|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
|
|
Author | Topic: Falsifying a young Universe. (re: Supernova 1987A) | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
wj Inactive Member |
The only way to make any progress is to challenge comso to specify "others factors so far missed that were at play".
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
NosyNed Member Posts: 9004 From: Canada Joined: |
He's been asked and he has no idea at all. He's winging it and is in too deep.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Admin Director Posts: 13038 From: EvC Forum Joined: Member Rating: 2.1 |
cosmo writes: And as you must know, the 3 musketeers all said back to something more scientific sounding, or else, so, unless you bounce over to the coffee shop or someplace, I can't get away with persuing that. But I think I pretty well covered it. Thanks for noticing the concerns about topic drift. I can tell Crash doesn't believe the discussion is done. If anyone would like to continue the non-Supernova part of the discussion in another thread, I think either the [forum=-11] or [forum=-6] forum would be appropriate. If someone proposes it and it looks okay, I'll approve it as soon as I see it. Today's a workday for me, so I'll be able to check in every so often.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1433 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
This is the main difference between science and belief.
cosmo writes: Is it more that we are saying, because they behave this way, we think it must be stuffed with neutrinos. How can we be positive it is even 'rotation' that accounts for the pulses? What it is consists of a series of observations that are consistent across the board for all known pulsars, organized by a theory of how a natural phenomena could account for it, backed up by predictions of further observations made from the theory that have tested out. And I am not aware of any anomolous pulsars that don't behave according to this explanation. Repeated, tested, validated theory. In other words a rational consistent pattern of natural behavior such that the need to include any intelligence in the operation is not necessary to produce the result, and by Occam's razor is cut from the explanation needed. we are limited in our ability to understand by our ability to understand RebelAAmerican.Zen[Deist
{{{Buddha walks off laughing with joy}}}
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Juhrahnimo Inactive Member |
CrashFrog writes: You gave the impression that all we had to do was accept Jesus, or whatever, and our eyes would be opened to the supernatural. Crash,Now it's all coming together; if that's what you were told, "you done been messed up" by someone who doesn't know the Bible. Since you have experience with Christianity (and called it B.S. in another post to me), I would like to debate the topic further with you. I'll start the topic, are you game? You seem to harbor some hostility toward God (or the concept of God, as you might say) but I don't think it's your fault entirely (which we can discuss). (Since this forum deals with Creation, we'll be talking about the person behind that)
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
crashfrog Member (Idle past 1495 days) Posts: 19762 From: Silver Spring, MD Joined:
|
Now it's all coming together; if that's what you were told, "you done been messed up" by someone who doesn't know the Bible. 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.)
You seem to harbor some hostility toward God (or the concept of God, as you might say) 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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
simple  Inactive Member |
quote:I guess then, it is assumed that only 'natural' phenomena, could account for it. Then, I guess we take what we can see here, and have experience with, or can theorize about, and then try to apply that to the far reaches of the cosmos, all the while, of course not allowing for any non physical explanations. Seems somewhat of a stretch so far, to me! quote:Hmm, I think we can agree on something at least!
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Juhrahnimo Inactive Member |
I don't know Cosmo, so I can't vouch for him/her. And if that's what he/she told you, it was dead wrong.
As for bringing you back to the fold, I don't see how that can happen since it appears obvious you were never in the fold to start with. But since you don't want to discuss it, I guess that idea is dead.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Juhrahnimo Inactive Member |
Cosmo,
What in the world DID you tell Crashfrog? He seems to lose control when discussing God or religious experiences.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1433 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
cosmo writes: I guess then, it is assumed that only 'natural' phenomena, could account for it. No, it is assumed that if purely natural phenomena can account for it, then there is no need to look for {other\fantastic} explanations. When your car won't start and you see that the fuel is empty do you open the hood and proceed to dismantle the engine looking for another cause?
... and then try to apply that to the far reaches of the cosmos, all the while, of course not allowing for any non physical explanations. Seems somewhat of a stretch so far, to me! ummm ... precisely how we have 'dark' energy and matter clogging up the theoretical universe, by extrapolation of known physical processes and current theories on the behavior of matter and energy. rather than saying we must have these elements in the system one could say that there is a mysterious hand in the mix ... ... or that we really just don't know enough to say at this point. This message has been edited by RAZD, 01-15-2005 19:04 AM we are limited in our ability to understand by our ability to understand RebelAAmerican.Zen[Deist
{{{Buddha walks off laughing with joy}}}
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
simple  Inactive Member |
quote:Key word there - assumed. In other words we can come up with some arranging of what we know, to try to make it fit untold light years away. It is only natural to attempt to project our little reality far out, beyond our realm. quote:And such attempts have a place. We have managed to realize, at least, that most of the universe is made up of something that is, indeed a mystery to us. At least we think we realize. So, it can be said unseen forces, beyond our sight, have influenced time and space. Even gravity, I think. But let's not overdo it on this 'extrapolation of known physical processes' stuff. At least not to where it overrules the Unseen Force that matters! quote:I like that one. Some things unseen, though, we can know a heaven of a lot about!
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
crashfrog Member (Idle past 1495 days) Posts: 19762 From: Silver Spring, MD Joined: |
It is only natural to attempt to project our little reality far out, beyond our realm. If it works - and the vast success of science is stunning testimony that it does work - why not? Especially if it works better than the alternative ever has? Remember that we tried it your way once, Cosmo. For millenia we sought supernatural explanations. For a thousand years, we even used technology and naturalist methodology to do so. That time is called "the Dark Ages."
At least not to where it overrules the Unseen Force that matters! You mean "find out what you want, you scientists, but any time you start to contradict someone's fairy tales you need to stop." This message has been edited by crashfrog, 01-15-2005 19:51 AM
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
AdminNosy Administrator Posts: 4754 From: Vancouver, BC, Canada Joined: |
When every one is willing to stick to the topic we can resume.
This message has been edited by AdminNosy, 01-15-2005 20:10 AM New Members should start HERE to get an understanding of what makes great posts. Comments on moderation procedures (or wish to respond to admin messages)? - Go to:
General discussion of moderation procedures Thread Reopen Requests Considerations of topic promotions from the "Proposed New Topics" forum Other useful links:
Forum Guidelines, Style Guides for EvC and Assistance w/ Forum Formatting
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1433 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
see http://EvC Forum: GRAVITY PROBLEMS -- off topic from {Falsifying a young Universe} -->EvC Forum: GRAVITY PROBLEMS -- off topic from {Falsifying a young Universe}
to continue this discussion.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
wj Inactive Member |
So, does cosmo offer any detail of "others factors so far missed that were at play"? Or is s/he simply grasping at straws in assuming some fudge factor which reconciles the observable evidence of an SN1987A 160,000 years ago and an unchanged speed of light with cosmo's desire to fit all events inthe universe within a 7,000 year time period which is dictated by his/her interpretation of a religious text?
Time to put up observable evidence or shut up about a young universe having any reality other than in the minds of those with a particular religious bent.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024