|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
|
|
Author | Topic: Falsifying a young Universe. (re: Supernova 1987A) | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Taq Member Posts: 10077 Joined: Member Rating: 5.1 |
creation writes: Man knows a lot about this fishbowl we live in. Too bad he hasn't been anywhere else huh? You are dodging again. How do you know when it is safe to cross the street if you can't trust anything you see that is more than 1 millimeter from your retina?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
creation Member (Idle past 1969 days) Posts: 654 Joined: |
Playing the pesky wabbit role is no substitute for making some clear and reasoned point.
Your job is to show time is the same in far space as here, not to just be aware of how time works here.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ringo Member (Idle past 439 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined:
|
creation writes:
Your job is to show that it's different. Your job is to show time is the same in far space as here....And our geese will blot out the sun.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
creation Member (Idle past 1969 days) Posts: 654 Joined: |
This is a science thread and the claim made by science as science are what need to be vehemently supported. I could support my dates six ways from Sunday, but what the issue is here, is your dates that you thought were science.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ringo Member (Idle past 439 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined:
|
creation writes:
They have been vehemently supported. This entire forum does that. All of science does that. In opposition, we have only a few little peeps from you.
This is a science thread and the claim made by science as science are what need to be vehemently supported. creation writes:
No, that isn't an issue at all. The scientific dates are no more an issue than the sun rising every day or water being wet. The fact that you don't understand the science makes not one iota of difference to the world. I could support my dates six ways from Sunday, but what the issue is here, is your dates that you thought were science. Your silly ideas have been banished from our schools, hopefully forever, because they have no basis in reality. If you want your ideas to be taken seriously, the onus is entirely on you to prove them.And our geese will blot out the sun.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1432 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined:
|
No. Currently man has not gone beyond that line, if he does, then we extend it. ... In other words it is pure fantasy, and no rational person need give it a second thought. Got it. Enjoyby our ability to understand Rebel☮American☆Zen☯Deist ... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ... to share. Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click)
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
creation Member (Idle past 1969 days) Posts: 654 Joined: |
Mentioning fables is not vehemently supporting them. The basis for them was shown, and you must deal with it or lose.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
creation Member (Idle past 1969 days) Posts: 654 Joined: |
Man does see beyond the fishbowl. But it is pure fantasy to interpret all he sees here strictly by fishbowl rules...and that is what science does.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Larni Member Posts: 4000 From: Liverpool Joined: |
What causes the change in how time works further away from the Earth?
The above ontological example models the zero premise to BB theory. It does so by applying the relative uniformity assumption that the alleged zero event eventually ontologically progressed from the compressed alleged sub-microscopic chaos to bloom/expand into all of the present observable order, more than it models the Biblical record evidence for the existence of Jehovah, the maximal Biblical god designer. -Attributed to Buzsaw Message 53 The explain to them any scientific investigation that explains the existence of things qualifies as science and as an explanation-Attributed to Dawn Bertot Message 286 Does a query (thats a question Stile) that uses this physical reality, to look for an answer to its existence and properties become theoretical, considering its deductive conclusions are based against objective verifiable realities.-Attributed to Dawn Bertot Message 134
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ringo Member (Idle past 439 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined: |
creation writes:
There is, quite literally, tons of support for the scientific answers. Every university library has, quite literally, tons of books and journals which support the scientific answers. Mentioning fables is not vehemently supporting them. On this site right here, there are thousands of words supporting the scientific answers, with references to those tons of books and journals. You, in contrast, have presented nothing to refute them. Have you even read this thread? Calling all of that evidence "fables" just makes you look like a fool.
creation writes:
You keep missing the fact that you have already lost. There is no creationism in our public schools. Is that you winning? The basis for them was shown, and you must deal with it or lose.And our geese will blot out the sun.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Tanypteryx Member Posts: 4443 From: Oregon, USA Joined: Member Rating: 5.0 |
Mentioning fables is not vehemently supporting them. The basis for them was shown, and you must deal with it or lose. Well, on this debate forum, losing would be the one who makes up imaginary limitations on history or the visible Universe with no independent supporting evidence. Losing in your case is not being able to convince a single person that you know anything. What I find interesting is that you seem to think that you will convince anyone that what we observe from our vantage point on Earth is not what we observe. Our telescopes collect and record light from the distant Universe and we see differences between distant objects and we can compare them with nearby objects and no one has noticed limitations of the sort you are asserting. In science, the goal is to try and collect as much evidence about the Universe and how it works as possible and to describe it in a way that all fits together. In the process we always observe features that cannot be explained initially based on existing evidence. Those are the things that scientists love, that's what they live for. That is what they will spend a lifetime researching, trying to understand. In the process they make all sorts of other discoveries even if they have not found out what is going on with the initial mystery. They make their observations, experiments, and interpretations here on earth and if the reality is different in the distant past or in the distant Universe it does not change the fact that telescopes still collect light and that we can dig up ancient human artifacts and fossils of long dead organisms and see traces left behind by geological processes and ancient life. There is no evidence of your different natures or fishbowl and until scientists notice their affects on observations they will not be taken into account. There are factors that limit what scientists can observe and they are well known, but the limitations you are arguing for here were thrown on heap of failed ideas long ago. Trying to link them to your religious beliefs ensures that no one will take you seriously.What if Eleanor Roosevelt had wings? -- Monty Python One important characteristic of a theory is that is has survived repeated attempts to falsify it. Contrary to your understanding, all available evidence confirms it. --Subbie If evolution is shown to be false, it will be at the hands of things that are true, not made up. --percy The reason that we have the scientific method is because common sense isn't reliable. -- Taq
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1432 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined:
|
Man does see beyond the fishbowl. ... But you have no way to tell whether your fantasy fishbowl exists: it is pure speculation that you have conjured out of nothing. Fascinating the delusions some people have.
