Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
5 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,817 Year: 3,074/9,624 Month: 919/1,588 Week: 102/223 Day: 13/17 Hour: 1/1


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Falsifying a young Universe. (re: Supernova 1987A)
commike37
Inactive Member


Message 151 of 948 (177629)
01-16-2005 7:05 PM
Reply to: Message 150 by wj
01-16-2005 1:37 AM


Re: Time to put up or shut up.
Actually, I've heard a very interesting proposition to explain this.
How old was Adam when he was created? 0 or many years old?
How old was the universe when it was created? 0 or billions of years old?
Of course, that's only one theory for creationists, but it does disarm this argument rather well.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 150 by wj, posted 01-16-2005 1:37 AM wj has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 152 by CK, posted 01-16-2005 7:07 PM commike37 has replied
 Message 156 by NosyNed, posted 01-16-2005 9:34 PM commike37 has replied
 Message 179 by crashfrog, posted 01-19-2005 12:24 PM commike37 has not replied

  
CK
Member (Idle past 4127 days)
Posts: 3221
Joined: 07-04-2004


Message 152 of 948 (177631)
01-16-2005 7:07 PM
Reply to: Message 151 by commike37
01-16-2005 7:05 PM


Re: Time to put up or shut up.
Please don't use the word theory when you mean "vague wooly idea".

This message is a reply to:
 Message 151 by commike37, posted 01-16-2005 7:05 PM commike37 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 153 by commike37, posted 01-16-2005 7:10 PM CK has replied

  
commike37
Inactive Member


Message 153 of 948 (177634)
01-16-2005 7:10 PM
Reply to: Message 152 by CK
01-16-2005 7:07 PM


Re: Time to put up or shut up.
Are you going to contribute this topic, or are you just going to critique my use of the English language?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 152 by CK, posted 01-16-2005 7:07 PM CK has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 154 by CK, posted 01-16-2005 7:21 PM commike37 has replied

  
CK
Member (Idle past 4127 days)
Posts: 3221
Joined: 07-04-2004


Message 154 of 948 (177638)
01-16-2005 7:21 PM
Reply to: Message 153 by commike37
01-16-2005 7:10 PM


Re: Time to put up or shut up.
Sure - you think god is a liar because he creates a universe that appears old when it is not.
Maybe that bible thing is full of lies as well.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 153 by commike37, posted 01-16-2005 7:10 PM commike37 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 155 by commike37, posted 01-16-2005 7:27 PM CK has not replied

  
commike37
Inactive Member


Message 155 of 948 (177640)
01-16-2005 7:27 PM
Reply to: Message 154 by CK
01-16-2005 7:21 PM


Re: Time to put up or shut up.
Sure - you think god is a liar because he creates a universe that appears old when it is not.
And where exactly is God lieing? By that logic God would've lied when he created Adam.
Maybe that bible thing is full of lies as well.
Be civil now.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 154 by CK, posted 01-16-2005 7:21 PM CK has not replied

  
NosyNed
Member
Posts: 8996
From: Canada
Joined: 04-04-2003


Message 156 of 948 (177678)
01-16-2005 9:34 PM
Reply to: Message 151 by commike37
01-16-2005 7:05 PM


Ha ha fooled you.
Of course, that's only one theory for creationists, but it does disarm this argument rather well.
It is one which serious theologians do not want to use. When it is really examined in ways you have not it paints a very bad picture.
God - a liar?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 151 by commike37, posted 01-16-2005 7:05 PM commike37 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 157 by commike37, posted 01-17-2005 7:39 PM NosyNed has replied

  
commike37
Inactive Member


Message 157 of 948 (177952)
01-17-2005 7:39 PM
Reply to: Message 156 by NosyNed
01-16-2005 9:34 PM


Re: Ha ha fooled you.
That's why I said it only one theory. There's another really complex cosmological one. It takes into account that if v = d / t. Both v & d constant (speed of light and distance light travels) are constant, but t is not necessarily constant (b/c of general relativity). Of course that's grossly oversimplified.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 156 by NosyNed, posted 01-16-2005 9:34 PM NosyNed has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 158 by NosyNed, posted 01-17-2005 10:13 PM commike37 has replied

