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

Re: The empirical fact of antiquity - for Michael

Expand Messages
  • Todd S. Greene
    ... Hi, Michael. No problem. ... Then what do you hold? You certainly wouldn t be the first young earth creationist why ends up getting real shy when met by a
    Message 1 of 18 , Jun 1, 2003
    • 0 Attachment
      --- In Maury_and_Baty, Michael <dokimadzo@c...> wrote (post #1276):
      > Hello Todd,
      >
      > I am catching up on the messages so please be patient with me. I
      > work long hours and do not have a great deal of time to keep up
      > on a daily basis.

      Hi, Michael.

      No problem.

      >
      >> Analogy: Let's say you and I have a dispute concerning the
      >> length of a particular road that we both know about. Here's the
      >> nature of the dispute: You claim that the road stretches only
      >> about 6,000 feet long (a little over a mile). I say, "Well, I'm
      >> not sure just how long the road is, but I'm quite certain that
      >> the road is considerably longer than a mile...
      >
      > Your analogy is a good one if it actually described the situation
      > between us. I do not hold to a claim that the earth is 6-10K
      > years old.

      Then what do you hold? You certainly wouldn't be the first young
      earth creationist why ends up getting real shy when met by a critic
      of young earth creationist ideas who happens to know a little about
      what he's talking about.

      Besides, this, with respect to YEC itself and your argument that the
      YEC model is just as "okay" as the antiquity model, my analogy is a
      great one. It describes the situation perfectly, and gives a picture
      of just how silly the YEC position really is.

      > David, in the Bereanlikespirit club, however, made a bold
      > statement that there exists factual evidence that the earth is
      > 4.6 billion years old. It appears that you do not hold this
      > position as factual (I suppose you can tell me if you do or not).

      I agree that there exists factual evidence that the earth is
      approximately 4.6 billion years. I come down on the "approximately"
      side of the fence. If it happened to be the case that the earth was
      really 3.8 billion years old or 5.3 billion years old, I couldn't
      care less. What I've been pointing out to you is that estimations of
      the actual age of the earth are totally irrelevant with respect to
      whether or not the YEC position is a false idea about the world. Why?
      As I have already pointed out to you WE DO NOT NEED TO KNOW ANYTHING
      AT ALL about how old the earth actually is. ALL WE NEED TO KNOW FOR
      SURE is whether or not the earth has been in existence substantially
      longer than 10,000 years, and this we do know. YEC is a false idea
      about the real world, so when people like you start arguing that YEC
      is a good scientific model (or, say, at least as good as the
      antiquity model), then I will discuss why your argument is flatly
      wrong.

      >
      > Now, you do go on to say in your analogy you are quite certain
      > there is no evidence that suggests the earth is less than 10,000
      > years old. How high of a figure would you consider? Would you
      > suggest that this same evidence also indicates that the earth is
      > older than 50K years? 100K years? What is the threshold of your
      > certainty? Is it one billion, or 2, or 3?

      I know that the earth, and the universe, has been around for AT LEAST
      millions of years. That is all I need to know personally in order to
      declare quite openly and publically that young earth creationism is a
      position that is falsified by the empirical facts.

      The difference between the knowing this about the earth, and about
      the universe, has to do with the nature of the area of scientific
      investigation. With geology you have to deal with piecing together a
      lot of detailed information about the past. This is different from
      astronomy, because in the case of astronomy, yes you still have to
      piece a lot of detailed information together, but with astronomical
      observation we literally OBSERVE for ourselves firsthand the distant
      past that YECs claim doesn't exist.

      >
      > Since you state that you are quite certain then I presume that
      > you can quite certainly give a ball-park figure with regard to
      > the age of the earth.

      Golly, Michael, why do you keep ignoring what I've pointed out to you
      so clearly and even helped you to understand with the road analogy.
      WE DON'T NEED TO KNOW ANYTHING AT ALL ABOUT HOW OLD THE EARTH
      ACTUALLY IS. With respect to knowing whether or not YEC is a false
      idea about the real world, all we need to know for certain is that
      the earth, and the universe, have been in existence substantially
      longer than 10,000, and we do know this for certain. In the case of
      the universe, we know this by direct observation.

      >
      > You also said:
      >> With the particular example of the supernova SN1987A
      >> that I have explained to you...
      >
      > Sorry, I have not gotten a chance to read this from the other
      > club. I will get to it this weekend or early next week and post
      > my remarks to this then.

      Sure you did. In the Bereanlikespirit group you replied to at least
      one of my posts in which I explicitly stated the SN1987A example for
      you and provided you with online references. I resposted this post to
      this group: repost #1:

      http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Maury_and_Baty/message/1254

      Why are you ignoring what I stated in this post?

      >
      >> Yet this is precisely the argument that you've been making with
      >> respect to the antiquity of the universe...
      >
      > The antiquity of the earth is what is under discussion, and, no,
      > this is not really the argument that I have been making.

      You have argued that the YEC "model" is just as good as the
      antiquity "model". I know that your argument is wrong, and I have
      explained to you why it is wrong.

      > The argument is
      > not that your odometer reads 32 miles, but is whether the odometer
      > you are using is accurate. See?

