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

quote:

---

I can view light speed in 1987a's case as an indication of present distance, but not time millions of real years away, so I guess the concept is not objective since you don't view it the exact same way as millions of the rest of us!

---

The objective evidence includes:1. the angles used to calculate the distance to the supernova
2. 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.

quote:

---

Not all evidence is observable, and even evidential effects from the Unseen Force would be unaceptable, (I think?) to you!

---

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:

---

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!

---

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.

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.

---

Within the context of this thread (supernova), could you please tell me which objective, testable, observable effects have not been factored in.

quote:

---

I observe answered prayer, amazing things, and read about healings, etc.

---

I have observed unanswered prayer, magicians that saw people in half, and have also read about fake faith healers.

quote:

---

I observe a written record, which is quite testable, and has always come out like gold.

---

It seems to have been wrong on a few things, though. Notice that the evidence does not bear out a young earth or a global flood?

quote:

---

I contend it is very scientificlly based, testable, and at least in effects, observable.

---

So what experiments can I do with supernova 1987a that will support a young earth? A spiritual realm? Anything that you are claiming.

quote:

---

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.

---

But they are testable, and the theories that support their existence are testable without needing faith in a deity.

quote:

---

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.

---

I know a guy that thinks he is JFK. How do I know that you are not deluded? How do you know that you are not fooling yourself? We both look at the same data set and I see no need to conclude that there is a Ruler, a spritual realm, nor any diety of any kind. How is this possible?This is why science relies on objective data, data that is the same for everyone. How tall is the Empire State Building? Does the answer depend on what god you worship, or lack thereof?

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?!

---

Does not sheer logic demand that since there are many different rulebooks claiming the same thing that they could all be wrong?

quote:

---

If there is a Ruler at all, He must be in control.

---

The first if has not been answered, just asserted.

quote:

---

I have not observed magicans pulling the entire universe out of a hat

---

Have you, or anyone, ever observed a deity pulling a universe out of their hat?

quote:

---

And it cannot be proved that all or most, or probably the majority of healings or miracles are false at all!

---

It can't be proven that the healing is supernatural.

quote:

---

We know the deaf, blind and lame have been healed as well. From the old testament, to Jesus, to the early church, to history since then, till recent history, where doctors have verified some of these things.

---

Doctors have seen miraculous healings of non-religious, non-praying people as well. Doctors have seen people prayed for by a thousand people, and still they die the same death as the atheist in the next room. Doctors can only see improvement, they can't detect what caused it.

quote:

---

quote:

---

It seems to have been wrong on a few things, though. Notice that the evidence does not bear out a young earth or a global flood?
  —Loudmouth

---

No. I suppose you think you notice that.

---

So where in the data from supernova 1987a can I find the evidence for a young earth?

quote:

---

You can simply not try to use the limited data to hit the Ruler with. So the question really is more, "what can I use the data from 1987a for?" Well, for determining the speed of our light, and some other things. Not for claiming the universe has nothing else Unseen.

---

So what scientific experiments can I do in the lab to detect the Unseen?

quote:

---

Come on now, we can't test that the universe came from a random fluctuation!

---

No, but we can test to see if a quantum fluctuation can cause a new universe to be born.

quote:

---

Well, this is in our realm, and something that does not say God is real. Like knowing our shoe size, we are that able! Now, come up with some speckish tale as a result of how high a building is, then we would have to deal with you.

---

Supernova 1987a is also in our realm. If we can measure the height of the Empire State Building without interference from a deceiving deity, then why can't we measure the the length of time it takes for light to travel from Supernova 1987a to Earth?

quote:

---

Yes. One gal in proverbs says she was there with Him.
Also Jesus who lived 2000 years ago was there. He actually was the One who created it. Yet He says His Father is greater than that! Can you imagine?

---

And why should I accept their claims without evidence?

quote:

---

Obviously, since science does not understand the supernatural, they could not be expected to prove something was supernatural.

---

More accurately, the supernatural has never been successfully used to accurately predict new findings in nature. Why is that?

quote:

---

At least they can confirm something happened, we don't need them to understand it. Some christian doctors would know what was going on.

---

And a Hindu doctor would have another opinion. A native american doctor would have yet another opinion. Why is that?

quote:

---

In cases of what seemed to be unanswered prayer, it was just answered in a way that was better, and different than they knew enough to ask!

