Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
1 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,818 Year: 3,075/9,624 Month: 920/1,588 Week: 103/223 Day: 1/13 Hour: 0/1


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Falsifying a young Universe. (re: Supernova 1987A)
creation
Member (Idle past 1943 days)
Posts: 654
Joined: 01-22-2017


Message 451 of 948 (797636)
01-24-2017 8:38 PM
Reply to: Message 443 by RAZD
01-24-2017 2:39 PM


Re: Does time pass in other star systems.
Curiously I said nothing about size or distance, what I asked for was how you explain the evidence.
I explain things we see here in time by the fact time exists here. If you want to forget masses and distances and such, fine.
But you do. It is your argument, not anyone else's, and as yet there is NO observable empirical evidence that would cause anyone to question time being consistent throughout the universe.
There is NO observable empirical evidence that would cause anyone to prove time being consistent throughout the universe. So the question remains, how do you know?
It appears that all you have is belief with no foundation, as far as I can see, and that is often called fantasy.
No, it is not a belief, this is a common, understandable, mistake that people who operate on belief systems make, possibly because you are unfamiliar with what science uses.
No mistake we can read your responses and there is NO evidence time exists the same in deep space at all.
It is a working assumption (ie an hypothesis): if time is the same what do we see. And it can be tested: if time is not the same what should we see that is different.
FALSE. You cannot see time. We only ever experience or 'see' time unfold HERE. Period. No exceptions ever.
Fantasy is no match for evidence and your beliefs as yet are anything but evidenced in even the tiniest way.
Show us the information that shows the hypothesis is wrong, and that you have a better explanation (hypothesis) and if it tests out, we will agree with you, because that is how science works.
I need to see it shown to be correct first, that time exists and exists exactly the same as here, before I have any need to show your belief is wrong. Don't bother posting unless you get some.
Enjoy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 443 by RAZD, posted 01-24-2017 2:39 PM RAZD has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 455 by Dr Adequate, posted 01-24-2017 11:39 PM creation has replied
 Message 466 by RAZD, posted 01-25-2017 7:56 AM creation has replied

  
creation
Member (Idle past 1943 days)
Posts: 654
Joined: 01-22-2017


Message 452 of 948 (797637)
01-24-2017 8:43 PM
Reply to: Message 442 by RAZD
01-24-2017 2:09 PM


Re: A game ... The Star Distance Two-step
Correction no creationist has been able to refute it here on this forum. You might as well say no one argued for free speech convincingly in Red China. I could dash your arguments to smithereens with one hand tied behind my back, without much effort in an arena where there was fair moderation.
As for your star dce thing, no. You do not know distance at all. Since the light arrives on earth from we know not how far that doesn't help you! Also it arrived here where time is, so the whole analogy is shot to high hell. As for the order of things coming IN to our zone of time, naturally there will be an order. That does not represent the same time there though, unless time exists the same there. Why not just admit you do not know?
Edited by time, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 442 by RAZD, posted 01-24-2017 2:09 PM RAZD has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 462 by Tangle, posted 01-25-2017 3:26 AM creation has not replied
 Message 467 by RAZD, posted 01-25-2017 8:12 AM creation has replied

  
New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


(1)
Message 453 of 948 (797639)
01-24-2017 10:47 PM
Reply to: Message 447 by creation
01-24-2017 8:13 PM


