Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
3 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,815 Year: 3,072/9,624 Month: 917/1,588 Week: 100/223 Day: 11/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Falsifying a young Universe. (re: Supernova 1987A)
wj
Inactive Member


Message 136 of 948 (177199)
01-15-2005 2:51 AM


Back on topic
The only way to make any progress is to challenge comso to specify "others factors so far missed that were at play".

Replies to this message:
 Message 137 by NosyNed, posted 01-15-2005 11:32 AM wj has not replied

  
NosyNed
Member
Posts: 8996
From: Canada
Joined: 04-04-2003


Message 137 of 948 (177253)
01-15-2005 11:32 AM
Reply to: Message 136 by wj
01-15-2005 2:51 AM


He's been asked
He's been asked and he has no idea at all. He's winging it and is in too deep.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 136 by wj, posted 01-15-2005 2:51 AM wj has not replied

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


Message 138 of 948 (177254)
01-15-2005 11:36 AM
Reply to: Message 134 by simple
01-15-2005 2:13 AM


Re: One for all
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.

--Percy
EvC Forum Director

This message is a reply to:
 Message 134 by simple, posted 01-15-2005 2:13 AM simple has not replied

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


Message 139 of 948 (177256)
01-15-2005 11:54 AM
Reply to: Message 132 by simple
01-15-2005 12:31 AM


Re: a simple question
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}}}

This message is a reply to:
 Message 132 by simple, posted 01-15-2005 12:31 AM simple has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 142 by simple, posted 01-15-2005 6:24 PM RAZD has replied

  
Juhrahnimo
Inactive Member


Message 140 of 948 (177257)
01-15-2005 11:56 AM
Reply to: Message 133 by crashfrog
01-15-2005 1:56 AM


Whoa.....!
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)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 133 by crashfrog, posted 01-15-2005 1:56 AM crashfrog has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 141 by crashfrog, posted 01-15-2005 12:56 PM Juhrahnimo has replied

  
crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1467 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


(1)
Message 141 of 948 (177270)
01-15-2005 12:56 PM
Reply to: Message 140 by Juhrahnimo
01-15-2005 11:56 AM


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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 140 by Juhrahnimo, posted 01-15-2005 11:56 AM Juhrahnimo has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 143 by Juhrahnimo, posted 01-15-2005 6:59 PM crashfrog has not replied

  
simple 
Inactive Member


Message 142 of 948 (177314)
01-15-2005 6:24 PM
Reply to: Message 139 by RAZD
01-15-2005 11:54 AM


agreement reached
quote:
across the board for all known pulsars, organized by a theory of how a natural phenomena could account for it,
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:
the need to include any intelligence in the operation is not necessary to produce the result
Hmm, I think we can agree on something at least!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 139 by RAZD, posted 01-15-2005 11:54 AM RAZD has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 145 by RAZD, posted 01-15-2005 7:04 PM simple has replied

  
Juhrahnimo
Inactive Member


Message 143 of 948 (177319)
01-15-2005 6:59 PM
Reply to: Message 141 by crashfrog
01-15-2005 12:56 PM


Cosmo?
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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 141 by crashfrog, posted 01-15-2005 12:56 PM crashfrog has not replied

  
Juhrahnimo
Inactive Member


Message 144 of 948 (177320)
01-15-2005 7:03 PM
Reply to: Message 134 by simple
01-15-2005 2:13 AM


Good grief,
Cosmo,
What in the world DID you tell Crashfrog? He seems to lose control when discussing God or religious experiences.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 134 by simple, posted 01-15-2005 2:13 AM simple has not replied

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


Message 145 of 948 (177321)
01-15-2005 7:04 PM
Reply to: Message 142 by simple
01-15-2005 6:24 PM


Re: agreement reached
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}}}

This message is a reply to:
 Message 142 by simple, posted 01-15-2005 6:24 PM simple has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 146 by simple, posted 01-15-2005 7:41 PM RAZD has replied

  
simple 
Inactive Member


Message 146 of 948 (177327)
01-15-2005 7:41 PM
Reply to: Message 145 by RAZD
01-15-2005 7:04 PM


unseen force
quote:
it is assumed that if purely natural phenomena can account for it, then there is no need to look for {other\fantastic} explanations
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:
... 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
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:
..or that we really just don't know enough to say at this point.
I like that one. Some things unseen, though, we can know a heaven of a lot about!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 145 by RAZD, posted 01-15-2005 7:04 PM RAZD has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 147 by crashfrog, posted 01-15-2005 7:50 PM simple has not replied
 Message 149 by RAZD, posted 01-15-2005 11:45 PM simple has not replied

  
crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1467 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 147 of 948 (177332)
01-15-2005 7:50 PM
Reply to: Message 146 by simple
01-15-2005 7:41 PM


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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 146 by simple, posted 01-15-2005 7:41 PM simple has not replied

  
AdminNosy
Administrator
Posts: 4754
From: Vancouver, BC, Canada
Joined: 11-11-2003


Message 148 of 948 (177337)
01-15-2005 8:10 PM


Closing for a break
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 1405 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 149 of 948 (177432)
01-15-2005 11:45 PM
Reply to: Message 146 by simple
01-15-2005 7:41 PM


Re: unseen force

This message is a reply to:
 Message 146 by simple, posted 01-15-2005 7:41 PM simple has not replied

  
wj
Inactive Member


Message 150 of 948 (177451)
01-16-2005 1:37 AM


Time to put up or shut up.
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.

Replies to this message:
 Message 151 by commike37, posted 01-16-2005 7:05 PM wj has not replied
 Message 159 by simple, posted 01-17-2005 10:48 PM wj has replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024