Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.
 

Re: SN1987A and the apparent age concept - for Mat

Expand Messages
  • Todd S. Greene
    ... Hi, Mat. Yes, and see the link to message 406 of this forum http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Maury_and_Baty/message/406 in which Gene discussed the silliness
    Message 1 of 13 , Apr 24, 2003
      --- In Maury_and_Baty, Matthew Maury wrote (post #1033):
      > --- Todd wrote:
      >> If the universe was created only 10,000 years ago, then an
      >> explosion that is observed to have taken place 168,000 years
      >> ago cannot have taken place, so that the explosion energy
      >> (the light) that the Hubble Space Telescope picked up would
      >> then be nothing more than an illusion of something (a
      >> stellar explosion) that never happened (since we're talking
      >> about something that would have taken place 158,000 years
      >> before the universe even existed). This is the apparent age
      >> argument, and it's as simple as that.
      >
      > Todd is the one who keeps spreading his 'apparent age'
      > argument. Todd says that the event SN1987a which occurred in
      > 1987 is apparently over 168,000 years ago. SN1987a DID NOT
      > EXIST more than 20 years ago.
      >
      > See the link below to message 404 of this forum.
      >
      > http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Maury_and_Baty/message/404

      Hi, Mat.

      Yes, and see the link to message 406 of this forum

      http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Maury_and_Baty/message/406

      in which Gene discussed the silliness of your statements.

      Indeed, your statement on this is *so* silly, that I have no qualms
      about calling this one particular stupid. Yes, *stupid*.

      The Pioneer spacecraft is so far away (far outside the orbit of Pluto
      now) that it was taking many, many hours for us to receive a signal
      from the craft, one-way. (NASA could send a signal to the probe and
      get a response, and the turn-around time, at the speed of light, was
      many, many hours long.) Obviously, if the spaceship didn't exist
      before we received it's signal, then it never could have received the
      signal from NASA that it was supposed to respond to in the first
      place.

      I realize that time lapse involved in the propagation of
      electromagnetic waves over interstellar and intergalactic distances
      is a little bit confusing to beginners, but, sheesh, Mat, you just
      take the cake! Of course, what do you expect from someone who doesn't
      even know that the sun is another star.

      Regards,
      Todd S. Greene
      http://www.creationism.cc/
    • Todd S. Greene
      ... Hi, Melina. Yes, we have witnessed the actual event. The reason we are witnessing SN1987A 168,000 years after the star exploded is simply because it is so
      Message 2 of 13 , Apr 25, 2003
        On 4/23/03 Melina Mullins wrote:
        > In a message dated 4/23/03, Todd Greene writes:
        >> , on the other, know that we have witnessed the SN1987A stellar
        >> explosion - and we've witnessed it in *this* universe - so I
        >> just accept the fact that it happened. Astronomers observed the
        >> explosion, and they have even taken a lot of pictures of it. The
        >> explosion really happened, because we have observed that it
        >> happened. The desperation of YECs is that in order to adhere to
        >> their dearly held belief, they will even deny the reality of
        >> what we have directly observed to have taken place, and this is
        >> exactly what they are doing when they advocate the apparent age
        >> argument.
        >
        > Todd, since this event happened 168,000 years ago, was it
        > actually witnessed by scientists? What they are seeing are the
        > aftereffects of something that happened a long time ago, not the
        > actual event happening as it happened, so what you are saying is
        > inaccurate. Scientists are actually seeing "light" having
        > travelled 168,000 years. They have not and could never have seen
        > the actual event. They weren't alive.

        Hi, Melina.

        Yes, we have witnessed the actual event. The reason we are witnessing
        SN1987A 168,000 years after the star exploded is simply because it is
        so far away from the earth. (The explosion took place in another
        galaxy!)