Re: Young earth?
No it sure is not addressed by that in any way whatsoever actually. That time component is a component here. Here we have time so it takes time here. Let's say it took 60 days for some decay to unfold as happening here. To us it takes 60 days. If time is not the same there, then THERE it takes what it takes.
Yes of course, but what are you trying to say?
You must be talking about cobalt decaying into iron. Are you trying to say that it really wasn't cobalt THERE because it took a different amount of time to decay? Or are you saying that whatever time it took the stuff to decay THERE, it just appeared to take the same amount of time as cobalt does here?
Or are you just trying to say that we can't say that we know that the supernova was from cobalt so you can deny that it was a really long time ago?
Secondly and very importantly unless time did exist there we do not know how far away the event is.
We saw the change. That requires time.
Whatever it was that exploded, it decayed like cobalt does here. So it appears to have happened a really long time ago.
That's just facts. Whether or not we can say we know this doesn't really have anything to do with SN 1987A in particular.
You have an arbitrary line where, passed it, we can't know stuff because time might be different. Whatever, that's no better than we might be living in The Matrix.
It's certainly worse than the scientific explanation. Which is exactly that, something that works to explain. Simply saying that it could be different isn't very helpful.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 447 by creation, posted 01-24-2017 8:13 PM creation has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 458 by creation, posted 01-25-2017 12:38 AM New Cat's Eye has replied

  
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 285 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


(1)
Message 454 of 948 (797640)
01-24-2017 11:31 PM
Reply to: Message 448 by creation
01-24-2017 8:27 PM


Re: Does time pass in other star systems.
Nonsense. Save the last thursdayism for someone buying.
Curiously enough, that's exactly what I've been trying to tell you.
You do realize I've actually been criticizing your reasoning rather than advocating it, right? Because your bizarre, almost solipsistic version of Last Thursdayism is indeed nonsense.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 448 by creation, posted 01-24-2017 8:27 PM creation has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 457 by creation, posted 01-25-2017 12:20 AM Dr Adequate has not replied

  
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 285 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 455 of 948 (797641)
01-24-2017 11:39 PM
Reply to: Message 451 by creation
01-24-2017 8:38 PM


Re: Does time pass in other star systems.
No mistake we can read your responses and there is NO evidence time exists the same in deep space at all.
FALSE. You cannot see time. We only ever experience or 'see' time unfold HERE. Period. No exceptions ever.
No exceptions. Good. It seemed as though earlier you were saying that the sun and space probes were exceptions, and I thought you were being inconsistent. But now you say there are no exceptions.
Now, how about things which are more than (say) ten miles away from me? One mile? Five feet away from me? Six inches? Are they exceptions? Oh, right, "no exceptions ever".

This message is a reply to:
 Message 451 by creation, posted 01-24-2017 8:38 PM creation has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 456 by creation, posted 01-25-2017 12:19 AM Dr Adequate has replied

  
creation
Member (Idle past 1943 days)
Posts: 654
Joined: 01-22-2017


Message 456 of 948 (797642)
01-25-2017 12:19 AM
Reply to: Message 455 by Dr Adequate
01-24-2017 11:39 PM


Re: Does time pass in other star systems.
How about this...how far out have we been? How far in the universe can we say we know time exists and exists the same as here?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 455 by Dr Adequate, posted 01-24-2017 11:39 PM Dr Adequate has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 479 by Dr Adequate, posted 01-25-2017 10:15 AM creation has not replied

  
creation
Member (Idle past 1943 days)
Posts: 654
Joined: 01-22-2017


Message 457 of 948 (797643)
01-25-2017 12:20 AM
Reply to: Message 454 by Dr Adequate
01-24-2017 11:31 PM


Re: Does time pass in other star systems.
No. I don't follow your posts too close they seem like proud ignorant nonsense actually. You lost me when you ventured into would be sarcasm and last thursdayism. But keep trying. Who knows, one day they might be interesting, and informative.
Edited by time, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 454 by Dr Adequate, posted 01-24-2017 11:31 PM Dr Adequate has not replied

  
creation
Member (Idle past 1943 days)
Posts: 654
Joined: 01-22-2017


Message 458 of 948 (797644)
01-25-2017 12:38 AM
Reply to: Message 453 by New Cat's Eye
01-24-2017 10:47 PM