      Actually, your argument has been much stronger than that. You have
      argued that there is no odometer. Any odometer that cannot
      distinguish the difference between 1 mile and 32 miles - and 1,000
      miles - is completely useless.

      I have simply pointed out that the odometer (actually, there are many
      different odometers) is quite good enough to know that we have
      traveled much, much farther than 1 mile. It is you who are disputing
      this. Even while you completely ignore the clear and specific SN1987A
      example that I have pointed out to you that proves that your argument
      is wrong.

      >
      > I am quite certain that the radiometric dating methods used
      > produce the results you rely upon, but whether those results are
      > factual is what I question.

      I haven't been talking about radiometric dating methods. I don't need
      to know a thing about radiometric dating to know that young earth
      creationism is false. The geologists of 200 years ago didn't need to
      know anything about radiometric dating methods either.

      Thousands of feet of solid rock don't erode in 10,000 years - and,
      no, not even in a global flood that lasts for a year. The YEC notion
      is absurd in geology, which is why it hasn't been taken seriously in
      geological science for about 200 hundred years.

      > In your analogy
      > you have as your evidence something that can be actually
      > measured. You then equate this with your evidence and its
      > measurements. Ok, let's discuss, one at a time, the measurements
      > you are using-let's see your odometer readings! I bet I can roll
      > them back for you.

      I already did, Michael, but you've keep ignoring it:

      http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Maury_and_Baty/message/1254

      The case of supernova SN1987A is the explosion of a star that took
      place 168,000 years ago. Since in the case of SN1987A we know that
      the universe has been in existence for at least 168,000 years, we
      know that the YEC "model" is a false idea about the real world.

      Regards,
      Todd S. Greene
      http://www.creationism.cc/
    • Todd S. Greene
      ... [Todd wrote:] ... Hi, Michael. I just re-checked the several online references I provided to you and every single one works fine. ... False statement,
      Message 2 of 18 , Jun 2, 2003
      • 0 Attachment
        --- In Maury_and_Baty, Michael wrote (post #1286):
        [Todd wrote:]
        >> I pointed out how it was positive since I make quite definite
        >> positive claims concerning the universe being in existence
        >> substantially before ten thousand years ago (and then I back up
        >> my claims).
        >
        > Some of the links in the supernova 1987A did not go anywhere, and,
        > therefore, I was not able to review the entirety of your position.

        Hi, Michael.

        I just re-checked the several online references I provided to you and
        every single one works fine.

        >
        > Here are some assumptions in your calculations:
        >
        > 1. That light always travels in a straight line from any stellar
        > object to earth. This has to do with your base and radius in your
        > formula.

        False statement, Michael. This is not an assumption. It is what is
        observed. Since it is what is observed to be the case it is not
        something that is assumed. That's a big whoops for you! Indeed, one
        of the links I gave you is an example of where some of the light from
        the supernova did NOT travel in a straight line but had its path
        deflected by intervening sheets of dust in the Large Magellanic Cloud.

        > 2. That you have actually measured the speed of light and have a
        > factual measurement of how fast light goes. You don't.

        False statement, Michael.

        > 3. As you stated in your illustration here in your illustration
        > of how to measure something without actually measuring it you
        > stated, "if you know the actual height of your house, and from
        > your position at a distance from the house you can measure the
        > angle between the line from your eye to the bottom of your house
        > and the line from your eye to the top of your house, then using a
        > simple trigonometric equation you can simply calculate the
        > distance to your house without actually measuring it off with a
        > tape ruler." You must first know the height of your house. You do
        > not know the height of SN1987A or the rings. These are
        > mathematical hypotheses.

        False statement, Michael. We do know the distance from SN1987A to the
        primary gas ring. It is not assumed, because it is a matter of
        observation.

        > 4. When you rotate the supernova and the ring, your rotation
        > provides the correct dimensions between all parts of the ring and
        > the supernova. You must rotate the object in order obtain the
        > geometric shape your trig formula will be able to work. Your
        > rotation of the object is based upon assumptions on its size,
        > therefore when you rotate it so you can work your formula, a
        > fact based calculation cannot be produced.

        False statement, Michael. I don't think you actually know what you're
        talking about. As I explained on my own web page, the ring is not
        perpendicular to the earth. What is relevant is the two equidistant
        midpoints of the ring and their distance from SN1987A. The math for
        all of this is carefully explained in Dr. Richard McCray's homework
        problem page which I provided the link for.

        >
        > Therefore since the height, as quoted from your link, "The
        > 'height' [radius] of the primary gas ring around SN1987A is based
        > on the observed time it took for the energy from the explosion to
        > hit the ring [travelling at the speed of light], which was 0.658
        > years [i.e., almost two-thirds of a year].," is based upon the
        > measurement of the speed of light, and the use of the angular
        > size formula which must plug in values that you are assuming are
        > valid.

        False statement, Michael. I'm not assuming the values. The values are
        a matter of observation. When something is observed to the case it is
        wrong to say it is assumed. This is why people like you get into such
        trouble with your rhetoric, because your rhetoric is simply false.

        > Then you get a result and say it is fact. See? If your formula is
        > based upon mathematical hypotheses, and not real numbers, then how
        > can the result be deemed absolute?

