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

quote:

---

As far as I know, Adam and Eve did not write Genesis nor did they witness the first 5 days of creation.

---

Well, I bet they were able to go back through time, and watch as it happened! I hope to do the same someday. But of course they missed the first creation days, since Adam wasn't made till was it day 6? Who wrote Genesis? Well, it's a little like who killed JFK? To me, it's more a question of who ordered it done? So whether Moses wrote it, you wrote it, or Noah's second oldest daughter, the main thing is, God takes responsibility.

quote:

---

, if I was born after they were turned out, they were ever on?". Yes, how would you know? If you don't know, isn't it conjecture?

---

My Friend was in charge of the light show! In some places, like Canada, some native court cases involve something called 'oral history'. It can actually come into a case as evidence, I believe. I guess you wouldn't like this too much?

quote:

---

I am only the guide. You must explain how all of the objective data supports the claims made thus far, and how none of the objective data falsifies it.

---

If we made like the universe, and expanded a little, maybe we could expand our idea of what is allowed as 'objective'.

quote:

---

what objective EVIDENCE supports this?

---

Even today, many christians do something they call "witnessing" an old habit whose beginnings were at the time of Jesus. You see there were so many eyewitnesses to it, they simply ran around and gave testimony as such. I guess some people regard cosmic ripples, more than eyewitnesses who swore even on death that they saw what they saw.

quote:

---

Objective evidence, then, is evidence that we can both view in the same, exact way

---

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!

quote:

---

If you don't think that other gods falsifies claims in the Bible then we can move on.

---

No many times other gods tried to come up to the challenge, such as Dagon, I think the name was. The ark of the covenant was temporarily taken by pagans. They stored it overnight in with their god dagon, who was found next day with it's hands cut off. They thought it was luck, so stuck it back in. Next day the head was cut off as well as the hands, and it was in a bowing position on the floor before God's ark. Remember also Elisha's contest with gods, where fire came down and burned his wet wood, but their gods couldn't even ignite super bone dry kindling, despite a night of chanting and self mutilation. Sure, we can move on, as far as having any of these old gods even attempt to falsify the one true God.

quote:

---

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 ---- ....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

---

I see you said, "we could be wrong". Seems to me this bit here is a stretch. These 'nuclear forces' we 'know' about, gravitational forces,(Isn't the majority of the universe dark matter we don't understand, and doesn't this appear to have a gravitational effect?) the and even the certainty these pulsating things are composed 'mainly of neutrons'. 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?

quote:

---

You gave the impression that all we had to do was accept Jesus, or whatever, and our eyes would be opened to the supernatural.

---

Not instantly. 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.

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!

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!

quote:

---

Time to put up observable evidence or shut up about a young universe

---

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

quote:

---

So cosmo, is this your way of conceding that you don't understand science and have no evidence to support your position?

---

Well, more a way of trying to point out that science does not understand much about the Unseen, and has no evidence to support it's position. This is why it is viewed as a relgious faith by many who cannot deny there is more than meets the eye!

quote:

---

All of the evidence we have given for the age of the universe is observable

---

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. I observe answered prayer, amazing things, and read about healings, etc. I observe a written record, which is quite testable, and has always come out like gold. I contend it is very scientificlly based, testable, and at least in effects, observable. 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. I read about a light, for example that was here before the sun, and I don't observe it now any more than a little hot quark gluon soup that is now as big as a pinhead. 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.

quote:

---

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

---

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?! Yes we can strain at the men who were instruments of it's delivery, and get hung up on how some little translation may be seemingly off, but if you were the Ruler, would you not realize all this, and make allowances for it? Do you think mere mortals would be able to interfere in a big way? Didn't Jesus have these same writings He read and referred to, and raise from the dead? Didn't He talk about the flood, and the Garden time? If there is a Ruler at all, He must be in control. No, not over everything man does, in our state of departure and rebellion from Him-because we have the fantastic real power to choose. But in control over the big picture, such as not allowing us to go too far, and destroy the earth and each other completely, and assuring His rulebook made it down safe enough to be trustworthy! Otherwise, I'm afraid, He is not worth much respect.

quote:

---

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)

---

Fair enough, and the conclusions we can draw from this evidence are that it seems light as we know it is constant. If there were nothing more than these mere observations, which are a drop in the overall bucket, we might make some big conclusion. It does not mean it is locked in a timeframe unchangable, only a distanceframe that is reasonable. It does not say there is no spirit dimension unseen, creator, or anything like that! It does not say there was no split, no other light, that did not obey our lights limitations, or that God didn't make the whole thing in a week! It is simply an observation, which, if there was no God, and nothing else affecting things, tells us some limited information, which can be interesting, and useful, as long as we don't try to use it against the Ruler!

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.

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!

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.

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.

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.

I take it your point is about the christians who embrace long ages, and simply reinterpret the bible to appease science? Yes I am aware of those nice people. I think the pope is even now one! Proof, I guess he really isn't infallible, unless this evolution acceptance is I forget what they call it-basically doesn't count as being really a message from God.