to find food to eat. The
Bible makes it very plain that Cain, the eldest son of Adam
and Eve, was a tiller of the ground; he grew crops; as we
see here:

"And Adam knew Eve his wife; and she conceived, and bare
Cain, and said, I have gotten a man from the LORD. And she
again bare his brother Abel. And Abel was a keeper of sheep,
but Cain was a tiller of the ground. And in process of time
it came to pass, that Cain brought of the fruit of the
ground an offering unto the LORD."
Genesis 4:1-3, KJV

Sadly, the utter nonsense of evolutionary theory is purposely
shoved down the throats of impressionable, young, school-aged
children on a regular basis; and they really have no choice
but to accept it, regardless of whether or not they believe
in it. If a student dares to resist this false teaching, not
only is it possible that he or she will become the object of
ridicule, due to the politically-correct environment which is
so common in the public school system, which results in peer
pressure from gullible classmates who may blindly accept the
instructor's words as being true, but it also makes it more
difficult for a Christian student to pass exams, when he or
she is forced to provide answers which go against his or her
beliefs. Thus, from a Christian perspective, the practice of
teaching the theory of evolution in the public school system
is nothing short of forced indoctrination of false, baseless
scientific dogma.

Returning to our main topic, in part one, I mentioned that a
total of two hundred and forty-two "extrasolar planets" have
been discovered during the last several years. In accordance
with the astronomical nomenclature convention of the I.A.U.,
these alleged extrasolar bodies are designated names which
are usually a combination of their host star's name, plus a
lower-case letter, (starting with the letter "b"), assigned
to the body, such as the recently discovered body, "Gliese
581 c", which is the second "planet" of the red dwarf star,
Gliese 581. This main-sequence star is located about twenty
light years from the Earth.

According to online sources, it's been theorized that Gliese
581 c may possibly support liquid water. If this turns out
to be true, this means that it may also support life. But,
let me stress that this is only a theory, and that to date,
no evidence of liquid water has been found on Gliese 581 c,
even though it does appear to occupy a position within the
"habitable zone" of its host star, Gliese 581. This body is
believed to be about fifty per cent larger than our Earth,
with a mass of about five times that of the Earth. At this
current time, there is a debate going on regarding whether
or not Gliese 581 c is truly habitable. Some scientists say
that due to its specific location in the habitable zone, it
may suffer from a runaway greenhouse effect, and thus could
not support life. SETI astronomer, Seth Shostak, offered what
appears to be a confirmation of this view, when he noted that
Gliese 581 c had been twice examined as a potential candidate
for having extraterrestrial intelligence, but no evidence was
found to support that possibility.

In some cases, the host stars do not have regular alphabetic
names. Instead, their names consist of a set of alphanumeric
characters, such as "HD 202206". Thus, the second extrasolar
planet of the star HD 202206, is known as HD 202206 c. It is
located in the constellation of Capricornus. This host star
is located one hundred and fifty light-years from our Earth.
This "new planet" is said to be a gas giant which possesses
a mass almost two and a half times that of Jupiter; and like
other alleged extrasolar planets, astronomers believe that
it is much too massive to support any form of life as we
understand it. For one thing, it would be crushed by such
tremendous gravitational force, even if other conditions
were conducive to supporting life.

From the data I have looked at on the Internet, it appears
that the mass of these alleged "planets" ranges from about
one tenth that of the planet Jupiter, to about seventeen
times that of Jupiter. The majority of these "planets" are
said to be gaseous orbs, as big as, or larger than, Jupiter,
with only a small handful being smaller than Saturn. Many of
them are also located extremely close to their host star; in
some cases only a few AU away from it, which makes them very
hot, and unable to support any form of life. An Astronomical
Unit, or AU, is equal to approximately ninety-three million
miles, or the distance from the Sun to the Earth.

The biggest problem for me regarding these alleged "planets",
is that due to the great distances involved, and our limited
technology, except for one highly-debated case, there's been
no verified visual observation of any of them as of yet. In
other words, you cannot go outside, point your telescope up
into the night sky, and say "Look; there's Gliese 581 c; and
over there is HD 202206 c". Trust me; it's simply not going
to happen, and never will happen, with any equipment that
astronomy buffs may currently own. You won't see any of them,
and you certainly won't be able to take any pictures of them
to show to your friends. The fact of the matter is that the
alleged discovery of these "extrasolar planets" requires the
use of very specialized astronomical instruments, such as an
imaging device referred to as a spectroscope. In short, the
existence of these "planets" is based entirely on secondary
evidence such as light fluctuation, gravitational distortion,
stellar wobble, etc.

