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

But you do say time is the same. I have to call your bluff. Does it change? Or cease to exist? Or...when you know, then you can talk. Until then you must repeat the following 'I don't know'. My assertion is that you cannot prove time is the same or even exists persay out there. Just because we see movements does not mean we must have time there as here. My assertion is proven true because you fail to be able to begin to prove or even support your outlandish claim. You need evidence: that is how science is done. Until then no one needs any alternate explanation for your hunches and wild guesses and beliefs. Big talk NO action! You have not tested each mile to the far stars! If we have about 9.5 trillion km in ONE light year, and a star is say supposedly 10 billion light years away...that is a lot of kms! Your little dice story has many trillions and trillions and trillions and ten thousand times a trillion kms of points in between, of which you have never been to more than the nearest ones to you! There is NO evidence in any branch, field or laboratory that proves an hypothesis correct, that time exists in the far universe and is the same, no less! Nothing at all then. There are NO exoplanets that are known if the distances are actually unknown, they exist only by faith. They could be molecular sized, or baseball sized etc far as we know unless we know the distance. That REQUIRES knowing time exists the same every km of the way. You are groping in the dark. In other words 'it seems to us here in time, that time golly gee just must exist everywhere'. The universe must be molded to fit the limits of your experience and lack of knowledge about the basics like time? I think not. Impossible to have some sort of time inconsistencies here where time exists. Especially ones man can 'observe'. Time is invisible you know. Atoms have things orbit too, don't they? You do not know the distance therefore the sizes of the so called exoplanets. All you can say is..'something revolves around something somewhere far out in space'! Calling it a planet is religion. Belief. Time must exist there as here to know distance, period. You do NOT actually know ANY cosmic distances outside the solar system, basically. Not to stars.Now we see the orbits of the objects (however near or far, big or small, we don't know) and HERE those orbits take so much time. That is because time here is a certain way, so whatever we see must take a certain time. Time is involved in the shifting of light you know...forget the meaning you formerly assigned to redshift! Without distances, that loses meaning big time. For all we know what we see decaying is not that far away. But even if it were, we, as was repeated many times now, only see it decay here. The time it takes to decay is our time. If another time or no time existed where the object was, then that decay we see would not be taking the time we experience here! No you could not run out thousands of trillions of trillions of kms away and test anything. Especially time!If all you have is an "I I believe time is the same and, hey who can prove me wrong since no one really knows anyhow" chip on your shoulder, then the only one affected by your position is you, and nobody needs to pay attention to you ... or science..because you haven't presented any reason, any cause, any evidence that our current concept of time is valid. And you have none. You lose the connection to science! It does nothing of the sort in reality when dealing with things way way beyond it's abilities, scope, range, and paygrade! Who cares is some nerd sits there smoking a weed pipe and dreaming up ways to explain the universe while being ignorant. No one predicted squat about time being the same and a way to test it! get down to reality.Edited by time, : No reason given.Edited by Admin, : Fix quote.

Maybe I'll just copy the OP and shred it to bits on some other forum! After all, the OP should have your case basically mapped out.

Not the passage of time there...but the existence of time HERE in spacetime...for the base line.

You're trying to sneak a young earth in through the back door.Perhaps it is you who should get down to reality.Check into the dating thread RAZD has linked and have at it. Let's see what you've got.

You do nothing to light trillions of miles away in reality though. Big talk.

Tell us about this non uniform time then? Where is it? As for what 'notion' of time a particular theory uses, well, not sure anyone cares. The issue is what can you prove or show hard evidence for that involves the nature of time in the distant universe?

As I said, I am familiar with all your arguments, and can destroy them out of hand in short order any time. Not even concerned with that. You seem obsessed with a hatred of 'creationists'. Is that part of being fair minded?By the way, if and when I wanted to introduce a 'young earth' I would not sneak it in, I would ram it through someone's front teeth...so to speak.Edited by time, : No reason given.

You are clearly supporting a young earth. One of my specialties is radiocarbon dating, and we have other posters here who are experts in the field, as well as other aspects of radiometric dating.Bring your best stuff to the other thread and we'll see how quickly you can destroy the scientific consensus.As far as having an open mind, I don't have one so open that the wind blows through carrying any nonsense that happens by...

