Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 63 (9161 total)
2 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,581 Year: 2,838/9,624 Month: 683/1,588 Week: 89/229 Day: 61/28 Hour: 0/3


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Falsifying a young Universe. (re: Supernova 1987A)
Admin
Director
Posts: 12993
From: EvC Forum
Joined: 06-14-2002
Member Rating: 2.1


Message 127 of 948 (177111)
01-14-2005 7:20 PM


Topic Drift Alert
Perhaps another thread should be opened for the philosophical/religious part of the discussion?

--Percy
EvC Forum Director

  
Admin
Director
Posts: 12993
From: EvC Forum
Joined: 06-14-2002
Member Rating: 2.1


Message 138 of 948 (177254)
01-15-2005 11:36 AM
Reply to: Message 134 by simple
01-15-2005 2:13 AM


Re: One for all
cosmo writes:
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.
Thanks for noticing the concerns about topic drift.
I can tell Crash doesn't believe the discussion is done. If anyone would like to continue the non-Supernova part of the discussion in another thread, I think either the [forum=-11] or [forum=-6] forum would be appropriate. If someone proposes it and it looks okay, I'll approve it as soon as I see it. Today's a workday for me, so I'll be able to check in every so often.

--Percy
EvC Forum Director

This message is a reply to:
 Message 134 by simple, posted 01-15-2005 2:13 AM simple has not replied

  
Admin
Director
Posts: 12993
From: EvC Forum
Joined: 06-14-2002
Member Rating: 2.1


Message 197 of 948 (179259)
01-21-2005 8:23 AM
Reply to: Message 196 by simple
01-20-2005 9:23 PM


Topic Drift Alert
cosmo writes:
Just as long as some poor soul does not dare try to use such creative color conclusions, to contradict bible certainties!
[forum=-2] is a science forum. Discussions about the validity of scientific approaches to understanding the universe versus Biblical evidence should be taken to [forum=-11]. Would someone please either propose a thread for that forum, or choose an existing thread in that forum, for resuming that part of this discussion. Further discussion in this thread should be solely about the scientific evidence for and against a young universe.

--Percy
EvC Forum Director

This message is a reply to:
 Message 196 by simple, posted 01-20-2005 9:23 PM simple has not replied

  
Admin
Director
Posts: 12993
From: EvC Forum
Joined: 06-14-2002
Member Rating: 2.1


Message 221 of 948 (179448)
01-21-2005 7:25 PM


Temporarily closing this thread while certain participants consider whether they can stay on topic.

--Percy
EvC Forum Director

  
Admin
Director
Posts: 12993
From: EvC Forum
Joined: 06-14-2002
Member Rating: 2.1


Message 222 of 948 (179603)
01-22-2005 9:38 AM


Topic Reopened
Please stay on topic. Move off-topic discussions to appropriate existing threads, or propose a new topic.

--Percy
EvC Forum Director

  
Admin
Director
Posts: 12993
From: EvC Forum
Joined: 06-14-2002
Member Rating: 2.1


Message 256 of 948 (179968)
01-23-2005 3:39 PM
Reply to: Message 255 by simple
01-23-2005 3:21 PM


Re: fireworks!
Hi Cosmo,
Creationism promotes itself as a theory equal in scientific status to evolution. EvC Forum is a science site intended to explore this claim, and most of the forums here are intended to address the issues from a scientific perspective. Please refrain from posting arguments based upon Biblical prophecy or that have no other foundation than the Bible. Not only are such arguments inappropriate for a science forum, but they weaken your own cause by revealing the underlying religious nature of Creationism.
[forum=-6] and [forum=-11] are appropriate forums for exploring the validity of faith and the Bible in science.

--Percy
EvC Forum Director

This message is a reply to:
 Message 255 by simple, posted 01-23-2005 3:21 PM simple has not replied

  
Admin
Director
Posts: 12993
From: EvC Forum
Joined: 06-14-2002
Member Rating: 2.1


Message 344 of 948 (781464)
04-04-2016 3:29 PM


Moderator Request
To comment upon a different area from AdminPhat, discussion in the science forums should support one's position with evidence. Typically this can't be done in posts of few sentences, of which there have been far too many. Please focus on the evidence.
Edited by Admin, : Grammar.

--Percy
EvC Forum Director

Replies to this message:
 Message 347 by starlite, posted 04-04-2016 4:56 PM Admin has seen this message but not replied

  
Admin
Director
Posts: 12993
From: EvC Forum
Joined: 06-14-2002
Member Rating: 2.1


Message 397 of 948 (797546)
01-23-2017 4:43 PM


Moderator Warning
We're not going to have nonsense discussions of snarky back-and-forths with no quoting or content. This is a very old thread begun in 2005 that was never closed - I'll just shut it down if there's not going to be any serious discussion.
Edited by Admin, : Grammar.

--Percy
EvC Forum Director

  
Admin
Director
Posts: 12993
From: EvC Forum
Joined: 06-14-2002
Member Rating: 2.1


Message 418 of 948 (797574)
01-24-2017 7:00 AM
Reply to: Message 410 by creation
01-23-2017 10:27 PM


Re: Young earth?
time writes:
Howl all you like. If you have something topical, let us know.
I would like to keep the topic clear, as well as your position on it. This thread is about evidence that falsifies the possibility of a young universe, and you're arguing against that evidence. If you are arguing as you are for some other reason than advocacy for a young universe, that probably means you're in the wrong topic, in which case you might want to propose your own topic over at Proposed New Topics. But if you *are* advocating for a young universe (which implies a young Earth, as Coyote said) then please carry on here.
As long as I have your attention I'd like to also touch on the issue of how we know what we think we know, whose appropriateness in this thread already been addressed by several others. This isn't the topic of the thread. If you think there are epistemological issues concerning knowing things beyond some (what seems to be) arbitrary distance, that would be better discussed in another thread. Again, new threads can be proposed over at Proposed New Topics. I'll review and promote and new thread proposals as quickly as I can.
Edited by Admin, : Grammar.