        The numbers are real, because they are what is observed. You think
        they were just made up, and you are wrong.

        >
        > So, my question would have to be: How do you know how big the
        > object you are looking at really is?

        It is observed.

        > By the amount of light it gives off?

        No.

        > No, can't do that. Just by angular size? Not unless you know the
        > radius of the object. You admitted this.

        Yes, exactly. The angular size is observed and measured. The radius
        of the object is determined by measurement of the time between the
        stellar explosion and when the energy from the explosion reached the
        ring that surrounded the star.

        >
        > Now, the only thing you do have in the form of measurement is the
        > time it took for the energy to travel from the "explosion" (an
        > assumption - it just started to produce a brighter source of
        > light)

        You really don't know what you're talking about, do you? That's what
        happens when a star explodes. The light energy coming from that star
        increases millions of times to what it was previously. This occurs
        very quickly. And then this level of light energy gradually decreases
        over a period of months. This is called the light curve. And then you
        can't see the star any longer. Eventually, the star can (if it's
        close enough to the earth) be detected again as a pulsar.

        Anyway, if you want to pretend that the star didn't really explode
        (even though we observed it to exploded), then you've automatically
        removed yourself from rational discussion. Thanks!

        > of a stellar object until it illuminated a surrounding stellar
        > cloud. A model was then created and some mathematical
        > calculations made about that model. There were a lot of
        > assumptions that went into this 3-D model and I think you know
        > it.

        If you could actually identify one of these assumptions, rather than
        incorrectly referring to observations as assumptions, then you might
        have something more than empty rhetoric.

        If you call a tail a leg, then how many legs does a dog have?

        Answer: Four.

        Calling a tail a leg doesn't make it a leg.

        Regards,
        Todd S. Greene
        http://www.creationism.cc/
      • Todd S. Greene
        ... Hi, Michael. Well, golly, do you have a habit of stating things that you don t mean? Here is what you wrote: From:
        Message 3 of 18 , Jun 2, 2003
        • 0 Attachment
          --- In Maury_and_Baty, Michael <dokimadzo@c...> wrote (post #1288):
          > Mr. Greene,
          >
          > You said, "Take another look at my post, and you will see that
          > what I stated and what Michael represents me to have stated are
          > two very different things. Perhaps he just didn't read what I
          > stated very carefully. I would suggest he try again."
          >
          > I did not read that post when I posted my remarks and I was not
          > responding to it. Therefore, your accusation is baseless.

          Hi, Michael.

          Well, golly, do you have a habit of stating things that you don't
          mean? Here is what you wrote:

          From: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Bereanlikespirit/message/446

          || To say that the old earth concept is factual and not theory
          || (i.e., a model), as stated by Mr. Greene, is astonishing. To
          || say that the dating of the earth is an exact science that can be
          || proven to be of one age or another; one range of years over
          || another; or is factual is preposterous.

          You say right there, "as stated by Mr. Greene." So if you did not
          even read my post which was directed specifically to you, then why
          would you pretend to be responding to my post ("as stated by Mr.
          Greene") if you haven't even read what I have stated? If you weren't
          responding to what I stated, then why did you say you were responding
          to what I stated?

          You are one confusing guy, Michael.

          Regards,
          Todd S. Greene
          http://www.creationism.cc/
        • Michael
          Hello Todd, [I just re-checked the several online references I provided to you and every single one works fine.] Most of them did, but this one didn t: New
          Message 4 of 18 , Jun 2, 2003
          • 0 Attachment
            Hello Todd,

            [I just re-checked the several online references I provided to you and
            every single one works fine.]

            Most of them did, but this one didn't: New Distance Determination to the
            LMC

            I can't remember them all. If I find the others I will let you know.

            I said:

            ["1. That light always travels in a straight line from any stellar object to
            earth. This has to do with your base and radius in your formula."]

            Your reply:

            [False statement, Michael. This is not an assumption. It is what is
            observed. Since it is what is observed to be the case it is not
            something that is assumed. That's a big whoops for you! Indeed, one
            of the links I gave you is an example of where some of the light from
            the supernova did NOT travel in a straight line but had its path
            deflected by intervening sheets of dust in the Large Magellanic Cloud.]

            Answer: You say it is a false statement then to prove this you said you
            provided links where some light did not travel in a straight line. Care to
            explain? Does light always, you say is observed, travel in straight lines;
            or, is it also as you said that "some of the light from the supernova did
            NOT travel in a straight line? Whoops!

            Fact one: Light does not ALWAYS travel in straight lines. To this you even
            admitted by saying "some of the light" ... "did NOT travel in a straight
            line." Ever shown a light through a prism? Ever looked in a mirror? Can
            light rays "bend?" Or, is it observed that light can bend, refract, be
            reflected?

            Fact two: You, and no one else, "observed the entire journey" the light
            from SN1987A from there to earth. Can we now see this? No.

            I will have much more to say on this in the future with regard to the
            assumptions on c and the linear travel of light.

            [2. That you have actually measured the speed of light and have a factual
            measurement of how fast light goes. You don't."]

            Your reply: [False statement, Michael.]

