So you think and say. However why would we assume no time exists in the solar system?? Science doesn't even know what time is! For you to take a huge slice of space here, and claim it involves no time means that you are saying time does not exist here!
If you could ever get over that, you would still be checkmated since we still have space out there to deal with!
There is nothing about the precision movements that tells you how creation works. Nor is there anything in those movements that tell us it was not created.
Well, look at a clock. There may be little cogs going round...moving. If one does not know what one is looking at, it may appear as random movement.
It may appear random to you, but to me it looks like a synchronized sequence of movements.
There is nothing about clocks that tells us about how stars or the Universe works.
creation writes:
You are in no position to call the bible fiction.
And you are in no position to say it is not, but once again this has nothing to do with Supernova 1987A.
creation writes:
Science cannot say yay or nay, either way.
Many conclusions of science are in direct disagreement with many stories and details of stories in the bible, but nothing in the bible has anything to do with how Supernova 1987A falsifies a young Universe.
creation writes:
It mentions a fair bit about stars also.
But not one word about the physics and chemistry of stars. And not a single mention that the sun is a star. You would think that might be an important fact. The bible does not mention Supernova 1987A.
creation writes:
What stars will do suddenly in the near future for example...go out!
More fiction that has nothing to do with using Supernova 1987A to falsify a young Universe.
creation writes:
It mentions a star that guided some men to a specific house!
More fiction that has nothing to do with using Supernova 1987A to falsify a young Universe.
creation writes:
It associates stars with the spiritual, which is more than poor science can do! Etc.
Well, thank goodness! Science has never had the function of associating anything with imaginary fictional fantasies and that has nothing to do with using Supernova 1987A to falsify a young Universe.
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
How much time was involved getting here cannot be known by science! Not unless you prove time exists and exists the same there also, as it is here.
Likewise distances are not known. Any use of trigonometry has to use at least one line that is in unknown time and space! Whether we use the rings out there and draw lines to them, or whether we use a slice of time and space here and draw lines to a star!
Repeating fantasies does not make them true.
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
But YOU are claiming knowledge. You haven't been saying that there might possibly have been a "different nature". You've been saying that there definitely was. It's time for you to admit explicitly that every single word you've said about a "different nature" is pure fiction, made up, not founded in reality, nonsense, not worth the electrons you used to spew it.
creation writes:
Which belief best fits a recently created universe?!
Your made-up "different nature" doesn't fit reality and it doesn't fit the Bible. It's worthless.
What it means is that we see light from the far universe only here on earth, or in the solar system area. Once something gets here, it then must start to obey our rules, our time, etc.
To declare a different nature in the future to be false you would need some proof. Same with the far past.
If one is familiar with the bible and the millennium and end part of the tribulation period, and the pre/early post flood eras, they will see that our current nature cannot be in place at those times.
You have precisely zero hope of making a bible case against me.
As for science, you had every chance to try and support the belief in a same nature in the past. Yet we see nothing.
Actually, what the bible does say about stars makes the things you say impossible!
The biggest factor about stars may be the spiritual components/connections!
Yet you look at the distant unknown universe and interpret it all missing the forest for the trees!
Sure, there are also physical components out there, but one cannot use only them to model the universe!
Also, as far as time goes, seeing that a star (in light here that we see from the star) has some hydrogen in it does not tell us what space and time there are like!!!
If one is familiar with the bible and the millennium and end part of the tribulation period, and the pre/early post-flood eras, they will see that our current nature cannot be in place at those times.
You have precisely zero hope of making a bible case against me.
As for science, you had every chance to try and support the belief in the same nature in the past. Yet we see nothing.
Why even talk?
Good point. I'll give you a 4 hour suspension to keep quiet.
Going forward...I want you to at least try and show some respect for your ideological opponents. You claim that nobody can make a Bible Case against you, yet you have not as yet even made a Bible Case (using scripture) to support your theories. I might add that I am a believer, but I do not take the Bible as word for word literal...it makes no sense to believe that way and be in any way intelligent.
