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

YEC evidences. Evidence for a Young World | Answers in Genesis

It's funny you say they've been refuted yet you show no proof of this.

quote:

---

2. Most of the events astronomers observe would never have happened. For example consider a star explosion which astronomers observed in early 1987. This bright explosion, called Supernova 1987a, took place in one of the Magellanic Clouds (see introduction), about 160,000 light-years away from us. It was visible to the naked eye, and astronomers were (and are) very excited about it.

​

According to the "in-transit" theory, during creation week God would have made, about 6000 light-years away from us along the path between us and the Magellanic clouds, the light-wave images of an exploding star. He would also have had to have made the high-energy particles (gamma rays and neutrinos), as observed, from the exploded supernova. At the same instant of creation, further out along the path, He would have made images of an already-exploded star and its expanding shell of debris.

​

To be consistent, at the end of the 160,000 light-year path, God would also during creation week have made an actual supernova remnant (a dead neutron star), seemingly 160,000 years old with a large debris shell around it.

​

But according to the "in-transit" theory, in spite of the images and particles astronomers observed, no actual supernova explosion would have ever happened!

​

This sort of fictional interpretation of events that we see in the sky would deny astronomy most of its value as a study of the real world. It would make the study of distant stars into a kind of theological literary criticism -- a study of the fiction God would have chosen to write for us in the sky. And if most of what the heavens declare to us were fictional, then according to Psalm 19:1 ("The heavens declare the glory of God"), most of the glory of God would also be fictional. This philosophical-theological problem does not bother some supporters of the "in-transit" theory, but it disturbs many other people, including myself.

---

From: http://www.epcc.edu/faculty/jesseh/starlight_time_bk.htmRefer to Humprey's "Starlight and Time"------------------
-chris[This message has been edited by messenjaH, 11-16-2003][This message has been edited by messenjaH, 11-16-2003]

No.------------------
-chris

Non-scientists? There are many scientists that believe in the biblical account of creation.Oh yeah I forgot, evidences is a word. I don't like being a fool because of things I said that were right.tr.v. evidenced, evidencing, evidences
To indicate clearly; exemplify or prove.
To support by testimony; attest.------------------
-chris

Wait a second, I thought Humphrey's said that (according to his book/tape) God made all of the objects that are billions of years away/millions etc appear to Adam so he could see all of his wonderful creation. Tell me I'm wrong if this isn't the explanation of God's actions that he gives in his book.------------------
-chris

It seems you are right, they do refute many YEC claims.------------------
-chris

Much of talkorigins can be refuted by taking a look at trueorigins.A side note: Ashby responded to the: 29 evidences of macro response to Ashby. I was wondering if he did and I soon found out he had.------------------
-chris[This message has been edited by messenjaH, 11-20-2003]

By watching a video of his famed book "Starlight and Time" I believe that the God as the deciever is not the belief he supports with his arguments. I can be wrong of course but I am fairly sure what I wrote before is a summary of the belief behind the science.------------------
-chris

No prankster.------------------
-chris

Agreed.------------------
-chris