            I agree, especially the way I stated it. Sorry to confuse the issue. I
            truly must slow down.

            The point should have been worded thus: "That you have actually measured
            the speed of light for SN1987A and have its factual measurement of how fast
            its light traveled to earth. You don't have such measurements."

            Since I did render such a false statement I will not expound upon this until
            you have had time to review it.

            I said: [You do not know the height of SN1987A or the rings. These are
            mathematical hypotheses.]

            Your reply: [False statement, Michael. We do know the distance from SN1987A
            to the primary gas ring. It is not assumed, because it is a matter of
            observation.]

            No, what has been observed is how long it took light, using your formulas
            and what you call constants, to travel from SN1987A to the cloud some 168K
            years ago. I agree that this is very compelling that it did not take that
            long and we actually observed this. It gives a reasonable basis upon which
            to construct the distance between the cloud and the supernova, but the way
            astronomers go about this today cannot be construed as "facts."

            Here is your assumptions: That c is constant (I know I am in the minority
            for thinking that c is not constant--more to come on this). That light
            travels through all the regions of space without deflection and does so as
            it does within a vacuum. It is the assumption that the speed of light
            travels as in a vacuum through interstellar space because it is assumed that
            the density of matter between stars is relatively low. Observation cannot
            establish this as fact. You don't know if there is matter that you cannot
            see that has an effect on the speed of light just like glass has an effect
            on the speed of light.

            I commented on your model and math ever so briefly. Your reply was that you
            do not think I know what I am talking about. Maybe I don't.

            In challenging the height or radius of your equation you replied:

            [False statement, Michael. I'm not assuming the values. The values are a
            matter of observation. When something is observed to the case it is wrong to
            say it is assumed. This is why people like you get into such trouble with
            your rhetoric, because your rhetoric is simply false.]

            Fact one: Your formula ignores that c might be slowing down over time.
            Fact two: Light travels through glass slower than through air.
            Fact three: Since light travels slower in glass than in air, this proves,
            by observation, that matter can affect the speed of light
            Fact four: You use the figure for the speed of light as it travels in a
            vacuum and ignore any and all matter between the "Large Magellanic Cloud"
            and Sn1987A.
            I may have more to say about this later. Not just rhetoric.

            So, yes, your radius has many assumptions built into it, and, therefore, it
            makes the radius itself an assumption--not fact.

            I will, however, agree that the calculations and the radius is ballpark, but
            not actual.

            I said: [Then you get a result and say it is fact. See? If your formula is
            based upon mathematical hypotheses, and not real numbers, then how can the
            result be deemed absolute?]

            You replied: [The numbers are real, because they are what is observed.]

            No, what was observed was not a measurement of distance, but how long the
            SN1987A energy (light) took to get from SN1987A to the cloud. Then you plug
            in numbers ignoring that light could have been affected by matter between
            points "a" and "b" which could have altered its speed. You also ignore the
            very sound scientific data suggesting that c is not constant and may be
            slowing down. This would make the radius much smaller and the distance much
            closer, and the date much younger. See?

            I am assuming that you know of the data suggesting that c is not constant.
            There are forums, articles, papers, etc. That is why I am not providing the
            links.

            You said: [You think they were just made up, and you are wrong].

            No, I don't think they were made up. I think you are leaving to many
            variables out that skew your calculations. To say that things are not
            assumed or ignored is ridiculous to say. If variables are left out and
            ignored then your data has the great potential for being wrong. Further, if
            data is ignored and assumptions remain in the calculations, then its results
            pushed off as "fact"; then, yes, people like me are not going to blindly
            accept them.

            Or, do you deny the facts that I brought out? Does light traveling through
            glass move at a different speed than through air? Does this not show that
            matter can have an effect on the speed of light? Does your calculations use
            the speed of light as it is in a vacuum? Does this not ignore the presence
            of matter between stellar objects? There is another fact it ignores which
            we will talk about later.

            Then, to my stating that SN1987A was an explosion and this was an
            assumption, you replied:

            [You really don't know what you're talking about, do you? That's what
            happens when a star explodes.]

            The fact is that you do not know that this is really what happened, i.e.,
            that this star exploded. All that is actually observed is that the star is
            now giving off more energy and is producing more light. Are you saying that
            the ONLY way, and the ONLY process, by which a star can produce more energy
            is by an explosion? That is the only reason? I would agree that this is
            the most probable with what we know, but we have not touched the hem of the
            garment when it comes to understanding the inner workings of our own star,
            let alone others we view through a perceptually limited manner.

            Did the star "explode?" That is the probable reason. This is only brought
            out to show that your mind is closed to discovery. You don't know for a
            fact that this star exploded even though it is most probable that it did.
            If there is a smoking gun of evidence that the star actually did explode
            then I am sure you will bring this to bare.

            I will give you some examples. I am on a mountain looking over a valley and
            I see bright flash of light. Do I automatically assume that something just
            blew up? I then see that it illuminated soem surrounding objects. Do I
            assume something exploded now?

            If you have never seen a match before and one strikes one in front of you.
            The match burns very big and bright at first and then settles down. Did
            that match just explode? It was bright, produced a lot of energy, but the
            match did not explode.

