Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
4 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,807 Year: 3,064/9,624 Month: 909/1,588 Week: 92/223 Day: 3/17 Hour: 1/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Falsifying a young Universe. (re: Supernova 1987A)
simple 
Inactive Member


Message 76 of 948 (176437)
01-13-2005 12:55 AM
Reply to: Message 75 by crashfrog
01-13-2005 12:16 AM


time related, then, it is
OK point taken. -Although time beyond biblical creation may be the object de jours, it is virtually never in mere literal seconds. For example in the explosive object in question here, I believe the estimate was, seven or so parsnips, or parsecs away. In this case, therefore, each said parsec would be about (170,00 devided by 7) 24,000 years long.(?) Therefore even a single parsec would be aprox 4 times older than the created earth itself! I'm getting the knack, thinks I, of this atheistic math.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 75 by crashfrog, posted 01-13-2005 12:16 AM crashfrog has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 77 by crashfrog, posted 01-13-2005 12:57 AM simple has replied
 Message 87 by Loudmouth, posted 01-13-2005 12:10 PM simple has not replied

  
crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1466 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 77 of 948 (176438)
01-13-2005 12:57 AM
Reply to: Message 76 by simple
01-13-2005 12:55 AM


Therefore even a single parsec would be aprox 4 times older than the created earth itself!
How can a distance have age? Or are you referring to the age of the object we observe from that distance?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 76 by simple, posted 01-13-2005 12:55 AM simple has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 80 by simple, posted 01-13-2005 1:15 AM crashfrog has replied

  
DrJones*
Member
Posts: 2284
From: Edmonton, Alberta, Canada
Joined: 08-19-2004
Member Rating: 6.8


Message 78 of 948 (176442)
01-13-2005 1:08 AM
Reply to: Message 75 by crashfrog
01-13-2005 12:16 AM


nitpick: 1 second=1/3600 of a degree.

*not an actual doctor

This message is a reply to:
 Message 75 by crashfrog, posted 01-13-2005 12:16 AM crashfrog has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 79 by crashfrog, posted 01-13-2005 1:11 AM DrJones* has not replied

  
crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1466 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 79 of 948 (176444)
01-13-2005 1:11 AM
Reply to: Message 78 by DrJones*
01-13-2005 1:08 AM


nitpick: 1 second=1/3600 of a degree.
Oops, you're right. Should have used the Google converter.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 78 by DrJones*, posted 01-13-2005 1:08 AM DrJones* has not replied

  
simple 
Inactive Member


Message 80 of 948 (176445)
01-13-2005 1:15 AM
Reply to: Message 77 by crashfrog
01-13-2005 12:57 AM


years away, as I say
Well, no, the distance itself wouldn't have age. But if a parsec was say 7000 light years long, then, it would be considered that the light takes 7 thousand years to get from or to there, no? Therefore it, in effect is said to be seven thousand years away, or, in the case of the supernova here, 170,000 years away. If then a biblical creation timeline had things being created some roughly say, 7,000 years ago, the the 1987 explosion was some one hundred and sixty three thousand years before creation. Even though we only saw the light of it a few decades ago.It is my opinion you are missing a part of the equation somewhere, though, and in reality, in real time, (despite how fast light travels now), it was indeed actually several thousand years ago.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 77 by crashfrog, posted 01-13-2005 12:57 AM crashfrog has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 82 by crashfrog, posted 01-13-2005 1:24 AM simple has replied

  
DrJones*
Member
Posts: 2284
From: Edmonton, Alberta, Canada
Joined: 08-19-2004
Member Rating: 6.8


Message 81 of 948 (176446)
01-13-2005 1:17 AM
Reply to: Message 74 by simple
01-12-2005 11:57 PM


Re: now wait a parsec here
notice how inexerably interwoven with time even these units are! (seconds-light years).
Crashfrog has already pointed out that the seconds used are an angular measurement. Light-years are a measurement of length, 1 light year = 9.46 X 1012 km = 5.88 X 1012 miles.

