Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 84 (8914 total)
Current session began: 
Page Loaded: 06-27-2019 4:10 AM
23 online now:
Pressie (1 member, 22 visitors)
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: 4petdinos
Upcoming Birthdays: ooh-child
Post Volume:
Total: 854,844 Year: 9,880/19,786 Month: 2,302/2,119 Week: 338/724 Day: 1/62 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
RewPrev1
...
1011
12
1314
...
63NextFF
Author Topic:   Falsifying a young Universe. (re: Supernova 1987A)
Loudmouth
Inactive Member


Message 166 of 945 (178243)
01-18-2005 3:30 PM
Reply to: Message 164 by simple
01-18-2005 3:13 PM


Re: ruler dimensionally challenged
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.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 164 by simple, posted 01-18-2005 3:13 PM simple has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 167 by simple, posted 01-18-2005 7:01 PM Loudmouth has responded

  
simple 
Inactive Suspended Member


Message 167 of 945 (178292)
01-18-2005 7:01 PM
Reply to: Message 166 by Loudmouth
01-18-2005 3:30 PM


Re: ruler dimensionally challenged
quote:
I have observed unanswered prayer, magicians that saw people in half, and have also read about fake faith healers

I have not observed magicans pulling the entire universe out of a hat. And it cannot be proved that all or most, or probably the majority of healings or miracles are false at all! 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.
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?

No. I suppose you think you notice that.
quote:
So what experiments can I do with supernova 1987a that will support a young earth? A spiritual realm? Anything that you are claiming.

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.
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."

Come on now, we can't test that the universe came from a random fluctuation! We can't test the little sweet nothing that supposedly took over from there and brought forth our universe. All we can do is take limited data, and big assumptions, and if we so chose, leave out the spirit dimension, so we come up with a creator-less result. Riddiculous as well, seems to me.
quote:
how tall is the empire state building?
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.
quote:
Does not sheer logic demand that since there are many different rulebooks claiming the same thing that they could all be wrong?
Not if there really is a Ruler! You might have tales opposed to the one true account, such as current science, so called, but the real deal would be here as well, for us to chose.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 166 by Loudmouth, posted 01-18-2005 3:30 PM Loudmouth has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 170 by NosyNed, posted 01-18-2005 7:38 PM simple has not yet responded
 Message 171 by MangyTiger, posted 01-19-2005 12:19 AM simple has responded
 Message 178 by Loudmouth, posted 01-19-2005 12:00 PM simple has responded

  
commike37
Inactive Member


Message 168 of 945 (178297)
01-18-2005 7:22 PM
Reply to: Message 158 by NosyNed
01-17-2005 10:13 PM


Re: Huh?
I don't know what GR stands for, but I remember that this explanation of cosmology came from Humphrey.

Time is distorted by gravity according to Einstein's theories of relativity. Velocity of light is constant. Distance is constant. But time is not. Which means the time in which we supernova 1987A could be different.

edit: Wait! GR=general relativity (duh!)

This message has been edited by commike37, 01-18-2005 19:23 AM


This message is a reply to:
 Message 158 by NosyNed, posted 01-17-2005 10:13 PM NosyNed has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 169 by NosyNed, posted 01-18-2005 7:35 PM commike37 has not yet responded

  
NosyNed
Member
Posts: 8842
From: Canada
Joined: 04-04-2003


Message 169 of 945 (178300)
01-18-2005 7:35 PM
Reply to: Message 168 by commike37
01-18-2005 7:22 PM


Google Humphrey
If you google humphrey at this site you will find past discussion of that.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 168 by commike37, posted 01-18-2005 7:22 PM commike37 has not yet responded

  
NosyNed
Member
Posts: 8842
From: Canada
Joined: 04-04-2003


Message 170 of 945 (178303)
01-18-2005 7:38 PM
Reply to: Message 167 by simple
01-18-2005 7:01 PM


Re: ruler dimensionally challenged
Well, for determining the speed of our light, and some other things. Not for claiming the universe has nothing else Unseen.

That wasn't the question asked. Are you haveing some trouble sticking to the issue at hand?

This message has been edited by NosyNed, 01-18-2005 19:38 AM


This message is a reply to:
 Message 167 by simple, posted 01-18-2005 7:01 PM simple has not yet responded

  
MangyTiger
Member (Idle past 4527 days)
Posts: 989
From: Leicester, UK
Joined: 07-30-2004


Message 171 of 945 (178414)
01-19-2005 12:19 AM
Reply to: Message 167 by simple
01-18-2005 7:01 PM


Re: ruler dimensionally challenged
I have not observed magicans pulling the entire universe out of a hat.

That's because you should be watching physicists :)

This quote is from a BBC Horizon programme in 2002 :

NARRATOR: But this isn't quite the end of the story. Now that the Theory of Everything may have been found some are keen to use it. Physics is preparing for the ultimate flight of fancy: to make a universe of its very own without any mysteries or unanswered questions at all.

