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

An even bigger waste of time is telling people that they're wasting their time.

Your job is to show that it's different.

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. 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.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.

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.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. You keep missing the fact that you have already lost. There is no creationism in our public schools. Is that you winning?

Your side lost a hundred and fifty years ago. Will it raise it's ugly zombie-head again? Maybe. But you're not doing anything to resurrect it by flaunting your ignorance here.Get thee to a university. Get a science degree. Do the experiments to prove that everything the thousands of scientists have been doing is wrong.Of course, if you do that, you'll just learn that science was right and creationism was wrong. Everybody who has studied the matter honestly comes to that conclusion.Most likely, you will have dropped this creationist silliness before you're old enough to drive.

Don't be so proud of your ignorance.If you had a clue, you could approach these topics with some intelligence.

Unless there is evidence that it is there, we have no reason to think it's there - like Santa Claus.

I picked Santa Claus because I was reasonably sure that creation wouldn't believe he was real. He might believe in Bigfoot, the Loch Ness monster, etc.

To me, the obvious question is: How can YOU see outside the "fishbowl" to know that science is wrong?

That's circular. It depends on him having special access to "God's knowledge". Who's to say that a science-minded Christian can't have the same access to God?

Which in turn brings up the obvious question of who is a true believer - he who mouths, Lord! Lord! or he who shows some sign of having internalized the knowledge. Which is patently nonsense. You wouldn't claim that for any other book. You wouldn't say you have to believe The Catcher in the Rye before you know it's literally true. We know that they miss truths that others see - science, for example - so it seems likely that the trend is in that direction.

The question I asked was: How can YOU see outside the "fishbowl"? That is not a "known gift". A small number of people believe it is a reliable source of information but reality does not support that belief. The thing is that we can compare science to reality and see that it is true - so we know that the con is YOU.

The cultish ignorance is yours. If you're so smart, why can't you answer any of the questions put to you?

You claim to know better than thousands of scientists. I don't. You don't know what science does know, and yet you have the arrogance to pontificate on a science forum.

No you don't. Everything you post shows that you're completely clueless. If you knew anything at all about science you'd be able to discuss these topics intelligently instead of just spewing childish insults. All of those thousands of scientists used to be kindergarten kids. And most of the kindergarten kids today will grow up understanding how empty creationism is because we've managed to save them from creationist lies.And you're helping us do that.