        Let me give you another example: When you see - witness - the sun in
        the sky, at the moment that you look at it (well, okay, you're not
        actually going to gaze at the thing unless you're using some special
        lenses) you are actually seeing the sun the way it was about 8
        minutes ago. This is because the sun is approximately 93 million
        miles away, and so it takes the light from the sun about 8 minutes to
        reach the earth.

        Here's another example: NASA's last contact with the Pioneer 10 space
        probe on January 22, 2003, was when the probe was over 7 billion
        miles from the earth. At that distance, when we received a signal
        from the probe this was a signal that it had actually sent more than
        *11 hours* before we received. This is because, even at the speed of
        light, it takes longer than 11 hours to travel over 7 billion miles.
        When we received a signal from Pioneer 10, we were witnessing the
        information that that probe had sent to us more than 11 hours *in the
        past*.

        "The Pioneers Are Way Out There After 30 Years"
        (Space Today Online,
        http://www.spacetoday.org/SolSys/ThePioneers.html

        This is the *nature* of astronomical observations, that young earth
        creationists just refuse to understand and accept: When astronomers
        *observe* or *witness* events that have taken place in the universe,
        they are *witnessing the past*. When we observe events that have
        taken place in the Large Magellanic Cloud galaxy (this is the galaxy
        that SN1987A was in) we are witnessing events that took place over
        150,000 years ago.

        > Todd writes:
        >> If the universe was created only 10,000 years ago, then an
        >> explosion that is observed to have taken place 168,000 years ago
        >> cannot have taken place, so that the explosion energy (the
        >> light) that the Hubble Space Telescope picked up would then be
        >> nothing more than an illusion of something (a stellar explosion)
        >> that never happened (since we're talking about something that
        >> would have taken place 158,000 years before the universe even
        >> existed). This is the apparent age argument, and it's as simple
        >> as that.
        >
        > It's NOT an illusion. It's something that could have orginated in
        > another DIMENSION and was put into our universe, obeying OUR
        > laws. It could have happened and is NOT an illusion.

        If the explosion had taken place in another dimension, either we
        would not be able to observe it at all, or we would *observe* that it
        took place in another dimension. What we *observe* is that it took
        place in *this* dimension, in *this* universe. This is what we
        *observe*. What you need to understand is that what we *observe*
        contradicts your unsubstantiated speculations. (And what I have
        pointed out to you already is that in addition to this, your
        speculations cannot be found in the Bible.)

        > Todd writes:
        >> Are you saying that God developed a universe over billions of
        >> years, and then about 10,000 years ago "transposed" that
        >> billions of years old universe onto a new universe (and, of
        >> course, He made absolutely sure than no one would ever be able
        >> to observe any evidence of any such "transposition").
        >
        > Yes, God can do ALL things if HE do desires and they are for HIS
        > purposes which we either cannot understand or HE doesn't ever
        > want us to understand. Why does He NEED to give us observable
        > evidence of anything? It's His choice to reveal what he wants to
        > reveal to us, and when, if ever.

        God doesn't have to "give us observable evidence of anything." You
        are completely missing the point. I'm not discussing what God could
        or could not have done. I've been explaining to you what the
        observable evidence *really is*, not what it might or might not have
        been according to some abstract model. I'm not making this stuff up.
        I've already given you these online references, and I'm going to keep
        citing them. I'm talking about the real world, not idle speculation:

        -------------------------------------------------------------------

        SN1987A and the Antiquity of the Universe
        http://www.creationism.cc/ancientproof/SN1987A.html

        NASA's Hubble Space Telescope Establishes Accurate New Distance
        Measurement To Neighboring Galaxy
        http://hubblesite.org/newscenter/archive/1991/03/image/a

        Supernova Blast Begins Taking Shape
        http://hubblesite.org/newscenter/archive/1997/03/image/a

        SN1987A in the Large Magellanic Cloud
        http://hubblesite.org/newscenter/archive/1999/04/
        http://hubblesite.org/newscenter/archive/1999/04/image/a

