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

Re: The empirical fact of antiquity (repost #3)

Expand Messages
  • 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 1 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 2 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 3 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 4 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.