Edited by AdminPhat, : No reason given.
Please stay on topic for a thread. Open a new thread for new topics.
Points should be supported with evidence and reasoned argumentation.
The sincerely held beliefs of other members deserve your respect. Please keep discussion civil. Argue the position, not the person.
Je suis Charlie. Je suis Ahmed. Je suis Juif. Je suis Parisien. I am Mancunian. I am Brum. I am London.I am Finland. Soy Barcelona
"Life, don't talk to me about life" - Marvin the Paranoid Android
"Science adjusts it's views based on what's observed. Faith is the denial of observation so that Belief can be preserved." - Tim Minchin, in his beat poem, Storm.
Note however that the Bible Accuracy and Inerrancy thread is in the science forums. He could make his case there, but other than that he has no business cluttering these topics up.
I'm going to ask that anyone who has a biblically based argument concerning time, nature, states of existence, or alternate universes unknown to mainstream science address your arguments in the bible Accuracy Science Forum. That's the only place you are allowed to speak going forward...unless you have evidence-based arguments that you can defend.
Please stay on topic for a thread. Open a new thread for new topics.
Points should be supported with evidence and reasoned argumentation.
The sincerely held beliefs of other members deserve your respect. Please keep discussion civil. Argue the position, not the person.
Actually, what the bible does say about stars makes the things you say impossible!
So what? It was written by bronze age goat herders who thought the stars were holes in the sky. You live in the 21st century, it's time to face facts, nothing in the bible has anything to say about the subject of this thread: Falsifying a young Universe. (re: Supernova 1987A)
creation writes:
The biggest factor about stars may be the spiritual components/connections!
You just keep getting sillier and sillier.
I notice that you have not in any way described any details about "The biggest factor about stars may be the spiritual components/connections."
creation writes:
Yet you look at the distant unknown universe and interpret it all missing the forest for the trees!
You are the only one who doesn't realize that many things are known about the distant Universe. You would not understand it anyway.
creation writes:
Sure, there are also physical components out there, but one cannot use only them to model the universe!
Well, you cannot. Meanwhile we will use everything that is known to model the Universe, including falsifying your universe using Supernova 1987A.
creation writes:
Also, as far as time goes, seeing that a star (in light here that we see from the star) has some hydrogen in it does not tell us what space and time there are like!!!
Oh good. Luckily, the light from the star does tell us a lot of different things, but you will never know what they are because you will never read any astronomy articles or books.
I'm just glad that you have no control over our acquisition of knowledge.
Edited by Tanypteryx, : spelling
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
quote:Dust particles form as dying red giant stars throw off material and become part of interstellar clouds of various sizes, densities and temperatures. This cosmic dust is then destroyed by supernova blast waves, which propagate through space at more than 6,000 miles per second (10,000 km/sec)!
quote:Supernova 1987A has a distinctive set of rings that are part of a cavity created in an earlier, pre-explosion phase of the star’s evolution. The fast-expanding blast wave has passed through these ring structures. Astronomers thought that any dust particles in these rings would have been destroyed, but recent observations from SOFIA show emission consistent with a growing population of dust in the rings. The results indicate that dust particles can re-form or grow rapidly, even after the catastrophic damage caused during the passage of the blast wave, suggesting that although this might be the end of a chapter in the life cycle of dust, it does not appear to be the end of the story.
quote:From ground-based telescopes on Earth, observing cosmic dust particles in the infrared is difficult — or impossible — due to strong absorption, primarily from water and carbon dioxide in the Earth’s atmosphere. By flying above most of the obscuring molecules, the airborne observatory SOFIA provides access to portions of the infrared spectrum not available from the ground. In particular, SOFIA’s Faint Object infraRed CAmera for the SOFIA Telescope (FORCAST) is a powerful instrument for understanding warm dust in particular.
Wonderful! We are still learning completely new things from Supernova 1987A.
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
™ Version 4.0 Beta
