Hi, Dudley.
That was an interesting discussion, but the only thing even relevant to the discussion regarding the fact that SN1987A occurred about 168,000 years ago was your next to last paragraph (2/5/01 7:00 pm post):
|
The same is true with the so-called empirical observation of SN1987A. Astronomers know nothing certain about the alleged progenitor star(s) of SN1987A. They guess about the condition of the star(s) before, and leading up to, the explosion. Therefore, it is impossible to categorically prove how long ago the alleged explosion happened....
| |
But, unfortunately, even this is a blatant non sequitur. It compares with something like this: We're not sure when the house was built, or how many mice it was infested with, therefore we're not sure when it burned down. The correct response to such a "doesn't follow" statement is, "Huh, what in the world are you talking about? The 'therefore' makes no logical sense how you have used it."
I note here that you have (still) completely failed to address a single empirical fact that I have discussed about this particular item here in mars-list and in my "SN1987A and The Antiquity of the Universe".
It has already been pointed out to you that we not at all discussing conjectures regarding the origin of the universe and regarding the time of the origin at some unobserved time in the (very) distant past. We are discussing only that part of the universe's past which is directly observed by astronomers today. The past of SN1987A (namely, the time of the explosion relative to us now on the earth — approximately 168,000 years ago) shows that the universe has been around for at least 168,000 years. Indeed, Dudley, this is the very reason why I have chosen SN1987A as my flagship example in discussion about YEC, because of the fact that we are dealing with current direct observations and not with theoretical conjectures about the origin of the universe.
Does SN1987A tell us how old the universe is? Absolutely not, and I have never claimed that it has any relevance to that, other than in the simple sense of showing that whenever the origin was (85 million years ago, or 9 billion years ago, or 14 billion years ago, or 792 trillion years ago, or whenever), it was at some time prior to the event of SN1987A which has been directly observed.
Your bait-and-switch rhetorical technique on this has now been pointed out twice. Again, it is clear that such a technique is a good debate tactic, but it is, nonetheless, irrelevant to genuine truth-seeking.
I repeat to you (which you also completely failed to address):
|
—» Did the primary gas ring exist at the time of the stellar explosion?
Yes. This is an empirical fact.
—» Do we know how long it took for the light energy from the explosion to reach the primary gas ring?
Yes. This is an empirical fact.
—» Can this information be used to determine the distance to the star?
Yes. This is a geometric fact.
| |
In closing, I repeat here what I closed with in my previous post (which you also failed to address):
|
...please explain to all of us how it is that we (people in general) learned that the earth revolved around the sun, instead of the other way around. What "playing field" is that? Does it matter? Truth cannot contradict truth.
| |
Regards,
Todd
"As those whose lives and teachings revolve around the importance of truth, we, of all people, should do all we can to avoid the dissemination of erroneous material, regardless of how 'good' it may sound, or the 'evidential value' it may appear to have. Yes, we should defend God's Word. But no, we should not use error to do it. 'Faithfully teaching the Faith' is not merely an awesome privilege, but an awesome responsibility as well."
— Bert Thompson (Reason & Revelation, 2/99)
He who speaks the truth gives honest evidence....
— Proverbs 12:17
The heart of the discerning acquires knowledge;
the ears of the wise seek it out.
— Proverbs 18.15
| |
P.S.: The key's still not in the ignition yet.
•••• Dudley Ross Spears, 2/5/01 7:00 PM ••••
Subject: Facts and Guesses about SN1987A
Dudley Ross Spears to the List
When one attempts prove something by empirical observation, he is saying his conclusion is "based on observation or experiment or is guided by practical experience and not theory." (Webster). In a study of the origin and age of stars and planets, especially this planet, empirical observation and experiment are irrelevant. No observatory or laboratory can sufficiently observe or experiment with the required elements necessary to determine the age of the universe
No field of natural science has the accurate mechanism of measuring the age of the universe. That's why astronomers and physicists often differ on dates (by several million years or so) they set for the origin of various elements in the universe. They offer extremely large numbers preceded by the words "around," "almost," or "about."
Natural scientists make lavish use of irrelevant numbers. "4.5 billion years" has no relevance to the experience and observation of humans. I freely admit that once naturalistic human standards are set up and accepted, and God is factored out of the equation, our planet appears to be incredibly old. But things are not always as they appear (Heb. 11:3), especially to those who believe God and his inspired word.
God's measurement of time and space is revealed to mankind in the word of God, the Bible. Rejection of the Bible as the standard by which to determine salient facts about God's creation leaves one adrift in a scientific mist of confusion and change. Natural science, as we know it, is barely 4,000 years old and has changed so many times it would be difficult to count.
Just recently I read, from an article titled "Crisis in Cosmology? Or Turning Point?" the following:
"Like the 19th century American frontier, contemporary cosmology can sometimes be wild and woolly. Despite — and sometimes even because of — recent advances in astronomy, the data don't always agree with prevailing theories about the universe. Numerical cosmologists, reliant upon both observation and theory, join the fray as they struggle to answer a number of fundamental questions about the universe: What is the universe made of? How old is it? What is its destiny?"
