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

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

---

--	Percy
	EvC Forum Director

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

[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

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

---

--	Percy
	EvC Forum Director

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

---

--	Percy
	EvC Forum Director

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

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.

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.

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.

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.

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:

Arguments often get lost at discussion boards. Please raise any unanswered arguments again.

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.

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.

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: 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.