        Onset of Titanic Collision Lights Up Supernova Ring
        http://hubblesite.org/newscenter/archive/2000/11/image/a

        Supernova 1987A
        by Dr. Richard McCray (astronomer)
        http://cosmos.colorado.edu/astr1120/l6S6.htm

        V838 Monocerotis
        http://hubblesite.org/newscenter/archive/2003/10/image/a

        -------------------------------------------------------------------

        > Todd writes:
        >> Gen. 1:2 states that
        >> the earth was "formless and void." Gen. 1:9 has God making dry
        >> land on day 3. Gen. 1:11 says that the first life, plants, came
        >> about on day 3. Sea creatures aren't created until day 5 (Gen.
        >> 1:20). If this was all just several thousand years ago, this
        >> does not in any way account for the impact craters, the volcano
        >> necks, the trilobite fossils, or the frozen mammoth flesh.
        >
        > So you are saying that God had to do everything on the first day?
        > Says who? He couldn't have transposed ancient land structures,
        > fossils, etc on day 3 when he created dry land? He couldn't have
        > transposed animal forms on day 4? Of course He can. He's GOD.

        The fact is that there is nothing whatsoever about anything
        called "transposition" (whatever that is supposed to be). This
        transposition stuff you're making up is not found anywhere in the
        Bible, and there is no observable evidence (science) of what you're
        talking about. No Bible, no science. This "transposition" is idle
        human speculation.

        > Todd, I am very sorry that you abandoned a book as rich and
        > complex and so filled with meaning and metaphor as the bible, for
        > the study of things and the concepts and understanding of mere
        > man. :( Not to mention abandoning your chance at salvation, which
        > to me, is truly tragic. :((
        >
        > In Christ, melina

        Melina, in my life I've had people who made these same kind of
        comments to me in regard to the Book of Mormon, the Quran, and the
        Hindu scriptures. Now, the Book of Mormon I just consider to be an
        outright fraud. But with regard to the Quran and Hindu scriptures we
        can say exactly the same thing: "rich and complex and so filled with
        meaning and metaphor." So what? We could say the same thing about
        *Paradise Lost* by John Milton.

        The whole point of my skepticism concerning the Bible has absolutely
        nothing to do with any kind of lack of appreciation for biblical
        literature. (Indeed, I was only at Abilene Christian University for a
        year, but my declared major at ACU was Biblical Studies. I took two
        semesters of New Testament Greek, and I *very much* enjoyed my two
        semesters of Old Testament Survey with Old Testament scholar John T.
        Willis.) The *point* is that I don't see any good reason for saying
        that this book really came from *the God of the universe* rather than
        just from human beings. We know that human beings wrote it, down to
        it even showing the different styles and vocabularies of the authors
        in addition to the specific statements where writers tell us they
        wrote it. We know that human beings, through the politics of
        religious tradition, compiled the documents they wanted as part of
        the "collection."

        The *claim* that some of these writers make is to be speaking for God
        Himself, and I'm sorry but when a human being makes that kind of
        claim we have every right, even duty, to be skeptical about any such
        claims. The Bible is from man, not God, and that's why I'm not a
        Christian. This does not mean I don't appreciate the biblical
        literature for what it is. It just means that I don't worship
        something written by men just because they claim that they were moved
        by God to do what they've done and write what they wrote. *Religious
        tradition* is irrelevant to me. Religious tradition is simply not a
        part of my rational basis for analyzing the legitimacy of our mental
        beliefs with respect to what is and is not an aspect of the real
        world.

        Do you worship Vishnu, Shiva, and Brahma? No? Then isn't this truly
        tragic that you've doomed yourself to the cycle of a hellish
        afterlife?

        Regards,
        Todd S. Greene
        http://www.creationism.cc/
      • rlbaty50
        Todd, I appreciate you posting your responses to Melina here, but I don t think you ve commented on why that should be the case. What is the story behind the
        Message 3 of 13 , Apr 25, 2003
          Todd,

          I appreciate you posting your responses to Melina here, but I don't
          think you've commented on why that should be the case.

