Re: SN1987A and the apparent age concept - for Mat
- --- In Maury_and_Baty, Matthew Maury wrote (post #1033):
> --- Todd wrote:Hi, Mat.
>> 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.
Yes, and see the link to message 406 of this forum
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
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.
Todd S. Greene
- On 4/23/03 Melina Mullins wrote:
> In a message dated 4/23/03, Todd Greene writes:Hi, Melina.
>> , 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
> 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.
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
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
"The Pioneers Are Way Out There After 30 Years"
(Space Today Online,
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 explosion had taken place in another dimension, either we
>> 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.
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:God doesn't have to "give us observable evidence of anything." You
>> 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.
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
NASA's Hubble Space Telescope Establishes Accurate New Distance
Measurement To Neighboring Galaxy
Supernova Blast Begins Taking Shape
SN1987A in the Large Magellanic Cloud
Onset of Titanic Collision Lights Up Supernova Ring
by Dr. Richard McCray (astronomer)
> Todd writes:The fact is that there is nothing whatsoever about anything
>> 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.
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
> Todd, I am very sorry that you abandoned a book as rich andMelina, in my life I've had people who made these same kind of
> 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
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 *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
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
Todd S. Greene
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.
- --- In Maury_and_Baty, Robert Baty wrote (post #1060):
> Todd,Hi, Robert.
> 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.
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.
- [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:
> 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.
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.
Todd S. Greene