Falsifying a young Universe. (re: Supernova 1987A)

So you think that God is a liar?

So... then you agree with Humphreys that the "in-transit" model is objectionable on theological grounds?[This message has been edited by crashfrog, 11-16-2003]

Not "second" as in "1/60th of a minute", "second" as in "1/60th of a degree."

How can a distance have age? Or are you referring to the age of the object we observe from that distance?

Oops, you're right. Should have used the Google converter.

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.

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.

Far off of what?

Since the alternative is to presume that unknown, undetectable factors make it so that we can't know anything at all about the universe, why do you believe that assumption is unreasonable?I mean, it might be that undetectable factors make it so that even though it looks like I live in Missouri, I actually live on the Moon. But why on Earth would I presume such a thing?

How can they be ruled out if we don't even know what they are? So you've detected them? Good, that's what we've been asking for the whole time - the evidence you've accumulated that proves these factors exist.So, lay it on us.

I replicated your proceedure, to the letter, but was unable to duplicate your results. How do you explain this?

How about instead of speculating on my religious life, you answer the question? Presume that I had an adult religious experience - was raised as an atheist, converted to Christianity as an adult, read and studied the Bible, etc. My subsequent religious experience is irrelevant because during the time I was a Christian I experienced absolutely none of the experiences you say that I should have.Nor did I ever meet anyone who had, and I met a lot of Christians, and asked them. No, it's not known to be effective. Of the hundreds of people who I've asked who have tried it, you're the only one with any "results" - results that can't be verified, repeated, or are even consistent with other reports of the supernatural.Isn't the more reasonable explanation at this point that you're simply making it up? At what point can you cease to explain away a failure of others to detect these "supernatural" things as "late bloomers"? When do we conclude that a "late bloomer" will never bloom at all?This message has been edited by crashfrog, 01-14-2005 17:31 AM

But that's not at all the impression you gave. You gave the impression that all we had to do was accept Jesus, or whatever, and our eyes would be opened to the supernatural.But now you seem to be retreating from that assertion; now you seem to be asserting that we only get to view the supernatural if God determines we're special enough to; which begs the question "is it really our fault we can't take into account the supernatural factors if God has determined that we're not allowed to see them?"

Not, apparently, ever, for most people. Which gets back to my criticism. You blamed us for not seeing the supernatural factors, but it's God who decided we couldn't.

No, buddy, I was told that by Cosmo himself.Try to stay on topic; speculations about my religious history are not on topic on this thread. (And nor am I going to be particularly happy to be your little "bring him back to the fold" project.) God would have to exist for that to be the case. I do however harbor plenty of hostility towards the arrogantly presumptive attitude most of his followers take; the casually arrogant way that they dismiss hundreds of years of painstaking scientific efforts because they contradict their fairy tales, or the way they butt into matters that are none of their buisness without the slightest trace of shame. Who wouldn't get miffed at that arrogance?But it's not on topic.