Re: Young earth?
Yes of course, but what are you trying to say?
You must be talking about cobalt decaying into iron. Are you trying to say that it really wasn't cobalt THERE because it took a different amount of time to decay? Or are you saying that whatever time it took the stuff to decay THERE, it just appeared to take the same amount of time as cobalt does here?
The time is only seen here. The time that it took to decay is seen only here. Naturally it would be in our time.
Or are you just trying to say that we can't say that we know that the supernova was from cobalt so you can deny that it was a really long time ago?
The light curve took so much time, but that time was here where we do have time. The material may be right, but the time of decay is RELATIVE to the time zone!
We saw the change. That requires time.
Here where time is, yes. of course. Time exists here. Everything requires time!
Whatever it was that exploded, it decayed like cobalt does here. So it appears to have happened a really long time ago.
The reason a long time ago is invoked is because of great distances deduced by assuming time exists there. Boring religion.
You have an arbitrary line where, passed it, we can't know stuff because time might be different. Whatever, that's no better than we might be living in The Matrix.
Though it rocks your little world, it is what it is.
It's certainly worse than the scientific explanation. Which is exactly that, something that works to explain. Simply saying that it could be different isn't very helpful.
Fairy tales explain. The issue is truth and knowledge and a proper act based explanation. Not some wild faith based explanation at all costs.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 453 by New Cat's Eye, posted 01-24-2017 10:47 PM New Cat's Eye has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 473 by New Cat's Eye, posted 01-25-2017 9:50 AM creation has replied

  
thingamabob
Junior Member (Idle past 2617 days)
Posts: 23
From: New Jerusalem
Joined: 02-26-2009


Message 459 of 948 (797645)
01-25-2017 1:23 AM
Reply to: Message 389 by creation
01-23-2017 3:03 PM


Re: Quick word to the wise
Hi time,
time writes:
Thanks for the advice. I happen to know that science doesn't actually know what time is, though. So I don't expect a god reply on that one regardless of credentials.
Maybe we don't know what time is but let me try a definition I read on here somewhere.
Time is the measurement of duration between two or more events in existence.
Have fun,

This message is a reply to:
 Message 389 by creation, posted 01-23-2017 3:03 PM creation has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 470 by creation, posted 01-25-2017 9:40 AM thingamabob has replied

  
dwise1
Member
Posts: 5930
Joined: 05-02-2006
Member Rating: 5.8


(2)
Message 460 of 948 (797646)
01-25-2017 1:35 AM
Reply to: Message 437 by creation
01-24-2017 1:14 PM