          What is the story behind the observable fact that you do not appear
          to be posting any longer to the GospelAdvocatingForum?

          Just thought it might be good to get that into the record.

          Sincerely,
          Robert Baty
        • Todd S. Greene
          ... Hi, Robert. Melina herself simply chose to send her next response directly to me by email rather than respond on the GAF list. Here s all she wrote about
          Message 4 of 13 , Apr 25, 2003
            --- In Maury_and_Baty, Robert Baty wrote (post #1060):
            > Todd,
            >
            > I appreciate you posting your responses to Melina here, but I
            > don't think you've commented on why that should be the case.
            >
            > What is the story behind the observable fact that you do not
            > appear to be posting any longer to the GospelAdvocatingForum?
            >
            > Just thought it might be good to get that into the record.

            Hi, Robert.

            Melina herself simply chose to send her next response directly to me
            by email rather than respond on the GAF list. Here's all she wrote
            about this: "I thought it might be best to continue this conversation
            off-list." With both of my responses I have told her that my
            responses are here in the "Maury_and_Baty" discussion forum.

            By the way, on another GAF matter, you might be interested in knowing
            that Rea has told me that he's checking out the "creationism" list
            and this list to see which one he might want to discuss the subject
            of atheism on.

            Regards,
            Todd Greene
          • Todd S. Greene
            [Melina started questioning my ethics and honor - her words - for quoting the statements of hers that I was responding to on the discussion of this topic,
            Message 5 of 13 , Apr 26, 2003
              [Melina started questioning my ethics and honor - her words - for
              quoting the statements of hers that I was responding to on the
              discussion of this topic, which is why I too use this phrase in my
              quoted statement below. - Todd]

              On 4/26/03 Melina Mullins wrote:
              [snip]
              > Todd writes:
              >> If *you* really have any genuine interest in ethics or honor,
              >> you will stop pushing the misrepresentative comments you were
              >> making about science before we discussed this subject.
              >
              > ONCE AGAIN, I am NOT representing science, but I am representing
              > CHRISTIANITY. Not once did I misrepesent science... I have told
              > TRUTHS about it, that's all I have said about science, in
              > general... ie. that science is fallible, limited, etc. That's all
              > I said about science.
              >
              > Everything else I have said pertains to Christianity's view of
              > life and matter and existence.

              Hi, Melina.

              You certainly are NOT representing Christianity.
              Melina, you aren't even representing the Church Of
              Christ, because I happen to be familiar with a number
              of people in the COC who flatly disagree with you.
              There are many, many, many Christians who think you
              are completely wrong on this issue, Christians who
              accept the fact that the world has been in existence a
              lot longer than just 6,000 or 10,000 years. I already
              know that as a young earth creationist you represent
              the perspective of young earth creationism, and those
              Christians who also happen to be YECs, but this is by
              no means all Christians.

              And in regard to science you have certainly tried to
              pretend that the antiquity of the universe is nothing
              more than tentative scientific conjecture. This is
              wrong, it is false, and so when you pretend that that
              is the case you *are* misrepresenting science. I have
              already explained to you how the antiquity of the
              universe is a matter of direct observation and not
              just a matter of conjecture. Now that I have pointed
              out this relevant information to you personally so
              that you are now personally aware of the wrongness of
              that claim, each and every time that you repeat that
              claim from this day forward will be an instance of you
              spitting in the face of truth. I have told you that
              the truth of the matter is the important thing here,
              and I ask you to keep this in mind. You want to talk
              about honesty, well that's an example right there.
              When you've been shown the relevant information that
              shows that what you are saying is wrong, you correct
              your erroneous claims - if you are honest. If you are
              dishonest, you don't.

              Regards,
              Todd S. Greene
              http://www.creationism.cc/
            Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.