For those of you reading this series, who may not understand
how these alleged "extrasolar planets" are discovered, allow
me to offer you an explanation. Based upon my research, over
the years, six different methods have been utilized to try to
detect "extrasolar planets". These methods are, according to
the Wikipedia website:

----- Begin Quote -----

* Astrometry: Astrometry consists of precisely measuring a
star's position in the sky and observing the ways in which
that position changes over time. If the star has a planet,
then the gravitational influence of the planet will cause the
star itself to move in a tiny circular or elliptical orbit
about their common center of mass.

* Radial velocity: This is also known as the Doppler method.
Variations in the speed with which the star moves towards or
away from Earth — that is, variations in the radial velocity
of the star with respect to Earth — can be deduced from the
displacement in the parent star's spectral lines due to the
Doppler effect. This has been by far the most productive
technique used by planet hunters.

* Pulsar timing: A pulsar (the small, ultradense remnant of a
star that has exploded as a supernova) emits radio waves
extremely regularly as it rotates. Slight anomalies in the
timing of its observed radio pulses can be used to track
changes in the pulsar's motion caused by the presence of

* Transit method: If a planet crosses (or transits) in front
of its parent star's disk, then the observed visual
brightness of the star drops by a small amount. The amount by
which the star dims depends on its size and on the size of
the planet.

* Gravitational microlensing: Microlensing occurs when the
gravitational field of a star acts like a lens, magnifying
the light of a distant background star. If the foreground
lensing star has a planet, then that planet's own
gravitational field can make a detectable contribution to the
lensing effect.

* Circumstellar disks: Disks of space dust surround many
stars, and this dust can be detected because it absorbs
ordinary starlight and re-emits it as infrared radiation.
Features in dust disks sometimes suggest the presence of
full-sized planets.

----- End Quote -----

As mentioned in the previous excerpts, the most productive
technique which has been employed by astronomers to discover
extrasolar planets, is "radial-velocity survey". By using a
device called a spectrograph, or spectroscope, astronomers
are able to capture images of a star's light spectrum; that
is to say, they can take pictures of the lightwaves emitted
by a star. By closely examining these photographic plates,
they are able to observe variations in the fluctuations, or
spectrum, of the star.

According to this theory, these perturbations result from
the gravitational effect caused by an unseen body which must
be orbiting the host star. By measuring the degree of these
variations, astronomers claim that they are able to not only
calculate the orbit of the theorized body, but also determine
said body's minimal mass as well. These mysterious bodies are
now known as "extrasolar planets"; that is to say, planetary
bodies which are located outside of our own Solar System.

As I just explained to you, some astronomers are absolutely
convinced that these spectral variations must result from the
existence of a large unseen planet; in many cases, the size
of Saturn, Jupiter, or larger, which is causing these effects
to occur, as the planet orbits around its host star; but my
view is that this kind of evidence should not be regarded as
being conclusive. In fact, during the course of conducting my
research, I discovered that some extrasolar planets were said
to have been discovered, by very professional-minded people,
only to be challenged later by other astronomers; that is, by
their own peers. In the end, some of these alleged extrasolar
planet discoveries were retracted by their authors. So as I
stated earlier, modern science does possess this flexibility
factor; but it can serve as both a weakness, and also as a
strength. Premature scientific announcements can easily lead
to confusion, and embarrassment later.

In the end, when all is said and done, it may very well turn
out that these astronomers are right; but until we actually
possess at least a few visual confirmations, that is to say,
some real physical sightings, and not merely sightings, but
real bona fide photographs, I counsel all of you to approach
the issue of extrasolar planets with a great deal of caution,
and healthy skepticism. What if it turns out that all these
astronomers are wrong? Do you realize that this controversy
has the potential for turning into one of the biggest hoaxes
the world has ever known? There are already two hundred and
forty-two alleged "extrasolar planets", which entirely owe
their existence to unproven theories. How many more planets
will there be even a few years from now?