*not an actual doctor

This message is a reply to:
 Message 74 by simple, posted 01-12-2005 11:57 PM simple has not replied

  
crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1466 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 82 of 948 (176450)
01-13-2005 1:24 AM
Reply to: Message 80 by simple
01-13-2005 1:15 AM


It is my opinion you are missing a part of the equation somewhere, though, and in reality, in real time, (despite how fast light travels now), it was indeed actually several thousand years ago.
Well, in my opinion you're missing the fact that the Invisible Ninjas have better kung-fu than the Tooth Fairy, but both of us have just as much actual physical evidence for our opinions; that is to say, none at all.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 80 by simple, posted 01-13-2005 1:15 AM simple has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 83 by simple, posted 01-13-2005 2:25 AM crashfrog has replied

  
simple 
Inactive Member


Message 83 of 948 (176464)
01-13-2005 2:25 AM
Reply to: Message 82 by crashfrog
01-13-2005 1:24 AM


into the mystic
It's funny how this little line, or near identical versions get echoed by the 'any theory but God, dressed up as science' crowd, and they seem to think it's original, or of some merit! Now as far as evidence goes on this supernova thing, so far we have some what appears to be 'decaying' material, and some tooth fairy time related distances sailing clear past creation, and into the ninja mystic. Yes, the distances are great. But science's present ability to put it all into real time is pure conjecture. You see, so far all this thread has offered, I think, as evidence, would be an explosion a great distance away, in which it is thought, that decay rates of certain things were the same as now. Big deal.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 82 by crashfrog, posted 01-13-2005 1:24 AM crashfrog has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 85 by Percy, posted 01-13-2005 8:38 AM simple has replied
 Message 88 by crashfrog, posted 01-13-2005 12:58 PM simple has replied
 Message 89 by Loudmouth, posted 01-13-2005 3:11 PM simple has not replied

  
RAZD
Member (Idle past 1404 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 84 of 948 (176474)
01-13-2005 7:02 AM
Reply to: Message 73 by simple
01-12-2005 11:42 PM


Re: arguement needs a stretcher
that brainless argument does need a stretcher.
did you even read the 'brane article?
the point is that there are a couple of competing theories on the begining of the universe...
and neither of them match up to genesis btw.
"great scientist himself" means you have his signature credits on file?
I'm serious -- you need to show sources and the experimental evidence that backs up the hypothsis based on the observations. you can't just say "because he said so" regardless of who "he" is.

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
RebelAAmerican.Zen[Deist
{{{Buddha walks off laughing with joy}}}

This message is a reply to:
 Message 73 by simple, posted 01-12-2005 11:42 PM simple has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 90 by simple, posted 01-13-2005 3:20 PM RAZD has seen this message but not replied

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 22388
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.2


Message 85 of 948 (176487)
01-13-2005 8:38 AM
Reply to: Message 83 by simple
01-13-2005 2:25 AM


Re: into the mystic
cosmo writes:
You see, so far all this thread has offered, I think, as evidence, would be an explosion a great distance away, in which it is thought, that decay rates of certain things were the same as now. Big deal.
You were also offered much other evidence, for example, of the speed of light being measured to be the same at great distances from us, for example, Message 56 by Loudmouth.
It is difficult to think of a helpful response to "Big deal." Can you put into words why you think inconclusive the evidence showing that the speed of light, decay rates, and other physical constants, are the same everywhere and in every era that we look in the universe?
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 83 by simple, posted 01-13-2005 2:25 AM simple has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 95 by simple, posted 01-13-2005 4:05 PM Percy has replied

  
Loudmouth
Inactive Member


Message 86 of 948 (176537)
01-13-2005 12:08 PM
Reply to: Message 65 by simple
01-12-2005 6:53 PM


Re: a simple question
quote:
Now we see a statement here, on which a lot is built upon. "That ONLY the rotation of a small body" can account for it. Really?
Yes, really. Pulsars, IIRC, are neutrino stars. They are made primarily of neutrons. The lack of charge allows the particles to pack in very tightly, which causes the extreme rotational speeds. Think of an ice skater in a spin. As they pull their arms in towards their body their rate of spin increases. The same effect can be seen in pulsars, where all of the mass is pulled in to a very small area. The high density of pulsars also creates the electromagnetic emmissions as a function of the gravitational poles. So what we get is a pulse of eletromagnetic radiation at very short and regular intervals.
The speed at which the pulsars spin is almost at a max. We know this because we know the size of these stars, the density of neutrons, the gravitational forces, and the nuclear forces involved in these stars. We could be wrong, like I said before all things in science are tentative. However, everything on that webpage are consistent with all of the evidence we have at hand. None of the evidence falsifies the currently used models for pulsars.
As a bit of irony, pulsars were once thought to be radio transimissions from alien civilizations. The precision and strength of pulsar signals, back in the early days of astronomy, could not be exlained except through intelligent technology. However, as our understanding of atoms and astronomy increased, it became apparent that these signals were coming from high density stars with extremely short rotational periods.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 65 by simple, posted 01-12-2005 6:53 PM simple has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 132 by simple, posted 01-15-2005 12:31 AM Loudmouth has not replied

