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

When you refer to a geometrical distance determination you say you are not refering to parallax. Could you explain the difference? I thought the measurement was basically one of angles with the earth's orbit as a baseline. Isn't that effectively the same thing?You seem to have a very clear challenge to the YEC'ers there. I think you can expect it to be ignored. But if we develop this thread a little more then perhaps it can be referred to the next time the age issue pops up.

Perhaps Messenjah could pick one or two things he thinks are telling and we can point him to the easiest material on them?

You seem to be suggesting that you support Humphries suggestion. I don't think it handles the problem of the measurement of the distance to SN1987A does it?

Of course not. The universe is as old as it appears to be.Very few would suggest the "prankster" as a resolution to the problem so there is no other conclusion but that the universe is as shown by the evidence.

The supernova is one of the ways to show that the universe is at least pretty old.This thread got a bit off topic but can be steered back to where it belongs.The supernova also shows that radio active decay has also been constant enough for at least 160,000 years.

We are talking about only SN-1987A.

There are multiple ways of arriving at dates over different time frames. An additional thing about SN-1987a is that we can see radioactive decay occuring that long ago and see that it is the same as today. That is part (a small part) of establishing the constancy of the rates.For HangDawg: There are at least a couple of mainstream science papers that are quoted by creationist sites regarding changes in decay rates. These are so deliberately misleading as to constitute lies. If you are basing anything on those you are being lied to.
(one is bound-state beta decay and the other involves changes in rate with temperature, if you think you know something about that you tell me what you conclude you are being told -- when you have done that I will show you liars in action. )

It sounds like you are leaning to being an old earth creationist then. Human history isn't too far off 6,000 years but our record of humans goes back considerable more. Certainly artifacts and art a few 10,000's. Should we start a topic to cover OEC and humans? It is off topic here.

I think you have that a bit wrong. We see things younger at greater distances. But that doesn't affect the time since the isotopes were formed there. It is how long since they formed up to when the light left them that affects the presence of shorter lived isotopes.If we could look back on earth in detail from a great distance then at greater and greater distances we would see more and more of shorter lived isotopes collected from the super novae that formed them.There would be not

To a fair degree this is exactly what is "said". There are however some things which are so very sure (for many, many reasons) that to keep saying "If dah dah dah" sounds pretty stupid.As soon as someone comes up with a reason to doubt these "ifs" then they would be inserted back into the discussion. We don't have to be there to "observe" thinks. Observing does not always involve being there. It means using a any number of ways of obtaining evidence about something. We do not, as a matter of fact, directly with our eyes "see" much of what we take as evidence anywhere.This "but were you there" sort of argument is really very, very silly. You may start a thread on the topic if you think you can defend it for a few hours. Lots of folks would love it if you would.You may want room for your beliefs and you have it. It is in your church. There is no room for your beliefs to be pandered too when they are, in a scientific sense, so astonishingly out of whack with what we actually observe.

No, in this case, with the balance of evidence totally on one side his view is much, much more likely to be wrong.

Both Admin AND the Queen have spoken. Time to get back to the supernova.

He's been asked and he has no idea at all. He's winging it and is in too deep.

It is one which serious theologians do not want to use. When it is really examined in ways you have not it paints a very bad picture.
God - a liar?

I don't understand even one bit of what you are saying.Does the first sentence say you are dropping your first idea or what?What is this other theory? Is it GR itself you are talking about? Don't tell me you think you understand GR.