ALAN GUTH: I in fact have worked with several other people for some period of time on the question of whether or not it's in principle possible to create a new universe in the laboratory. Whether or not it really works we don't know for sure. It looks like it probably would work. It's actually safe to create a universe in your basement. It would not displace the universe around it even though it would grow tremendously. It would actually create its own space as it grows and in fact in a very short fraction of a second it would splice itself off completely from our Universe and evolve as an isolated closed universe growing to cosmic proportions without displacing any of the territory that we currently lay claim to.

Note that it's the narrator who suggests we might soon be making a universe - Alan Guth (who is a Professor at MIT) only talks about it being possible in theory.

However, if it can be done somebody is bound to do it sooner or later (assuming the cost isn't prohibitive of course).

If this is ever done it will be staggering - it raises the possibility that's how our universe came about. Imagine the ignomy of it all - we're not the special creation of an all-powerful god, just the result of some nerd's science project in another universe !


Confused ? You will be...
This message is a reply to:
 Message 167 by simple, posted 01-18-2005 7:01 PM simple has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 172 by simple, posted 01-19-2005 1:17 AM MangyTiger has responded

    
simple 
Inactive Suspended Member


Message 172 of 945 (178427)
01-19-2005 1:17 AM
Reply to: Message 171 by MangyTiger
01-19-2005 12:19 AM


these guys are a scream!
quote:
Note that it's the narrator who suggests we might soon be making a universe - Alan Guth (who is a Professor at MIT) only talks about it being possible in theory.
'Behold, ye shall be as gods'-the devil
But of course it is absurd that any man, whatever his occupation pull a universe out of a hat, or create it. Even (Ned) if he can tell me how far a supernova is, or how high a building is!
This message is a reply to:
 Message 171 by MangyTiger, posted 01-19-2005 12:19 AM MangyTiger has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 173 by MangyTiger, posted 01-19-2005 2:02 AM simple has responded

  
MangyTiger
Member (Idle past 4527 days)
Posts: 989
From: Leicester, UK
Joined: 07-30-2004


Message 173 of 945 (178434)
01-19-2005 2:02 AM
Reply to: Message 172 by simple
01-19-2005 1:17 AM


Re: these guys are a scream!
They sure are.

Predicting you could create a universe is as dumb as predicting that :

  • a hammer and feather dropped in a vacuum fall at the same rate
  • a massive body would bend light
  • enough of the right isotope of Uranium or Plutonium can make a bomb that can destroy a city
  • if you surround one of those imaginary bombs with Hydrogen you'll get an even bigger bomb
  • insert implausible (to non-physicists of the time) prediction here

Those wacky physicists and their daft predictions - they crack me up !


Confused ? You will be...
This message is a reply to:
 Message 172 by simple, posted 01-19-2005 1:17 AM simple has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 174 by simple, posted 01-19-2005 2:25 AM MangyTiger has responded

    
simple 
Inactive Suspended Member


Message 174 of 945 (178444)
01-19-2005 2:25 AM
Reply to: Message 173 by MangyTiger
01-19-2005 2:02 AM


Re: these guys are a scream!
quote:
Predicting you could create a universe is as dumb as predicting that :
a hammer and feather dropped in a vacuum fall at the same rate
a massive body would bend light
enough of the right isotope of Uranium or Plutonium can make a bomb that can destroy a city
if you surround one of those imaginary bombs with Hydrogen you'll get an even bigger bomb

Yeah, I know, or the toaster, or condoms, or etc. No, not all knowledge is good or equal. Well, how to destroy a city I would say is about as exciting as having your head spin around, and how to destroy even more men, with a new improved version, about as wonderful as testing the bottomless pit, falling say in a hole, and starting to fall the other way, before you hit bottom. It shouldn't take a rocket scientist to see so many of these things are inspired by the enemy of mankind. Sure you can chose to be ignorant of that, patting yourself on the back, for some reason wanting to take the credit for this monsterous murderous maniacal malevoelent man killing machination! Thinking yes, 'I am as a god', and actually could really create a universe with men, and billions of galaxies. Then I could build a really really big bomb, and kill them all. No, you can't, and if you are proud of womd, fine, bask in your work for a while. To me, it is mere mischievous madness and dark dangerous demonicly derived destroyer of man.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 173 by MangyTiger, posted 01-19-2005 2:02 AM MangyTiger has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 175 by MangyTiger, posted 01-19-2005 4:14 AM simple has responded

  
MangyTiger
Member (Idle past 4527 days)
Posts: 989
From: Leicester, UK
Joined: 07-30-2004


Message 175 of 945 (178455)
01-19-2005 4:14 AM
Reply to: Message 174 by simple
01-19-2005 2:25 AM


Re: these guys are a scream!
It shouldn't take a rocket scientist to see so many of these things are inspired by the enemy of mankind.

Surely they're theoretical physicists, not rocket scientists :)

...if you are proud of womd, fine, bask in your work for a while.

