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

OK point taken. -Although time beyond biblical creation may be the object de jours, it is virtually never in mere literal seconds. For example in the explosive object in question here, I believe the estimate was, seven or so parsnips, or parsecs away. In this case, therefore, each said parsec would be about (170,00 devided by 7) 24,000 years long.(?) Therefore even a single parsec would be aprox 4 times older than the created earth itself! I'm getting the knack, thinks I, of this atheistic math.

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

nitpick: 1 second=1/3600 of a degree.

---

*not an actual doctor

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

Well, no, the distance itself wouldn't have age. But if a parsec was say 7000 light years long, then, it would be considered that the light takes 7 thousand years to get from or to there, no? Therefore it, in effect is said to be seven thousand years away, or, in the case of the supernova here, 170,000 years away. If then a biblical creation timeline had things being created some roughly say, 7,000 years ago, the the 1987 explosion was some one hundred and sixty three thousand years before creation. Even though we only saw the light of it a few decades ago.It is my opinion you are missing a part of the equation somewhere, though, and in reality, in real time, (despite how fast light travels now), it was indeed actually several thousand years ago.

Crashfrog has already pointed out that the seconds used are an angular measurement. Light-years are a measurement of length, 1 light year = 9.46 X 10¹² km = 5.88 X 10¹² miles.

---

*not an actual doctor

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.

It's funny how this little line, or near identical versions get echoed by the 'any theory but God, dressed up as science' crowd, and they seem to think it's original, or of some merit! Now as far as evidence goes on this supernova thing, so far we have some what appears to be 'decaying' material, and some tooth fairy time related distances sailing clear past creation, and into the ninja mystic. Yes, the distances are great. But science's present ability to put it all into real time is pure conjecture. You see, so far all this thread has offered, I think, as evidence, would be an explosion a great distance away, in which it is thought, that decay rates of certain things were the same as now. Big deal.

that brainless argument does need a stretcher.did you even read the 'brane article?the point is that there are a couple of competing theories on the begining of the universe...and neither of them match up to genesis btw."great scientist himself" means you have his signature credits on file?I'm serious -- you need to show sources and the experimental evidence that backs up the hypothsis based on the observations. you can't just say "because he said so" regardless of who "he" is.

---

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand RebelAAmerican.Zen[Deist
{{{Buddha walks off laughing with joy}}}

You were also offered much other evidence, for example, of the speed of light being measured to be the same at great distances from us, for example, Message 56 by Loudmouth.It is difficult to think of a helpful response to "Big deal." Can you put into words why you think inconclusive the evidence showing that the speed of light, decay rates, and other physical constants, are the same everywhere and in every era that we look in the universe?--Percy

quote:

---

Now we see a statement here, on which a lot is built upon. "That ONLY the rotation of a small body" can account for it. Really?

---

Yes, really. Pulsars, IIRC, are neutrino stars. They are made primarily of neutrons. The lack of charge allows the particles to pack in very tightly, which causes the extreme rotational speeds. Think of an ice skater in a spin. As they pull their arms in towards their body their rate of spin increases. The same effect can be seen in pulsars, where all of the mass is pulled in to a very small area. The high density of pulsars also creates the electromagnetic emmissions as a function of the gravitational poles. So what we get is a pulse of eletromagnetic radiation at very short and regular intervals.The speed at which the pulsars spin is almost at a max. We know this because we know the size of these stars, the density of neutrons, the gravitational forces, and the nuclear forces involved in these stars. We could be wrong, like I said before all things in science are tentative. However, everything on that webpage are consistent with all of the evidence we have at hand. None of the evidence falsifies the currently used models for pulsars.As a bit of irony, pulsars were once thought to be radio transimissions from alien civilizations. The precision and strength of pulsar signals, back in the early days of astronomy, could not be exlained except through intelligent technology. However, as our understanding of atoms and astronomy increased, it became apparent that these signals were coming from high density stars with extremely short rotational periods.

quote:

---

I'm getting the knack, thinks I, of this atheistic math.

---

Happy to see that you are keeping your sense of humor about all of this. Many get mad and run. If there were more creationists like yourselves we wouldn't have anything to complain about.

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.

quote:

---

It's funny how this little line, or near identical versions get echoed by the 'any theory but God, dressed up as science' crowd, and they seem to think it's original, or of some merit!

---

It is also funny how the little line "the bible is God's Word" has any merit in science.

quote:

---

Yes, the distances are great. But science's present ability to put it all into real time is pure conjecture.

---

How is it conjecture if we have objective evidence that supports the claim?

quote:

---

Now as far as evidence goes on this supernova thing, so far we have some what appears to be 'decaying' material, and some tooth fairy time related distances sailing clear past creation, and into the ninja mystic.

---

The distances are real, unless you are claiming the Biblical accounts are more accurate than trigonometry. The speed of light is real, unless you are able to point to any evidence to the contrary. And invisible ninjas have just as much objective evidence for their existence as any other deity. I will grant you that there is also the realm of subjective evidence, but this type of evidence is not useful in determining the reality of the natural world.

quote:

---

You see, so far all this thread has offered, I think, as evidence, would be an explosion a great distance away, in which it is thought, that decay rates of certain things were the same as now. Big deal.

---

Outside of the evolution vs. creation debate it isn't a big deal, just more evidence in a very large stockpile of evidence. Supernova 1987A did not reveal anything really new about the universe that we didn't already have evidence of. However, it is a Big Deal for creationists, since it falsifies their contention that the speed of light, decay rates, and the age of the universe are not consistent with their theories. Supernova 1987A, in one fell swoop, falsifies young earth creationism (YEC). Since YEC has been falsified within the sciences for about 200 years now, it is hardly anything worth mentioning within science outside of astronomy and physics.

quote:

---

the point is that there are a couple of competing theories on the begining of the universe...

​

and neither of them match up to genesis btw.

---

This indicates to me that the inspiration behind these 2 theories would be different than that behind Genesis!

quote:

---

"great scientist himself" means you have his signature credits on file?

---

A great many people fell they see His fingerprints, and signature all around the heavens!I'm serious -- you need to show sources and the experimental evidence that backs up the hypothsis based on the observations. you can't just say "because he said so" regardless of who "he" is.Well His fingerprints are not admissable, I thought in a circle of knowledge that that excludes Him? If they were I might provide a link something like this one! (post 106 -- Error | Christian Forums)