... But it is pure fantasy to interpret all he sees here strictly by fishbowl rules...and that is what science does. Tell us: absent any indication of any kind to the contrary, why should any rational person consider pure fantasy instead of what we know of how things operate? Every year the Voyager 1 Probe validates that approach, while at the same time pushing your fantasy fishbowl further and further in the realms of delusion.
quote: Seems you've put all your eggs in a shrinking, empty basket ... and it is still empty. Imagine that.
addendum: But that's not all, the Voyager 1 probe provides additional validation of the scientific approach:
quote: This means that Voyager 1 is now in a place that is not like anything we have experienced before ... but which was predicted by scientific theory developed from what we know. That's how science works ... and works ... and works ... and keeps on working. Sorry to burst your bubble, again. Enjoy Edited by RAZD, : addendumby our ability to understand Rebel☮American☆Zen☯Deist ... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ... to share. Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click)
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
dwise1 Member Posts: 5951 Joined: Member Rating: 5.1
|
Tell us: absent any indication of any kind to the contrary, why should any rational person consider pure fantasy instead of what we know of how things operate? Every year the Voyager 1 Probe validates that approach, while at the same time pushing your fantasy fishbowl further and further in the realms of delusion. This strikes me as an instance of "God of the Gaps" theology. Far too often, we have witnessed creationists resorting to the "God of the Gaps" argument that, since we don't know something ergo GOD! Frankly, the "God of the Gaps" has been at the heart of "creation science" for decades: "Do you know exactly and completely how this happened?" (Usually "impossible questions" like exactly how life began with complete proof, or the complete history of evolution from "bacteria to the blue whale") "No, not exactly. But the evidenced points to ... " "Enough! You don't know, therefore GOD!!!!!!" Even supposedly "scientific" ID resorts immediately to that "God of the Gaps". Of course, the problem with that puny "God of the Gaps" is that it must forever hide in the shadows which are the gaps in our knowledge. Hide from what? From the Light of Knowledge, from our knowledge of how the universe does actually work. So what is the future for that "God of the Gaps"? Eternal terror as the growth of human knowledge inexorably closes those gaps in human knowledge which are that puny god's only abode. The other unpleasant aspect of creationists' "God of the Gaps" is its true title: The God of Ignorance. This god has to hide in the gaps. What are those gaps? Our ignorance. Why must that god hide, what is it hiding from? It is hiding from knowledge. So as creationists worship their "God of the Gaps", their God of Ignorance, they embrace ignorance and disdain knowledge, reality. An alternative is offered by physicist Dr. Allan H. Harvey (AKA "Steam Doc", since he specialized in the physics of water), a practicing mainstream Christian active in his church and its religious education activities. The list of his essays are at http://steamdoc.itgo.com/writings.htm. In his essay, Science and Christian Apologetics (one of two or three in which he addresses the false "God of the Gaps" theology), he presents the alternative of thinking of God as "Sovereign Over Nature":
quote: So then creation's grave and fatal mistake is the same of sadly too many other creationists: they have chosen to believe in the wrong god, in their "God of the Gaps" instead of in the Sovereign over Nature.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
creation Member (Idle past 1969 days) Posts: 654 Joined: |
Voyager is not even one light day away!!! Yet you make claims for billions of light years away!!!!!!!!?
The bible makes more sense if your old age models and stellar evolution stuff is wrong. Since you cannot prove what time is like in the far universe you are defeated.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
creation Member (Idle past 1969 days) Posts: 654 Joined: |
What you see here in the fishbowl is what you see. It is real...here. If time were not the same that would wreak bloody havok on your models though. Of course.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024