I was only trying to list things that at the time they were predicted would have seemed pretty implausible to the man in the street. The atomic bomb seemed a good candidate and after that the H-bomb seemed obvious. Maybe I should have gone back a bit further in history and included Newton's work with light and prisms or something like that.

The point was that just because an idea seems implausible to us ordinary folk doesn't mean that it isn't right.

I'm sure one of the admins is about to point out all this has nothing to do with the Supernova, so as a closing comment I'll point out the atomic bomb was just a practical application of the theoretical advances made by the generation of great physicists in the late 19th. and early 20th. Century. Unless the Devil created the sub-atomic world to make fission and fusion possible I don't think he had a lot to do with it.


Confused ? You will be...
This message is a reply to:
 Message 174 by simple, posted 01-19-2005 2:25 AM simple has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 176 by simple, posted 01-19-2005 4:36 AM MangyTiger has not yet responded

    
simple 
Inactive Suspended Member


Message 176 of 945 (178458)
01-19-2005 4:36 AM
Reply to: Message 175 by MangyTiger
01-19-2005 4:14 AM


the good of the supernova
Yes there's lots of knowledge out there, has been since we ate off the tree of the knowledge of good and evil. The d didn't make squat, his job is destroying! Bravo for our understanding of the good things. Often it is inspired anyhow, so no need to get too haughty. Once again good and evil. How does it relate to 1987a? Easy, we can choose the good (like how far the thing was, ans some other bits, like the decay) or we can choose the evil (like trying to extend that beyond creation time, eliminating other factors, and especially, God). Now I know the tendancy is to claim all knowledge is equal, all good, and that there is no God. I propose that it is not. This also is why science is so limited, because they have to be, lest they take all this so called good man destroying knowledge, and any they could have had, but would have misuded, and wipe us all out with it. Dr Strangelove, and dr Frankenstein are not to be trusted with too much.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 175 by MangyTiger, posted 01-19-2005 4:14 AM MangyTiger has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 177 by NosyNed, posted 01-19-2005 10:35 AM simple has responded

  
NosyNed
Member
Posts: 8842
From: Canada
Joined: 04-04-2003


Message 177 of 945 (178512)
01-19-2005 10:35 AM
Reply to: Message 176 by simple
01-19-2005 4:36 AM


169,000 years equals no God?
Who was the fool who taught you that if the world is old then there is no God?
This message is a reply to:
 Message 176 by simple, posted 01-19-2005 4:36 AM simple has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 183 by simple, posted 01-20-2005 12:44 AM NosyNed has responded

  
Loudmouth
Inactive Member


Message 178 of 945 (178549)
01-19-2005 12:00 PM
Reply to: Message 167 by simple
01-18-2005 7:01 PM


Re: ruler dimensionally challenged
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?
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?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 167 by simple, posted 01-18-2005 7:01 PM simple has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 180 by simple, posted 01-19-2005 3:47 PM Loudmouth has responded

  
crashfrog
Inactive Member


Message 179 of 945 (178557)
01-19-2005 12:24 PM
Reply to: Message 151 by commike37
01-16-2005 7:05 PM


If you're going to advance the idea that the universe was created to have the apparent properties and age described by modern cosmological theories, then doesn't it make the most sense to talk about the universe via those models, and not in reference to it's unknowable "actual" age?

The problem with the apparent age argument is that, like Cartesian doubt, it actually validates the naturalist models as the best way to approach the natural world.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 151 by commike37, posted 01-16-2005 7:05 PM commike37 has not yet responded

  
simple 
Inactive Suspended Member


Message 180 of 945 (178628)
01-19-2005 3:47 PM
Reply to: Message 178 by Loudmouth
01-19-2005 12:00 PM


Re: ruler dimensionally challenged
quote:
Have you, or anyone, ever observed a deity pulling a universe out of their hat?
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?
quote:
It can't be proven that the healing is supernatural.
Obviously, since science does not understand the supernatural, they could not be expected to prove something was supernatural. At least we can know, that in many of these cases, the healees were not able to be helped by man.
quote:
Doctors can only see improvement, they can't detect what caused it.
Some have often said, 'it's a miracle' though. At least they can confirm something happened, we don't need them to understand it. Some christian doctors would know what was going on. 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! In the case od phonies, well, we will always have that type of thing.
quote:
No, but we can test to see if a quantum fluctuation can cause a new universe to be born
You can speculate, extrapolate but only God can create a universe. That is pure nonsense.
quote:
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?
We can measure how long it would take, but not assume a pre split absence of infinitly faster stuff. I consider, anyhow that the solar system is about as far as I really trust man's realm to be. Sure we can see beyond that, and dream. Dream it was not created, and that it is all billions of years away, and that nothing can fly or run faster than we, or our light.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 178 by Loudmouth, posted 01-19-2005 12:00 PM Loudmouth has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 181 by Brad McFall, posted 01-19-2005 3:54 PM simple has responded
 Message 182 by Loudmouth, posted 01-19-2005 4:02 PM simple has responded

  
RewPrev1
...
1011
12
1314
...
63NextFF
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2019