  
NosyNed
Member
Posts: 8996
From: Canada
Joined: 04-04-2003


Message 158 of 948 (177978)
01-17-2005 10:13 PM
Reply to: Message 157 by commike37
01-17-2005 7:39 PM


Huh?
That's why I said it only one theory. There's another really complex cosmological one. It takes into account that if v = d / t. Both v & d constant (speed of light and distance light travels) are constant, but t is not necessarily constant (b/c of general relativity). Of course that's grossly oversimplified.
I don't understand even one bit of what you are saying.
Does the first sentence say you are dropping your first idea or what?
What is this other theory? Is it GR itself you are talking about? Don't tell me you think you understand GR.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 157 by commike37, posted 01-17-2005 7:39 PM commike37 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 168 by commike37, posted 01-18-2005 7:22 PM NosyNed has replied

  
simple 
Inactive Member


Message 159 of 948 (177992)
01-17-2005 10:48 PM
Reply to: Message 150 by wj
01-16-2005 1:37 AM


ruler dimensionally challenged
quote:
Time to put up observable evidence or shut up about a young universe
Not all evidence is observable, and even evidential effects from the Unseen Force would be unaceptable, (I think?) to you! But you may accept other effects from an unseen force, like dark matter, on things observable! 1987a is a strong case that light is constant, but not really as an explanation for bigger things, like creation, using just light's speed as it is as the big be all end all ruler to rule out the Ruler!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 150 by wj, posted 01-16-2005 1:37 AM wj has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 160 by wj, posted 01-18-2005 4:15 AM simple has replied
 Message 162 by Loudmouth, posted 01-18-2005 10:22 AM simple has replied

  
wj
Inactive Member


(1)
Message 160 of 948 (178041)
01-18-2005 4:15 AM
Reply to: Message 159 by simple
01-17-2005 10:48 PM


Re: ruler dimensionally challenged
So cosmo, is this your way of conceding that you don't understand science and have no evidence to support your position?
Thanks for playing but no cigar.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 159 by simple, posted 01-17-2005 10:48 PM simple has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 163 by simple, posted 01-18-2005 2:35 PM wj has not replied

  
Loudmouth
Inactive Member


Message 161 of 948 (178102)
01-18-2005 10:18 AM
Reply to: Message 128 by simple
01-14-2005 7:38 PM


Re: who turned out the lights?
quote:
I can view light speed in 1987a's case as an indication of present distance, but not time millions of real years away, so I guess the concept is not objective since you don't view it the exact same way as millions of the rest of us!
The objective evidence includes:
1. the angles used to calculate the distance to the supernova
2. the angle between the supernova and the illuminated halo
3. time it took for the light to travel between the supernova and the illuminated halo.
4. the spectral analysis (measurement of cobalt and it's decay rate)
The above is the objective data. From this data we can objectively measure the speed of the light that left the supernova (see number 2 and 3 above). There is no escaping an old universe, barring a god who wants to intentionally deceive us.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 128 by simple, posted 01-14-2005 7:38 PM simple has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 165 by simple, posted 01-18-2005 3:22 PM Loudmouth has not replied

  
Loudmouth
Inactive Member


Message 162 of 948 (178103)
01-18-2005 10:22 AM
Reply to: Message 159 by simple
01-17-2005 10:48 PM


Re: ruler dimensionally challenged
quote:
Not all evidence is observable, and even evidential effects from the Unseen Force would be unaceptable, (I think?) to you!
All OBJECTIVE and SCIENTIFIC evidence is observable, and it is testable as well. All of the evidence we have given for the age of the universe is observable. All of the evidence given for a young earth is either explainable through current scientific theories or completely unobservable (ie personal religious revelations).
quote:
But you may accept other effects from an unseen force, like dark matter, on things observable! 1987a is a strong case that light is constant, but not really as an explanation for bigger things, like creation, using just light's speed as it is as the big be all end all ruler to rule out the Ruler!
No one is trying to rule out the Ruler. All we are ruling out is a literal, man made translation of a man made book. You are the only one trying to claim that an old universe rules out God.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 159 by simple, posted 01-17-2005 10:48 PM simple has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 164 by simple, posted 01-18-2005 3:13 PM Loudmouth has replied

  
simple 
Inactive Member


Message 163 of 948 (178220)
01-18-2005 2:35 PM
Reply to: Message 160 by wj
01-18-2005 4:15 AM