--Percy
EvC Forum Director

This message is a reply to:
 Message 410 by creation, posted 01-23-2017 10:27 PM creation has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 419 by creation, posted 01-24-2017 8:41 AM Admin has replied

  
Admin
Director
Posts: 12993
From: EvC Forum
Joined: 06-14-2002
Member Rating: 2.1


Message 425 of 948 (797586)
01-24-2017 9:25 AM
Reply to: Message 419 by creation
01-24-2017 8:41 AM


Re: Young earth?
time writes:
Unless time is the same where the SN is therefore, there can be no distance known.
If that's your main premise then this isn't the thread's topic. It might be better if you proposed a new topic over at Proposed New Topics.

--Percy
EvC Forum Director

This message is a reply to:
 Message 419 by creation, posted 01-24-2017 8:41 AM creation has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 432 by creation, posted 01-24-2017 12:49 PM Admin has replied

  
Admin
Director
Posts: 12993
From: EvC Forum
Joined: 06-14-2002
Member Rating: 2.1


(4)
Message 463 of 948 (797653)
01-25-2017 6:49 AM


Moderator Request
This question for Time has been asked enough times now that it should be addressed. It was asked in several ways by several different people, here is the way it was asked by Son Goku in Message 461:
Son Goku writes:
Regardless, can you answer why you trust light from our probes in space, but not the light from distant stars?

--Percy
EvC Forum Director

Replies to this message:
 Message 474 by creation, posted 01-25-2017 9:55 AM Admin has replied

  
Admin
Director
Posts: 12993
From: EvC Forum
Joined: 06-14-2002
Member Rating: 2.1


Message 465 of 948 (797655)
01-25-2017 6:51 AM
Reply to: Message 432 by creation
01-24-2017 12:49 PM


Re: Young earth?
time writes:
OK. But the OP cited geometric measurements as hard evidence. I pointed out here, unchallenged still, that the measure is actually geochronometric.
Arguments often get lost at discussion boards. Please raise any unanswered arguments again.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 432 by creation, posted 01-24-2017 12:49 PM creation has not replied

  
Admin
Director
Posts: 12993
From: EvC Forum
Joined: 06-14-2002
Member Rating: 2.1


Message 482 of 948 (797673)
01-25-2017 10:27 AM
Reply to: Message 474 by creation
01-25-2017 9:55 AM


Re: Moderator Request
time writes:
I have no issue with info from probes...etc...
As I said, the question was posed by several people in several different ways, and calling the probe a special case doesn't really answer the general question. People are trying to understand the position and nature of the division you see between time "here" and time further away. If observations of Voyager are valid because it was once part of time on planet Earth then what about observations of objects that were never part of our time, such as the moon, Mars, Pluto, the Kuiper belt, the Oort cloud, Alpha Centauri (the nearest star), Andromeda (the nearest non-satellite galaxy). Understanding how and why you think time-dependent observations of these objects are valid, or not, will go a long ways toward making your viewpoint clear to others.
I'm not trying to participate in discussion, just facilitate it, and this seems an important question that isn't getting answered.
Edited by Admin, : Better grammar at end of first paragraph.

--Percy
EvC Forum Director

This message is a reply to:
 Message 474 by creation, posted 01-25-2017 9:55 AM creation has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 487 by creation, posted 01-25-2017 3:28 PM Admin has seen this message but not replied

  
Admin
Director
Posts: 12993
From: EvC Forum
Joined: 06-14-2002
Member Rating: 2.1


Message 527 of 948 (797726)
01-26-2017 7:03 AM


Moderator Warning
Time (the member, not the concept) is not the topic here. Please confine your discussion to the topic and not to the people you're discussing with. This applies to everyone, including Time. This is the last warning, temporary suspension will follow non-compliance.

--Percy
EvC Forum Director

  
Admin
Director
Posts: 12993
From: EvC Forum
Joined: 06-14-2002
Member Rating: 2.1


Message 546 of 948 (797754)
01-26-2017 11:25 AM
Reply to: Message 541 by creation
01-26-2017 9:57 AM


Dwise1 and NewCatsEye Suspended 24 Hours
Hi Time,
I just suspended Dwise1 and NewCatsEye 24 hours for becoming personal after my warning in Message 527, but I'm putting you on warning, too, to produce constructive evidence-based responses. For one thing I would like you to actually answer Son Goku's question from Message 523:
Son Goku in Message 523 writes:
Regardless why do you trust time has passed on bodies like Titania which probes have viewed through telescopes, but you don't trust it when another man-made object in space, Hubble, sees stars via a telescope?
This question can, of course, take different forms, for example, "What factors govern where you accept time applies and where you don't?"
Pleases do not continue to post responses that leave it impossible to form a coherent picture of your viewpoint. It is fine that you reject the conclusions about time that others draw from the evidence, but discussion here doesn't get to ignore the evidence. It still has to be discussed.
Please, no replies to this message.

--Percy
EvC Forum Director

This message is a reply to:
 Message 541 by creation, posted 01-26-2017 9:57 AM creation has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 563 by creation, posted 01-28-2017 1:17 AM Admin has seen this message but not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024