  
Loudmouth
Inactive Member


Message 87 of 948 (176539)
01-13-2005 12:10 PM
Reply to: Message 76 by simple
01-13-2005 12:55 AM


Re: time related, then, it is
quote:
I'm getting the knack, thinks I, of this atheistic math.
Happy to see that you are keeping your sense of humor about all of this. Many get mad and run. If there were more creationists like yourselves we wouldn't have anything to complain about.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 76 by simple, posted 01-13-2005 12:55 AM simple has not replied

  
crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1466 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 88 of 948 (176556)
01-13-2005 12:58 PM
Reply to: Message 83 by simple
01-13-2005 2:25 AM


But science's present ability to put it all into real time is pure conjecture.
In what way is it conjecture? Time exists, right? We observe that things take time to travel distances, including light, right?
There's no conjecture about it. It takes time for light to travel distances; this is observation, not conjecture.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 83 by simple, posted 01-13-2005 2:25 AM simple has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 91 by simple, posted 01-13-2005 3:30 PM crashfrog has not replied

  
Loudmouth
Inactive Member


Message 89 of 948 (176589)
01-13-2005 3:11 PM
Reply to: Message 83 by simple
01-13-2005 2:25 AM


Re: into the mystic
quote:
It's funny how this little line, or near identical versions get echoed by the 'any theory but God, dressed up as science' crowd, and they seem to think it's original, or of some merit!
It is also funny how the little line "the bible is God's Word" has any merit in science.
quote:
Yes, the distances are great. But science's present ability to put it all into real time is pure conjecture.
How is it conjecture if we have objective evidence that supports the claim?
quote:
Now as far as evidence goes on this supernova thing, so far we have some what appears to be 'decaying' material, and some tooth fairy time related distances sailing clear past creation, and into the ninja mystic.
The distances are real, unless you are claiming the Biblical accounts are more accurate than trigonometry. The speed of light is real, unless you are able to point to any evidence to the contrary. And invisible ninjas have just as much objective evidence for their existence as any other deity. I will grant you that there is also the realm of subjective evidence, but this type of evidence is not useful in determining the reality of the natural world.
quote:
You see, so far all this thread has offered, I think, as evidence, would be an explosion a great distance away, in which it is thought, that decay rates of certain things were the same as now. Big deal.
Outside of the evolution vs. creation debate it isn't a big deal, just more evidence in a very large stockpile of evidence. Supernova 1987A did not reveal anything really new about the universe that we didn't already have evidence of. However, it is a Big Deal for creationists, since it falsifies their contention that the speed of light, decay rates, and the age of the universe are not consistent with their theories. Supernova 1987A, in one fell swoop, falsifies young earth creationism (YEC). Since YEC has been falsified within the sciences for about 200 years now, it is hardly anything worth mentioning within science outside of astronomy and physics.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 83 by simple, posted 01-13-2005 2:25 AM simple has not replied

  
simple 
Inactive Member


Message 90 of 948 (176594)
01-13-2005 3:20 PM
Reply to: Message 84 by RAZD
01-13-2005 7:02 AM


proofs abound
quote:
the point is that there are a couple of competing theories on the begining of the universe...
and neither of them match up to genesis btw.
This indicates to me that the inspiration behind these 2 theories would be different than that behind Genesis!
quote:
"great scientist himself" means you have his signature credits on file?
A great many people fell they see His fingerprints, and signature all around the heavens!
I'm serious -- you need to show sources and the experimental evidence that backs up the hypothsis based on the observations. you can't just say "because he said so" regardless of who "he" is.
Well His fingerprints are not admissable, I thought in a circle of knowledge that that excludes Him? If they were I might provide a link something like this one! (post 106 -- Error | Christian Forums)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 84 by RAZD, posted 01-13-2005 7:02 AM RAZD has seen this message but not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 92 by Loudmouth, posted 01-13-2005 3:31 PM simple has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024