As you will already know, some people ridicule us Christians
because we dare to believe by blind faith alone. They think
that we are crazy for believing in Someone whom we have never
really seen. However, according to God's Word, that is what
we are supposed to do. In fact, that is what God expects and
demands of us. As Jesus Himself said to Thomas when Thomas
doubted the Lord's Resurrection from the dead:

". . . blessed are they that have not seen, and yet have
John 20:29b, KJV

As the Apostle Paul wrote in his famous chapter concerning
the heroes of faith, which is found in his Epistle to the
Hebrews, God is in fact displeased with us when we fail to
demonstrate our faith in Him, as we see here:

"Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the
evidence of things not seen . . . But without faith it is
impossible to please him: for he that cometh to God must
believe that he is, and that he is a rewarder of them that
diligently seek him."
Hebrews 11:1, 6, KJV

Yet, at the same time, similar to the evolutionists, are not
these astronomers doing the very same thing when they expect
us to believe in their "planetary discoveries", even though
they have not provided us with any solid, physical and visual
proof? As I said a moment ago, all they've given us is their
secondary evidence. I for one can't help but question why it
is that secondary evidence is sufficient to convince them of
the existence of these extrasolar planets, while at the same
time, some of them refuse to believe in God, or accept that
Jesus Christ is His Son, and most importantly, the Savior of
the world. After all, there's plenty of secondary evidence,
as well as eyewitness accounts, of Jesus' existence about
two thousand years ago. All a person has to do is read their
Bible in order to discover it.

If you happen to be an atheist, and if God's Word contained
in the pages of the Bible is not sufficient evidence for you,
then as I already pointed out in part one, there is also the
preponderance of evidence found in the physical creation. If
the physical world all around you is not sufficient proof to
convince you that God is real, then I can only conclude that
something is seriously wrong with you. You are spiritually
blind and ignorant by your own stubborn choice.

I honestly cannot understand how anyone, be they scientist,
atheist or astronomer, can look up at the night sky, and see
all of the amazing beauty it contains, and still not realize
that there is a Divine Designer and a Creator behind it all.
God's Imprint is literally everywhere, and Creation cries out
for you to believe; yet some of you stubbornly and foolishly
refuse. It leaves me totally dumbfounded; and I wouldn't be
the least bit surprised if God feels the same exact way. Some
of you atheists claim that you find us Christians offensive.
Well, I am going to tell you something: I have no doubt that
God finds your stubbornness and unbelief equally offensive.
Think about that!

These atheists ask, "Where is the body of proof to convince
me that God is real, and that Jesus Christ is His resurrected
Son?". Well, allow me to ask you something in return: "Where
is the real physical body to convince us that your extrasolar
planets exist? Show us some real, visual, physical evidence".
If some of you atheists feel that you have the right to hold
God, and us Christians, to such a demanding standard, before
you will believe, then we likewise have the right to demand
convincing evidence from you as well, before we will embrace
your theories and speculations.

As I pointed out earlier, in the case of evolution, it is a
lost cause for you from the start, because the missing link
simply does not exist; and evolution, or Darwinism if you
prefer, is totally contrary to the Creation Account found in
the Book of Genesis. In the case of extrasolar planets, as I
have also already explained, it remains an open question; at
least for me personally. But if you really want to convince
us that said bodies exist, then simply give us the physical,
visual evidence that we desire. The point is, you can't very
well hold us to a strict standard, while not applying that
same rigid standard to yourselves as well; as otherwise, you
are practicing a hypocritical double standard, and you know
it. Let me also point out that God is absolutely under no
obligation to provide any more evidence than that which He
has already provided. As Jesus Himself taught in a Parable
concerning those Jews who did not believe in Him:

". . . If they hear not Moses and the prophets, neither will
they be persuaded, though one rose from the dead."
Luke 16:31, KJV

What a sad example which clearly demonstrates how spiritually
callous and hard-hearted some people can become. Those words
remind me of something else which Jesus said on one occasion
while briefly discussing what the spiritual condition of the
world would be like just prior to His Return. The Lord said:

". . . Nevertheless when the Son of man cometh, shall he
find faith on the earth?"
Luke 18:8b, KJV

Surely, Jesus' words have clearly come to pass in our modern
day where skepticism and doubt are the rule, rather than the
exception. The truth of the matter, is that it does require
faith to believe as we Christians believe; we do not deny
this; but what must also be recognized, is that it likewise
requires faith to believe in what the astronomers tell us as
well; because as of this date, they simply don't possess any
real, solid, observable, physical, visual proof; at least
not yet; to convince us of the existence of their extrasolar
planets. All they have are their theories, speculations and
secondary evidence; just like the die-hard evolutionists. In
my view, that is not solid science. It has not passed all of
the tests yet. Maybe it will some day soon, perhaps even in
my lifetime; but it hasn't yet. If and when that day arrives,
I will be just as thrilled as everyone else; believe me.