            [If you could actually identify one of these assumptions, rather than
            incorrectly referring to observations as assumptions, then you might have
            something more than empty rhetoric.]

            Hopefully I have identified them enough for you.

            V/r

            Michael


            [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
          • Michael
            [You say right there, as stated by Mr. Greene. So if you did not even read my post which was directed specifically to you, then why would you pretend to be
            Message 5 of 18 , Jun 2, 2003
            • 0 Attachment
              [You say right there, "as stated by Mr. Greene." So if you did not
              even read my post which was directed specifically to you, then why
              would you pretend to be responding to my post ("as stated by Mr.
              Greene") if you haven't even read what I have stated? If you weren't
              responding to what I stated, then why did you say you were responding
              to what I stated?

              You are one confusing guy, Michael.]

              You had more posts than the post you were referring to that I did read.
              But, in your accusation you made specific reference to that one post, put a
              link to it, and thought the above statement was in direct reference to THAT
              post you put a LINK to. Did you only say that oec was factual only in that
              one post? That was the only one, right? The very idea. Then to think that
              this one post you put a link to must have been THE ONE. You are funny.

              I had gathered my deduction not from the post you put your link to, and, as
              I stated, had yet to read that one. I had read others, though, which you
              did affirm this. How is that so confusing? Keep trying.

              V/r

              Michael
            • Todd S. Greene
              ... Hi, Michael. Got it. That is a secondary reference and not a link that was in the post I made. You should note that before what was stated in that
              Message 6 of 18 , Jun 6, 2003
              • 0 Attachment
                --- In Maury_and_Baty, Michael <dokimadzo@c...> wrote (post #1342):
                > Hello Todd,
                >
                >> I just re-checked the several online references I provided to
                >> you and every single one works fine.
                >
                > Most of them did, but this one didn't: New Distance Determination
                > to the LMC

                Hi, Michael.

                Got it. That is a secondary reference and not a link that was in the
                post I made. You should note that before what was stated in that
                reference went offline, I copied the whole thing and added it to my
                web page. What that article stated is copied at the bottom of my web
                page, so you can still see what the astronomer wrote in that article.

                >
                > I can't remember them all. If I find the others I will let you
                > know.

                Please do. I've had to follow some of those links through two
                different website changes, but as far I know every link in my post is
                current.

                >
                > I said:
                >
                > "1. That light always travels in a straight line from any stellar
                > object to earth. This has to do with your base and radius in your
                > formula."
                >
                > Your reply:
                >
                >> False statement, Michael. This is not an assumption. It is what
                >> is observed. Since it is what is observed to be the case it is
                >> not something that is assumed. That's a big whoops for you!
                >> Indeed, one of the links I gave you is an example of where some
                >> of the light from the supernova did NOT travel in a straight
                >> line but had its path deflected by intervening sheets of dust in
                >> the Large Magellanic Cloud.
                >
                > Answer: You say it is a false statement then to prove this you
                > said you provided links where some light did not travel in a
                > straight line. Care to explain? Does light always, you say is
                > observed, travel in straight lines; or, is it also as you said
                > that "some of the light from the supernova did NOT travel in a
                > straight line? Whoops!

                My point was simply that though light does travel pretty much in a
                straight line, it can travel in other than a straight line due to
                various reasons and when it does this is observed. My point to you
                was that astronomers observe BOTH. They observed the light that
                traveled from SN1987A to Earth, they observed the light that traveled
                from SN1987A to the primary gas ring (and also to the secondary gas
                rings) and then was deflected from this ring to the Earth, and they
                also happened to observed some of the light that traveled at certain
                angles away from the straight line to Earth but was then deflected
                toward earth by intervening dust sheets that lie in the Large
                Magellanic Cloud galaxy.

                >
                > Fact one: Light does not ALWAYS travel in straight lines. To this
                > you even admitted by saying "some of the light" ... "did NOT
                > travel in a straight line." Ever shown a light through a prism?
                > Ever looked in a mirror? Can light rays "bend?" Or, is it
                > observed that light can bend, refract, be reflected?

                The problem with your discussion is that you seem to possess the
                mistaken notion that this somehow constitutes some kind of critical
                problem for the observations of SN1987A. Contrary to your incorrect
                notion, the fact that the path of light can change is *critical* to
                the observations. If the path of the light didn't change, then we
                would never have had the wonderful observations of SN1987A that
                allowed for such relatively precise determinations of its distance in
                the first place.

                >
                > Fact two: You, and no one else, "observed the entire journey" the
                > light from SN1987A from there to earth. Can we now see this? No.
                >
                > I will have much more to say on this in the future with regard to
                > the assumptions on c and the linear travel of light.

                What are you talking about? The light traveled from SN1987A to the
                earth, and it happens to have done so from different angles *because
                of* the deflections (such as from the primary gas ring, and the dust
                sheets).

                You are correct that astronomers cannot observe small-scale types of
                things. For example, if there just so happened to be an isolated
                planet (not orbiting a star) in the Large Magellanic Cloud in the
                path between SN1987A and Earth (all 168,000 light-years of it!),
                astronomers couldn't detect such a thing since the resolution isn't
                anywhere near that degree of precision. Of course, such a thing
                wouldn't alter what we have observed regarding the distance of the
                star.