---

So prayer is always answered, no matter what the outcome is? So how can you tell the difference between unanswered prayer and answered prayer if the outcomes are indistinguishable?

quote:

---

You can speculate, extrapolate but only God can create a universe. That is pure nonsense.

---

Isn't it speculation and extrapolation that God even exists?And I never said that quantum fluctuations could produce a universe, only that the could be tested to see IF they could.

quote:

---

We can measure how long it would take, but not assume a pre split absence of infinitly faster stuff.

---

So then I could argue that the pre-split absence of infinitely faster stuff also causes mismeasurements of the Empire State Building. The ESB is actually 5,000 feet tall. Any other measurement is pure conjecture. Are you starting to see how foolish this is?

quote:

---

I consider, anyhow that the solar system is about as far as I really trust man's realm to be.

---

Why? Even the solar system is chocked full of evidence that the universe is old. The earth, in particular, fully supports a 4.5 billion year old solar system. The universe agrees with the evidence in our solar system. So why don't you trust the universe that you claim that God created?

quote:

---

I wrote: So then I could argue that the pre-split absence of infinitely faster stuff also causes mismeasurements of the Empire State Building.

​

cosmo wrote: Could you really argue that? I dare you, even in jest.

---

Let's look back to your other posts about supernova 1987a. You claim that science is not considering the different speed of light before the split of the spiritual world. This is your argument, and yet you berate me when I use it. Who is the jester? If I can't use it for proposing a 5,000 foot tall Empire State Building, then how can you use the same argument for a young universe?This message has been edited by Loudmouth, 01-20-2005 13:07 AM

quote:

---

I could go with our light has always been the same. Never do I need, or expect it to change. Since it was made. If it was made as a replacement for something faster, and different, that can not exist in our plane, (spirit light), then I would need to know how fast the original could go.

---

So what evidence is there for this faster light that existed before our present light?

quote:

---

What evidence do we have stars are made of neutrinos, or whatever?

---

Neutrino stars are inferred from the size and mass of the star. From our current theories, neutrinos are the only particle that fit the bill. As to other elements, JonF covers that very well. Needless to say, there is evidence that the speed of light has never changed. You claim that the speed of light has not always been the same. Again, what is the evidence that supports light moving at a faster speed than at present?

quote:

---

It must be to fit the evidence, as best we can come up with. And, as we know, there is no way to prove otherwise.

---

So tell me how faster speeds of light fit the evidence.

quote:

---

All we can do, in absence of that proof, is chose our theory.

---

No, we have evidence. We choose the theory THAT FITS ALL OF THE EVIDENCE AND IS SUPPORTED BY EVIDENCE. For us to consider faster speeds for light you need to supply evidence for it.

quote:

---

One that excitingly allows for a God of creation, and the bible's timetable, or one that pitifully does not, and yet tries to demand all believe, and that there is no other way.

---

Why not pick a theory that allows for invisible ninjas and pink unicorns?

quote:

---

Me: So tell me how faster speeds of light fit the evidence

​

cosmo: Less time involved. Why? - tell me how it doesn't.

---

Millisecond pulsars and the measurement of the speed of light between the supernova and the halo around the supernova.Again, where is the evidence that the speed of light has been different in the past. I would really like this evidence that you are holding so close to your chest.

quote:

---

Me: We choose the theory THAT FITS ALL OF THE EVIDENCE AND IS SUPPORTED BY EVIDENCE

​

cosmo: Yes, the evidence of your choosing you might add!

---

SO WHERE IS THIS EVIDENCE THAT SUPPORTS A DIFFERENT SPEED FOR LIGHT???????!!!!!!!!!!! SHOW ME THE EVIDENCE I AM IGNORING!!!!!!To Percy:Yes, neutrons. Thanks for the correction.

quote:

---

"Neutrino stars are inferred from the size and mass of the star. From our current theories, neutrinos are the only particle that fit the bill." and also inferred in writings that have been evidenced to be true, is that a short time ago, creation came about.

---

Well, if all you need is writing . . .The speed of light has never changed.There, I guess you can infer from the writing above that light has never changed.

quote:

---

Now in this case, of course spirit is the white crows! Now we can't say no one ever seen one.

---

We can say that no one can has seen spirits with supporting objective evidence. We can say that no one has seen spirits change the speed of light. If spirits are evidence, can you please tell me the experimental methods for detecting them so I can do it in the lab?