|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
|
|
Author | Topic: Falsifying a young Universe. (re: Supernova 1987A) | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
commike37 Inactive Member |
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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
CK Member (Idle past 4155 days) Posts: 3221 Joined: |
Please don't use the word theory when you mean "vague wooly idea".
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
commike37 Inactive Member |
Are you going to contribute this topic, or are you just going to critique my use of the English language?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
CK Member (Idle past 4155 days) Posts: 3221 Joined: |
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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
commike37 Inactive Member |
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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
NosyNed Member Posts: 9004 From: Canada Joined: |
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?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
commike37 Inactive Member |
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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
NosyNed Member Posts: 9004 From: Canada Joined: |
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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
simple  Inactive Member |
quote: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!
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
wj Inactive Member
|
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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Loudmouth Inactive Member |
quote: The objective evidence includes: 1. the angles used to calculate the distance to the supernova2. 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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Loudmouth Inactive Member |
quote: 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: 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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
simple  Inactive Member |
quote: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!
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
simple  Inactive Member |
quote: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: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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
simple  Inactive Member |
quote: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!
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024