Cosmologists tell us they find many uncertainties about our universe. Possibly the greatest mystery is "dark matter." Dark matter, matter which cannot even be seen, makes up almost 90 percent of the universe. No possibility exists for a empirical observation. You cannot observe what you cannot see! From the same article is comes this admission:
"Perhaps the weakest part of our current theories of cosmological structure formation is that we don't know what dark matter is made of. Some would say, we don't even know that it exists, although there are powerful observational and theoretical clues that indicates that its there." The major portion of "matter" in the universe defies experimentation and "empirical observation" — right?
Natural Science has no empirical way to prove anything about the origin of the earth or the universe. Limited to what is accepted in all fields of natural science, "the scientific method" of dating the universe, the best empirical observation is able produce is a theory (a guess).
Take the supernova, SN1987A. There is so much about this particular supernova that is a mystery to cosmologists, astrophysicists, and astronomers. The star which allegedly exploded some 160,000 years ago was first thought to be from the star class "red giant." Photos of the spectrum of the "parent" star or stars, or the merger of binary systems were recorded. These photos were "interpreted." The interpretation of the data from SN1987A and the parent star differs widely in the scientific world. Richard McCray , an astrophysicist, said, "Many mysteries remain in understanding the origin of Type I supernovae."
Astronomers cannot accurately gauge the rate of change that led to the exploding death of the star that resulted in SN1987A. They cannot, by empirical observation, determine the rate of change from hydrogen to helium in the formation of the "parent" star or stars. Nor can they determine the rate of illumination and decay of illumination at the instant the star exploded. If so, let one of them produce the empirical and experimental evidence. It is not possible to empirically observe the unobservable.
I have never heard any reasonable explanation of the origin of the hydrogen that a star requires just to be born. Has anyone? The latest theory of SN1987 is that the progenitor star (or stars) was (or were) a close binary system, labeled a "blue giant star." It is freely admitted by astronomers that the behavior of a "blue giant star" is unlike that of the normal and more predictable "giant red" star. There are too many mysteries surrounding SN1987A to claim empirical observation and experimentation can determine its origin and age.
Through the Hubble Space Telescope, astrophysicists discovered SN1987A is surrounded by a unexplainable system of three rings of glowing gas. They don 't have a clue from what source these rotating gaseous rings came but they feign to know where they did not originate. They don't even have a clue of that around which they rotate. Scientists conclude that the rings of SN1987A are not the result of an explosion. So what is the source? Astronomers are still trying to figure it out. And friend, if they are stumped for answers to the mystery of the rings, they aren't one bit better in all the other assumptions they make about when, how long, and how SN1987A came into being.
When a supernova occurs, dust, silicon, and plain old dirt is blown into space. This often causes the light emitted from the exploding star to be dim when viewed from here on this planet. That in itself upsets the so-called "empirical observation." How dense is the dust or silicon mist? Nobody knows and nobody can know it. The density and dust of the debris has a direct impact on the intensity of the light. Empirical observation and experimentation relies on constant factors in order to make their calculations — thus their calculations are assumptions, better known here in Tennessee as a good old country guess.
Based on the view that the universe, from the beginning, has been expanding, the aforementioned article concluded, "The age problem is only confounded by the search for missing dark matter: if Omega is equal to 1, as inflation theory requires, then the gravitational force of all that mass would tend to slow down expansion, making the universe even younger than it now appears.." Well, well, now! They are at least coming in the right direction! If these scientists are not careful, they will be labeled Young Earth Creationists!
My belief in the Bible leads me to affirm that SN1987A was created as an event in progress. The rate of mass transfer and surface explosion cannot be empirically and experimentally observed. And so good old Nick Sanduleak's discovery of Sk -69 202, was put there in the very beginning by our Creator when God set the stars in their place on the fourth day of creation (Gen. 1:14-16). I wonder how a naturalist could disprove my affirmation.
I pose an example. If one walks in the forest and hears a tree fall, but saw it just before the top hit the ground, and later examined it, how can he know or prove how far the top of the tree actually fell? What if the tree was at a 10 degree angle before it fell rather than 90 degrees? What if it had been standing somewhere between 40 and 60 degrees? Whatever assumption is made about what was not observed dictates one's answer to how far the top of the tree fell.
The same is true with the so-called empirical observation of SN1987A. Astronomers know nothing certain about the alleged progenitor star(s) of SN1987A. They guess about the condition of the star(s) before, and leading up to, the explosion. Therefore, it is impossible to categorically prove how long ago the alleged explosion happened — just like how far the tree top fell.
What this all really comes down to is whether our standard of faith is natural science or the Bible. Origin and age of the universe and of earth is not now, nor has it ever been, a scientific issue. It is a historical issue and the Bible is the one and only accurate historical record of what the God of heaven did on those magnificent six days of creation.
Dudley Ross Spears, http://www.wbcoc.org/
Radio Sermon Manuscripts: http://www.geocities.com/dudleyross/
|