Re: Does time pass in other star systems.
We need to know if the so called suns/stars and planets are grain of sand sized, monster sized, or whatever. We need to know distance. Same with binary stars. Time MUST exist THERE to know distance from here.
No, time has nothing to do with measuring distance. Are you really so abysmally ignorant of parallax?
When we were laying out concrete forms and wanted the corner to be square, we would measure 3 feet up one side from the corner, 4 feet up the other side, then hold the end of a steel tape (graduated, in case you have different terminology in the UK) at one mark and adjust the free side of the form until the tape measured 5 feet at the other mark. At that point, the form was square as per the Pythagorean Theorem.
Guess what role time played in the math of that process. None whatsoever.
Same thing with parallax; it's purely geometric. You have a baseline of known length. You make two angular measurements at opposite points of that baseline. Knowing the angle and the length of the baseline, you can calculate the distance from the baseline to the object. Time plays no role in those calculations.
Please learn something about parallax.
Please learn something about geometry.
Please learn something about trig. Trigonometry is really quite simple and straight-forward. I had taught it to myself quite easily before I took the course officially solely for the sake of my transcript. The only requirement is that you actually want to learn.
Please learn something.
I keep getting the feeling that you are the typical creationist. You read something that, however stupid it was, had inspired you nonetheless. So you come charging into the fray armed only with these half-ass misconceptions ... and the worst thing possible happens to you. We try to discuss your claims with you. You don't even understand your own claims, so how can you possibly discuss them with anybody else? Especially with people who do understand the subject matter that your claim is based on.
In the foreword of his book, The Age of the Earth, G. Brent Dalrymple describes a visit in the early 1970's from Drs. Duane Gish and Henry Morris of the Institute for Creation Research (ICR), the premiere creationist organization of the time which quite literally invented "creation science" and Flood Geology, and produced the books and "public school edition" mis-educational materials for creationism. IOW, they are quite literally "what wrote the book!". They made some presentations about "creation science" to the US Geological Survey. The subsequent conversations primarily involved the USGS scientists trying to explain to Gish and Morris where they went wrong with their thermodynamics claims and what thermodynamics really was. What did Gish and Morris learn from that? To never again talk to actual scientists, because actual scientists can see through their bullshit immediately.
Over so many years in so many forums I have seen so many creationists try the same thing that you are trying. You learn a few creationist claims and you think you know it all, that you can beard the lion in its den. So you sally forth to do righteous battle and you immediately get cut off at the ankles. Here is what Scott Rauch, a former young-earth creationist, said about that:
quote:
"I still hold some anger because I believe the evangelical Christian community did not properly prepare me for the creation/evolution debate. They gave me a gun loaded with blanks, and sent me out. I was creamed.
Are we suffering from a cultural divide here? Shaw's "We're divided by a common language."? Do you know what "I was creamed" means? It means that you were reduced to chunky salsa, only with very much smaller chunks. Very much smaller.
The vast majority of creationists I have encountered fall into this category, though it took me a while to understand what was actually happening. They would make a claim and I would take it seriously at face value and try to discuss it with them. They would immediately become evasive and defensive and belligerent. It took me a while to realize that they didn't understand their own claim nor any of the science it was supposed to be based on. Their script only involved delivering that claim that the moment you tried to discuss it with them you had gone off-script and they had absolutely no idea what to do. So they became increasingly evasive, then increasingly belligerent all in an attempt to drive me away.
I see you doing the same thing. You claim you could blow us out of the water (eg, Message 452: "I could dash your arguments to smithereens with one hand tied behind my back, without much effort in an arena where there was fair moderation."). So why don't you? Why do you have nothing but an empty bluff? You're so brilliant and right, so why don't you just show us? Because you can't.
BTW, " ... in an arena where there was fair moderation". This forum offers the most fair moderation I have ever seen. The moderators here will accommodate far too much outrageous creationist misbehavior just to keep them here. Creationist-run forums are dictatorships. Many members here have been on creationist-run forums. There is no fair moderation there. A creationist can post whatever nonsense he wants to. But any inkling of a sign of questioning one of those claims, let alone try to challenge that creationist's claim, and you are immediately suspended or expelled for all eternity. No, the moderation on this forum is the fairest that I have seen yet.
OK, so what is your bottom line? Please spare us all the bullshit and just deliver your bottom line.
Here's what I think it is:
I require you to know absolutely everything with absolute certainty.
Ha! You can't do it, can you? Well, that means that my own position, the only other possible one, must be absolutely and completely true!
Eg:
Young earth
Global Flood
Literal truth of the Bible, especially Genesis
All the theological assertions of my own particular cretinous religious sect.
To which the only possible answer is: BOLLOCKS!!!!
You want to prove those things? Well then PROVE THEM!!!
The only way you can prove those things is to actually prove them. Don't create a strawman to attack, but rather actually prove what you want to prove.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 437 by creation, posted 01-24-2017 1:14 PM creation has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 472 by creation, posted 01-25-2017 9:49 AM dwise1 has replied

  
Son Goku
Inactive Member


(1)
Message 461 of 948 (797648)
01-25-2017 3:09 AM
Reply to: Message 450 by creation
01-24-2017 8:30 PM