Re: ruler dimensionally challenged
quote:
So cosmo, is this your way of conceding that you don't understand science and have no evidence to support your position?
Well, more a way of trying to point out that science does not understand much about the Unseen, and has no evidence to support it's position. This is why it is viewed as a relgious faith by many who cannot deny there is more than meets the eye!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 160 by wj, posted 01-18-2005 4:15 AM wj has not replied

  
simple 
Inactive Member


Message 164 of 948 (178234)
01-18-2005 3:13 PM
Reply to: Message 162 by Loudmouth
01-18-2005 10:22 AM


Re: ruler dimensionally challenged
quote:
All of the evidence we have given for the age of the universe is observable
True. We do have powers of observation, and it is amazing how much we can come up with. We can observe many things, and effects also, which are every bit as observable and valid which have not been factored in. I observe answered prayer, amazing things, and read about healings, etc. I observe a written record, which is quite testable, and has always come out like gold. I contend it is very scientificlly based, testable, and at least in effects, observable. I have pointed out some things, like the pre bang quantum fluctuation that popped up the universe, (correct me if I got this wrong), dark matter, and such that is not now observed. I read about a light, for example that was here before the sun, and I don't observe it now any more than a little hot quark gluon soup that is now as big as a pinhead. If I look at millions of effects the Unseen has had on man, it is more than grasping at speckish straws! Now, all that remains is what we want to choose to allow as evidence.
quote:
No one is trying to rule out the Ruler. All we are ruling out is a literal, man made translation of a man made book
Does not sheer logic demand that if there really is a Ruler, and a Creator, and mankind was the central 'raison d'etre' of the whole excercise, the Ruler would be very able to make darn sure the rulebook was downloaded to men?! Yes we can strain at the men who were instruments of it's delivery, and get hung up on how some little translation may be seemingly off, but if you were the Ruler, would you not realize all this, and make allowances for it? Do you think mere mortals would be able to interfere in a big way? Didn't Jesus have these same writings He read and referred to, and raise from the dead? Didn't He talk about the flood, and the Garden time? If there is a Ruler at all, He must be in control. No, not over everything man does, in our state of departure and rebellion from Him-because we have the fantastic real power to choose. But in control over the big picture, such as not allowing us to go too far, and destroy the earth and each other completely, and assuring His rulebook made it down safe enough to be trustworthy! Otherwise, I'm afraid, He is not worth much respect.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 162 by Loudmouth, posted 01-18-2005 10:22 AM Loudmouth has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 166 by Loudmouth, posted 01-18-2005 3:30 PM simple has replied

  
simple 
Inactive Member


Message 165 of 948 (178241)
01-18-2005 3:22 PM
Reply to: Message 161 by Loudmouth
01-18-2005 10:18 AM


Re: who turned out the lights?
quote:
The objective evidence includes:
1. the angles used to calculate the distance to the supernova
2. the angle between the supernova and the illuminated halo
3. time it took for the light to travel between the supernova and the illuminated halo.
4. the spectral analysis (measurement of cobalt and it's decay rate)
Fair enough, and the conclusions we can draw from this evidence are that it seems light as we know it is constant. If there were nothing more than these mere observations, which are a drop in the overall bucket, we might make some big conclusion. It does not mean it is locked in a timeframe unchangable, only a distanceframe that is reasonable. It does not say there is no spirit dimension unseen, creator, or anything like that! It does not say there was no split, no other light, that did not obey our lights limitations, or that God didn't make the whole thing in a week! It is simply an observation, which, if there was no God, and nothing else affecting things, tells us some limited information, which can be interesting, and useful, as long as we don't try to use it against the Ruler!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 161 by Loudmouth, posted 01-18-2005 10:18 AM Loudmouth 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