And the same is true of space probes, the sun, and things six inches away from me.Your argument fails in two ways, any one of which is sufficient to eliminate an argument from scientific discourse.(1) It can be applied to absolutely anything, not just to stars. If we allow ourselves to suppose that what we see has no underlying reality behind it, then we can apply this ultra-skepticism just as well to marmalade or owls as to stars. It's just a variant of "what if this is all a dream, and we know nothing of reality?" Well, philosophers may discuss this in their armchairs, but it has no place in science. And it has no place arguing against something in particular, such as stars, when it could be used just as well against anything else.(2) If applied to stars, it works equally well (or badly) no matter how real stars are, no matter how much time they undergo, and no matter how well-evidenced all this is. Now it is the absolute hallmark of a vacuous, worthless argument that its goodness (or badness) is not in any way dependent on what the facts are.Go and find an argument that does depend in some way on the evidence --- if you can. But this sort of woolly amateur philosophy can have no weight in a scientific discussion.

Perhaps you overestimate your abilities. So far in this thread the only thing you have shown any talent for destroying is your credibility.Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.

Hi time Time is the measurement between the events, regardless of where the events occur.Mankind has determined what the units are that is used where he is at to express the length of duration measured, so as to satisfy his mind.There is existence.In that existence there are events that do not happen simultaneously.Therefore there is duration between those events.That would be true everywhere there was existence.But that would not mean that the units of measurement would be the same everywhere unless someone decreed them to be as many here has done. Which does not make it so.Enjoy

So when are you going to stop trying to baffle us with your bullshit (which seems to be baffling only you) and start dazzling us with your brilliance? You have already received several requests, so what's holding you back?So come on already! Dazzle us with your brilliance!We're still waiting to be dazzled.Still waiting.Still waiting.Still waiting.*** YAWN ***Still waiting. We've had a lot of experience with creationists, virtually all of it extremely unpleasant. The creationists we've encountered have almost invariably been very dishonest as they rely on false claims and work to prevent any kind of constructive discussion from happening. They provide an extremely powerful witness to how morally and intellectually bankrupt Christianity is and that it is truly a false religion (reference the Matthew 7:20 Test).So far, you are doing nothing to differentiate yourself from those creationists and everything to demonstrate that you are yet another sorry example. It would really help immensely if you were to demonstrate that you are different, that you can indeed be honest and be able to engage in meaningful discussion.It's all up to you. I'm not going to hold my breath. So propose a topic and present your list of scientific evidence for a young earth. Your problem with that is that we are very familiar with all your young-earth arguments. They have all been tested and proven to be false. So then you will need to explain why you have to rely on proven false claims.

Well you asked.Regardless why do you trust time has passed on bodies like Titania which probes have viewed through telescopes, but you don't trust it when another man-made object in space, Hubble, sees stars via a telescope?Edited by Son Goku, : FormattingEdited by Son Goku, : I can't spell

And if you were to accomplish that (please note use of the subjunctive here, or is that yet another subject you are ignorant of?), then what would that say about your own position and your own arguments?Aren't you trying to apply the Two Model Approach here? You create a false dichotomy between the "creation model" which you never present and the "evolution model" which contains everything else (including most of the world's religions, ancient and modern, according to Dr. Henry Morris of the ICR). So you take a few pot shots at your "evolution model" and then claim that since you "have disproven the evolution model", then the "creation model" must be true. Please note that you are trying to prove the "creation model" without ever providing any evidence for it, discussing it, supporting or defending it, nor even ever presenting it.Well, it turns out that in order to accomplish that, you would need to disprove each and every idea contained within the "evolution model", including actual evolution itself, which creationist attacks never dare address. Your goal is made impossible by the fact that the vast majority of those ideas contained within the "evolution model" are actually the creation myths of the vast majority of the religions that have ever existed. That makes those elements supernaturalistic, which makes them impossible to test and hence impossible to disprove.It would be vastly simpler and much more effective for you to simply present your evidence for creation. But you can't do that, can you? Because you have no evidence, do you?So that leaves you using the Two Model Approach, a known deception, and using every dishonest trick you can think of.Or you could mend your evil ways and try to be honest. We've also seen honest creationists. They usually don't last long, some of them ending up opposing young-earth creationism. Several of your opponents here used to be young-earth creationists before they opened their eyes to the truth.

It boils down to this. When we see things moving from one place to another here, we observe that time passes to allow the change in the spatial coordinates of the objects.When we observe distant planets move around distant stars, the best understanding we have is that time is passing there also. Because that's the best understanding we have here, and nothing we observe operates to invalidate that.If you want to dislodge that understanding, you have to propose an explanation as to how things move without time passing. And then we have to test that explanation. If the explanation holds predictive and evidential water, you score !Simply saying "you don't know" is childish prattle, however. It's functionally no different to saying "pink fairies in tutus could be magicking the movement, whilst simultaneously drinking time through furry straws". Until you show us some awesome pink fairies in tutus, you're just doing what my children used to do, sticking your fingers in your ears and repeating "nuh nuh nuh nuh".