Re: Direct evidence
That formula shows that Relativity does not assume time is the same everywhere, which you claimed was something not taken into account.
Measuring stellar masses is a separate issue.
Regardless, can you answer why you trust light from our probes in space, but not the light from distant stars?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 450 by creation, posted 01-24-2017 8:30 PM creation has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 471 by creation, posted 01-25-2017 9:47 AM Son Goku has replied

  
Tangle
Member
Posts: 9489
From: UK
Joined: 10-07-2011
Member Rating: 4.9


Message 462 of 948 (797649)
01-25-2017 3:26 AM
Reply to: Message 452 by creation
01-24-2017 8:43 PM


Re: A game ... The Star Distance Two-step
time writes:
I could dash your arguments to smithereens with one hand tied behind my back, without much effort in an arena where there was fair moderation.
Sounds like the wail of a defeated scoundrel to me.
There are few and fair rules for this forum. It's extremely hard to get banned - you have to be repetitively and horribly abusive or totally off your trolley - and you're never redacted. Keep on topic, don't be abusive, provide evidence to support your arguments, pretty much covers it.
Full list here: EvC Forum: Rules
At the moment, you're avoiding providing evidence, merely chanting that we don't know and admitting that you don't know either. Meanwhile others provide evidence that we actually do know - which you just hand wave away.
So it's time to "dash our arguments to smitherines is it not?
Moderation will happily defend your efforts. The worst that moderation is going to say is that you need to start a new topic. So off you go, what have you got?
But I do suggest you use both hands.
Edited by Tangle, : No reason given.

Je suis Charlie. Je suis Ahmed. Je suis Juif. Je suis Parisien.
"Life, don't talk to me about life" - Marvin the Paranoid Android
"Science adjusts it's views based on what's observed.
Faith is the denial of observation so that Belief can be preserved."
- Tim Minchin, in his beat poem, Storm.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 452 by creation, posted 01-24-2017 8:43 PM creation has not replied

  
Admin
Director
Posts: 12998
From: EvC Forum
Joined: 06-14-2002
Member Rating: 2.3


(4)
Message 463 of 948 (797653)
01-25-2017 6:49 AM


Moderator Request
This question for Time has been asked enough times now that it should be addressed. It was asked in several ways by several different people, here is the way it was asked by Son Goku in Message 461:
Son Goku writes:
Regardless, can you answer why you trust light from our probes in space, but not the light from distant stars?

--Percy
EvC Forum Director

Replies to this message:
 Message 474 by creation, posted 01-25-2017 9:55 AM Admin has replied

  
RAZD
Member (Idle past 1405 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 464 of 948 (797654)
01-25-2017 6:50 AM
Reply to: Message 449 by creation
01-24-2017 8:28 PM


Re: Direct evidence
Forget mass of the star until we know time exists out there. NO DISTANCES! Yes we experience time here, though, that much we know.
Curiously, not knowing time does not mean that there is no mass.
And I still see no reason to ignore the existence of time -- you have provided nothing but handwaving. Where is your objective empirical evidence and where is your alternative hypothesis?
We observe the effects of stars and planets orbiting stars, and the current best explanation of those observations is that time exists there in much the same way it exists here.
Until you provide a basis for your argument I will stick with the current explanations of "life, the universe, and, oh, everything" (Douglas Adams).
Further I notice that you have not answered my questions, but are posting one line troll type posts.
Enjoy

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
RebelAmerican☆Zen☯Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.


Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 449 by creation, posted 01-24-2017 8:28 PM creation has not replied

  
Admin
Director
Posts: 12998
From: EvC Forum
Joined: 06-14-2002
Member Rating: 2.3


Message 465 of 948 (797655)
01-25-2017 6:51 AM
Reply to: Message 432 by creation
01-24-2017 12:49 PM


Re: Young earth?
time writes:
OK. But the OP cited geometric measurements as hard evidence. I pointed out here, unchallenged still, that the measure is actually geochronometric.
Arguments often get lost at discussion boards. Please raise any unanswered arguments again.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 432 by creation, posted 01-24-2017 12:49 PM creation 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