                >
                >>> 2. That you have actually measured the speed of light and have
                >>> a factual measurement of how fast light goes. You don't."
                >
                > Your reply: "False statement, Michael."
                >
                > I agree, especially the way I stated it. Sorry to confuse the
                > issue. I truly must slow down.
                >
                > The point should have been worded thus: "That you have actually
                > measured the speed of light for SN1987A and have its factual
                > measurement of how fast its light traveled to earth. You don't
                > have such measurements."
                >
                > Since I did render such a false statement I will not expound upon
                > this until you have had time to review it.

                We do have measurements relevant to the speed of the light from
                SN1987A. These have to do with the measured rate of decay of the
                radioactive elements produced by the supernova explosion (the so-
                called "light curve") and with measurements of spectral lines used to
                calculate the fine structure. What I will acknowledge is that with
                respect to the fine structure constant I don't know that that kind of
                measurement has been performed with SN1987A in particular. What I do
                know is that one team of astronomers has been conducting a survey of
                spectral line analyses for various distances in the universe and
                they've found that the speed of light has been the same (or very,
                very close to the same, within a tiny fraction of one percent) for
                several billion years. At 168,000 years, the event of SN1987A is, I'm
                sure you will acknowledge, well within the range of several billion
                years.

                >
                > I said: "You do not know the height of SN1987A or the rings.
                > These are mathematical hypotheses."
                >
                > Your reply: "False statement, Michael. We do know the distance
                > from SN1987A to the primary gas ring. It is not assumed, because
                > it is a matter of observation."
                >
                > No, what has been observed is how long it took light, using your
                > formulas and what you call constants, to travel from SN1987A to
                > the cloud some 168K years ago. I agree that this is very
                > compelling that it did not take that long and we actually
                > observed this.

                Thank you for acknowledging that it is a matter of observation and
                thus not an assumption.

                > It gives a
                > reasonable basis upon which to construct the distance between the
                > cloud and the supernova, but the way astronomers go about this
                > today cannot be construed as "facts."

                *You* claim that it can't be construed as factual, because *you*
                claim that certain things are merely being assumed. The problem with
                your argument is that what you say is not assumed but is a matter of
                observation.

                >
                > Here is your assumptions: That c is constant (I know I am in the
                > minority for thinking that c is not constant -- more to come on
                > this).

                This isn't assumed. It is observed to be the case.

                > That light travels
                > through all the regions of space without deflection and does so
                > as it does within a vacuum.

                It isn't assumed. In fact, as I have pointed out, some of the light
                *was* deflected in the case of SN1987A, which is what made it such a
                fortuitous and useful observation.

                By the way, V838 Monocerotis is a similar example of this kind of
                thing, except in its case the star actually has shells of gas around
                it instead of rings. I cited this example for you earlier:

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

                (Of course, the difference between V838 Monocerotis and SN1987A is
                that V838 Monocerotis is about 20,000 light-years away here in the
                Milky Way galaxy where as SN1987A is about 168,000 light-years away
                in the Large Magellanic Cloud galaxy.)

                > It is the
                > assumption that the speed of light travels as in a vacuum through
                > interstellar space because it is assumed that the density of
                > matter between stars is relatively low. Observation cannot
                > establish this as fact. You don't know if there is matter that
                > you cannot see that has an effect on the speed of light just like
                > glass has an effect on the speed of light.

                Do you even know what you are talking about?

                Take a look at these specific examples of observations of gas and
                dust:

                Hubble Captures a Perfect Storm of Turbulent Gases
                http://hubblesite.org/newscenter/archive/2003/13/

                Close-up of M27, the Dumbbell Nebula
                http://hubblesite.org/newscenter/archive/2003/06/

                Hubble Photographs 'Double Bubble' in Neighboring Galaxy
                http://hubblesite.org/newscenter/archive/2002/29/

                An Old Star Gives Up the Ghost
                http://hubblesite.org/newscenter/archive/2002/25/

                Space Movie Reveals Shocking Secrets of the Crab Pulsar
                http://hubblesite.org/newscenter/archive/2002/24/

                Hubble Astronomers Feast on an Interstellar Hamburger
                http://hubblesite.org/newscenter/archive/2002/19/

                Colorful Fireworks Finale Caps a Star's Life
                http://hubblesite.org/newscenter/archive/2002/15/

                Beauty in the Eye of Hubble
                http://hubblesite.org/newscenter/archive/2002/14/

                Gaseous Streamers Flutter in Stellar Breeze
                http://hubblesite.org/newscenter/archive/2002/12/

                A Bow Shock Near a Young Star
                http://hubblesite.org/newscenter/archive/2002/05/

                Thackeray's Globules in IC 2944
                http://hubblesite.org/newscenter/archive/2002/01/

                Hubble Sends Season's Greetings from the Cosmos to Earth (NGC 2080)
                http://hubblesite.org/newscenter/archive/2001/34/

                Hubble's Panoramic Portrait of a Vast Star-Forming Region
                http://hubblesite.org/newscenter/archive/2001/21/

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

                Light is affected by gas and dust that it has to travel through, and
                astronomers OBSERVE these effects. You are pretending that this kind
                of thing is merely *assumed* to not be there. In actuality it's just
                the opposite: Astronomers observe light that has traveled through gas
                and dust and they observe the affect of this in the light itself.
                These effects are also observed with light that travels from distant
                galaxies, as the light has traveled through intergalactic gas and
                dust.