As I mentioned a few moments ago, there is one highly-debated
case involving an alleged extrasolar planet, which supposedly
has been visually observed, as well as photographed. In fact,
this current series actually began with a discussion in which
I was involved a few years ago on the SETI@home messageboard.
Upon presenting some of my arguments, one of the participants
pointed me to a September 2004 news article published on The
Planetary Society website. The article, which deals with the
case in question, that is, with the alleged extrasolar planet
which the IAU has designated as 2M1207b, (referred to in the
article as GPCC or "Giant Planetary Companion Candidate"), is
called "The Image of a Distant World?", and can be found at
the following URL, at least as of this current date:

The reason why this particular person pointed me to the TPS
article, was to try to convince me that, contrary to what I
had stated, an extrasolar planetary body was on the verge of
being visually observed. While this person recognized that
the evidence was not sufficient to conclusively prove the
existence of extrasolar planets, it was his hope that the
information contained in the article would pull me towards
his line of thinking. However, upon reading the article, I
was, to say the least, less than impressed by its obvious
"iffy" nature.

As I have already made clear, I tend to be a rather cautious,
skeptical person. Aside from the fact that the Bible warns us
to beware of the widespread deception which will occur during
the Endtime, my personal experience of years of reading and
listening to the news, whether it is political, scientific,
economic or religious news, has caused me to read and filter
everything very carefully. Not only do I view everything from
a Bible-based perspective, but I read it with a critical and
analytical eye as well. So when I read the science article in
question, I did as I always do when reading material found on
the Internet, and I stripped away all of the hype, in order
to determine what the article was really saying concerning
2M1207b. Upon doing that, I was left with the following info
from the article:

1. The article was entitled "The Image of a Distant World?".
Please notice the question mark at the end of the title. It
casts doubt on the piece from the very start. It shouts "We
are not sure; maybe 2M1207b is an extrasolar planet, and
maybe it isn't".

2. The article states that "no astronomer has actually seen
an extrasolar planet". True indeed; which is precisely why I
urge caution in just blindly accepting such matters as fact.

3. The article uses the phrase "its supposed planetary
companion". Please notice the use of the word "supposed",
which casts even more doubt on what is being stated.

4. The article continues by stating "There is a very high
probability". Regardless of how high the probability may be,
it still isn't sound fact. It is just speculation at best.

5. The article also uses the phrase "The imaging of the
planet – if such it proves to be". Again we find a rather
"iffy" statement, which doesn't promote confidence in what is
being reported. Is 2M1207b a planet, or isn't it?

6. Following the same doubtful approach to the "discovery",
the article then adds "If GPCC is indeed a planet". Once
again it becomes clear that they really don't know yet.

7. The article then poses the question "Is GPCC a giant
planet orbiting a young brown dwarf 230 light years away at
twice the distance of Neptune from our Sun? The possibility
is real and intriguing". The only thing that is real in this
article, is the possibility. Nothing has yet been proven, and
it is still not very convincing in my view.

8. The article uses the phrase ". . . there is still a
possibility that GPCC is an unrelated front or background
object . . . this possibility is very remote, but cannot yet
be completely ruled out". In other words, it may still turn
out that 2M1207b is not a planet after all. GPCC could be
something else which is light years away in the foreground,
or else in the background. What they are seeing is very much
like looking at a two-dimensional picture where everything
appears to be at the same level. The "evidence" they now
have, simply is not sufficient to conclusively prove that
they have had the first visual observation of an extrasolar

9. The article concludes with the phrase ". . . it may indeed
be the first planetary system beyond our own ever imaged". So
the article began with a doubt, (the question mark), it is
interspersed with doubts, and it ends with a final doubt: "it
may indeed be". Nowhere in the article are we conclusively
told that 2M1207b is a true planet.

Please go to part three for the continuation of this series.

⇒ Go To The Next Part . . .

BBB Tools And Services

Please avail yourself of other areas of the Bill's Bible Basics website. There are many treasures for you to discover.