                Moreover, see my comments below concerning the implication of what
                you are referring to. You don't seem to realize that you are arguing
                yourself in the wrong direction, in the opposite direction from
                supporting young earth creationism.

                >
                > I commented on your model and math ever so briefly. Your reply
                > was that you do not think I know what I am talking about. Maybe I
                > don't.
                >
                > In challenging the height or radius of your equation you replied:
                >
                >> False statement, Michael. I'm not assuming the values. The
                >> values are a matter of observation. When something is observed
                >> to be the case it is wrong to say it is assumed. This is why
                >> people like you get into such trouble with your rhetoric,
                >> because your rhetoric is simply false.
                >
                > Fact one: Your formula ignores that c might be slowing down over
                > time.

                It ignores it because it is observed to not have constant (over so
                close to constant to be below the threshold of measurement; YECs must
                have the speek of light over 1,000,000 [1 million] times faster than
                it is now, but this idea is falsified by what we observe).

                > Fact two: Light travels through glass slower than through air.
                >
                > Fact three: Since light travels slower in glass than in air,
                > this proves, by observation, that matter can affect the speed of
                > light
                >
                > Fact four: You use the figure for the speed of light as it
                > travels in a vacuum and ignore any and all matter between the
                > "Large Magellanic Cloud" and Sn1987A.
                >
                > I may have more to say about this later. Not just rhetoric.

                First of all, as I pointed out some examples above of, astronomers do
                observe gas and dust that is there when it is there.

                Second, we do happen to know the effect of this matter on the speed
                of light (this has to do with "refraction index" studies, if you want
                to look it up), and what we know is that the effect on the speed of
                light is quite trivial. In fact, it is because we know the effect is
                so insignificant that we can ignore it for purposes of the formula.

                Third, the effect that it has is to *slow down* the speed of light,
                which would merely mean that the light would take LONGER than 168,000
                years to reach the earth. In the standard young earth
                creationist "model" the light would have to reach earth in less than
                ten thousand years. YECs need light to have traveled MUCH faster
                (more than a million times faster), not slower, and yet here you are
                making a point about the light having been slowed down (and just a
                very a little bit), not speeded up. So you're actually arguing in the
                wrong direction, Michael!

                >
                > So, yes, your radius has many assumptions built into it, and,
                > therefore, it makes the radius itself an assumption -- not fact.

                Well, I'm still waiting for you to correctly identify some
                assumptions. What you have done so far is to use the standard false
                YEC rhetoric of wrongly referring to what has been observed about the
                real world to be nothing more than assumption. Again, no matter how
                many times you call a tail a leg, it just doesn't make it so.

                >
                > I will, however, agree that the calculations and the radius is
                > ballpark, but not actual.

                Golly, Michael, I know it's ballpark. Right on my page about this

                http://www.creationism.cc/ancientproof/SN1987A.html

                I provide the range of error (based on the inherent imprecision of
                the empirical measurements) for you: about 3.5%. In typical
                discussion I merely mention just the ballpark number of 168,000, but
                the value range is actually about . Anyone who is familiar with
                scientific measurement and recording is familiar with this kind of
                thing.

                >
                > I said: "Then you get a result and say it is fact. See? If your
                > formula is based upon mathematical hypotheses, and not real
                > numbers, then how can the result be deemed absolute?"
                >
                > You replied: "The numbers are real, because they are what is
                > observed."
                >
                > No, what was observed was not a measurement of distance, but how
                > long the SN1987A energy (light) took to get from SN1987A to the
                > cloud. Then you plug in numbers ignoring that light could have
                > been affected by matter between points "a" and "b" which could
                > have altered its speed.

                This is not is ignored. It is what is observed.

                > You also ignore
                > the very sound scientific data suggesting that c is not constant
                > and may be slowing down. This would make the radius much smaller
                > and the distance much closer, and the date much younger. See?
                >
                > I am assuming that you know of the data suggesting that c is not
                > constant. There are forums, articles, papers, etc. That is why I
                > am not providing the links.

                Michael, I'm sorry, but you simply don't know what you're talking
                about. Since you obviously think you do, you need to explain what you
                think you're talking about, and then I will show you that you don't.

                >
                > You said: "You think they were just made up, and you are wrong."
                >
                > No, I don't think they were made up. I think you are leaving too
                > many variables out that skew your calculations. To say that
                > things are not assumed or ignored is ridiculous to say. If
                > variables are left out and ignored then your data has the great
                > potential for being wrong. Further, if data is ignored and
                > assumptions remain in the calculations, then its results pushed
                > off as "fact"; then, yes, people like me are not going to blindly
                > accept them.

                It isn't ridiculous to say that things are not assumed and not
                ignored when that happens to be the case. Your claims have been
                incorrect.

                Of course, this is all a moot point, since you have already agreed
                that the 168,000 light-years to SN1987A is at least a correct
                ballpark figure.

                >
                > Or, do you deny the facts that I brought out? Does light
                > traveling through glass move at a different speed than through
                > air? Does this not show that matter can have an effect on the
                > speed of light? Does your calculations use the speed of light as
                > it is in a vacuum? Does this not ignore the presence of matter
                > between stellar objects? There is another fact it ignores which
                > we will talk about later.

                I already discussed your mistaken perception of these above.

                >
                > Then, to my stating that SN1987A was an explosion and this was an
                > assumption, you replied:
                >
                >> You really don't know what you're talking about, do you? That's
                >> what happens when a star explodes.
                >
                > The fact is that you do not know that this is really what
                > happened, i.e., that this star exploded. All that is actually
                > observed is that the star is now giving off more energy and is
                > producing more light. Are you saying that the ONLY way, and the
                > ONLY process, by which a star can produce more energy is by an
                > explosion? That is the only reason? I would agree that this is
                > the most probable with what we know, but we have not touched the
                > hem of the garment when it comes to understanding the inner
                > workings of our own star, let alone others we view through a
                > perceptually limited manner.
                >
                > Did the star "explode?" That is the probable reason. This is only
                > brought out to show that your mind is closed to discovery. You
                > don't know for a fact that this star exploded even though it is
                > most probable that it did. If there is a smoking gun of evidence
                > that the star actually did explode then I am sure you will bring
                > this to bare.
                >
                > I will give you some examples. I am on a mountain looking over a
                > valley and I see bright flash of light. Do I automatically assume
                > that something just blew up? I then see that it illuminated soem
                > surrounding objects. Do I assume something exploded now?
                >
                > If you have never seen a match before and one strikes one in
                > front of you. The match burns very big and bright at first and
                > then settles down. Did that match just explode? It was bright,
                > produced a lot of energy, but the match did not explode.

                You keep showing me that you really don't understand what you're
                talking about. I realize that you're coming new to this, but you
                should act like you're coming new to this instead of pretending (just
                like any old young earth creationist) that you've got it all figured
                out and that since you've got it all figured out you know that these
                astronomers are all just a bunch of clueless posturing idiots. You've
                got to stop making arguments that are based on this false premise
                about astronomical science.

                First of all, with regard to our specific discussion of WHEN the star
                exploded, we can actually - if you really want to - just for the sake
                of discussion pretend that the star did NOT explode. Okay, now given
                that, it doesn't change the fact that the SN1987A even (whatever it
                was if not a stellar explosion) took place approximately 168,000
                years ago.

                Second, apparently you are not even aware of the fact that the blast
                wave from the star was observed to impact the primary gas ring
                several years laster (as predicted, by the way). Please pay close
                attention, Michal. If you had look at the SN1987A reference that I
                provided you with you would have known this already. I have repeated
                the online references I gave you, at the end of this post, since you
                obviously need to take another look.

                Here are just a couple here:

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

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

                >
                >> If you could actually identify one of these assumptions, rather
                >> than incorrectly referring to observations as assumptions, then
                >> you might have something more than empty rhetoric.
                >
                > Hopefully I have identified them enough for you.

                Still waiting.

                Regards,
                Todd S. Greene
                http://www.creationism.cc/
                http://groups.yahoo.com/group/creationism/messages

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

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

                The SN1987A Circumstellar Ring and the Distance to the
                Large Magellanic Cloud
                by Dr. Richard McCray
                http://cosmos.colorado.edu/astr1120/homework4/hwk4.html

                SN1987A
                by Dr. Richard McCray
                http://cosmos.colorado.edu/astr1120/l6S6.htm

                Hubble Space Telescope Site, Re: SN1987A
                http://hubblesite.org/newscenter/archive/category/star/supernova/

                Hubble Finds Mysterious Ring Structure around Supernova 1987a
                http://hubblesite.org/newscenter/archive/1994/22/

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

                Hubble Chemically Analyzes the Ring around Supernova 1987A
                http://hubblesite.org/newscenter/archive/1997/14/

                Hubble Reveals Invisible High-Speed Collision around Supernova 1987A
                http://hubblesite.org/newscenter/archive/1997/19/

                Shock Wave Sheds New Light on Fading Supernova
                http://hubblesite.org/newscenter/archive/1998/08/

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

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

                Here's a link to a time-lapse multiple-image "video" of the SN1987A
                blast wave impacting the primary gas ring:
                http://imgsrc.hubblesite.org/hu/db/2000/11/videos/a/formats/
                animated_gif.gif
                (Note the line-break in the link here, which you'll need to piece
                back together.)

                The Tarantula Nebula and supernova 1987a in the LMC
                http://www.aao.gov.au/images/captions/aat048.html

                Supernova 1987A and Sanduleak -69°202
                http://www.aao.gov.au/images/captions/aat048a.html
                (Sanduleak -69°202 was the name of the catalogued star before it blew
                up.)

                Around supernova 1987A, before and just after the event
                http://www.aao.gov.au/images/captions/aat050.html

                The light echo of supernova 1987A
                http://www.aao.gov.au/images/captions/aat066.html
              Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.