Astronomic events that never happened?

[one.opinion]

23 minutes ago, Enoch2021 said:

'models' are Demonstrable Pseudo-Science, which has been explained and demonstrated to you ad nauseam.

 

23 minutes ago, Enoch2021 said:

1.  "Light Years" is not a measure of time (or distance); this has also been explained and demonstrated to you ad nauseam.

If you are getting sick of it, I would encourage you to stop.

24 minutes ago, Enoch2021 said:

2.  cosmology isn't "Science".  Crocheting is more "Scientific".

Regardless of what you call cosmology a science or not, people study events occurring elsewhere in the universe and these events bring up questions.

[Justin Adams]

14 hours ago, Tristen said:

"even though God's Word is both inspired and infallible, there are a LOT of areas that are simply not addressed. God has given humans the ability to investigate our surroundings, and I believe this is even part of His mandate to subdue the earth."

The Lord God might indeed inspire most of the writings in scripture, but too many men have been involved to make it completely infallible. That is why there are many scholars involved in making the first searchable database of all of the thousand of manuscripts and fragments. The changes are called 'variants' so you might want to take a look at this work. Keep an open mind.
[http://www.nola.com/religion/index.ssf/2011/03/changes_to_the_bible_through_the_ages_are_being_studied_by_new_orleans_scholars.html]

Edited October 25, 2017 by Justin Adams
sp

[Enoch2021]

35 minutes ago, one.opinion said:

If you are getting sick of it, I would encourage you to stop.

I'm not getting sick of it, just wondering How/Why you continue with the same ole disheveled PUMMELED Narrative when you've already been corrected on it quite a number of times.

 

Quote

Regardless of what you call cosmology a science or not

It's NOT a "Science", it's Philosophy.  Last time I checked this was a Science Forum.

 

Quote

people study events occurring elsewhere in the universe and these events bring up questions.

There is NO "Universe".  Unless you call this a Universe...

 

regards

 

 

[one.opinion]

14 hours ago, Tristen said:

I agree, but when you look at the facts you see an old earth, and when I look at the facts I see a young earth. So there is something other than the facts themselves influencing our conclusions. My argument is that the main influence on how we interpret the facts is faith presupposition. Whereas you seem to be convinced that the bias is only on my part

I think most readers here with two points here, but maybe not the third:

1. Cosmological events at some location in space release electromagnetic radiation, which has traveled to earth and been detected by astronomers.

2. It is my belief that we do know how fast the electromagnetic radiation from these events travel from their sources to our planet.

3. (This may be the "sticky" one) If the astronomers can actually determine the distance to the source of the radiation (and I believe they can), then they can get a pretty good handle on how long ago that energy was released.

If there are no biases anywhere in interpreting this information, I would argue that point 3 follows logically from points 1 and 2.

I agree (and have agreed in the past with you) that I do have biases. My bias in this case is that the information available to us is pretty straightforward, and that radiation from events 1 million light years distant took 1 million years to arrive here. Your bias is to look at the same information, but use a model (without any supporting scientific evidence that I know of) to have the information tell you something different than what it suggests.

[one.opinion]

10 minutes ago, Enoch2021 said:

I'm not getting sick of it, just wondering How/Why you continue with the same ole disheveled PUMMELED Narrative when you've already been corrected on it quite a number of times.

There is a vast difference between "corrected to your satisfaction" and "corrected to my satisfaction". Claiming something repeatedly does not make it right.

11 minutes ago, Enoch2021 said:

It's NOT a "Science", it's Philosophy.  Last time I checked this was a Science Forum.

Sorry, but most people that post in this forum would agree that it is science. If a moderator agrees with you that astronomy should not be included in science, then I will be taking my leave.

[Enoch2021]

1 hour ago, one.opinion said:

There is a vast difference between "corrected to your satisfaction" and "corrected to my satisfaction". Claiming something repeatedly does not make it right.

I'm not merely 'claiming' it, I SHOWED IT... with Simple Logic and Validated Scientific Experiment.

And you inexplicably continue to evaluate topics on the "Subjective"....how you (and others) feel.  It's quite Non-Sequitur.

 

Quote

Sorry, but most people that post in this forum would agree that it is science.

  Back again to the Subjective "Agree/Disagree" with a 'Cherry On Top' Argumentum ad Populum (Fallacy), eh?  It's quite troubling.

WHY is cosmology "SCIENCE"??  That's what you and 'most people' need to Validate.  (Best Wishes)

 

Quote

If a moderator agrees with you that astronomy should not be included in science, then I will be taking my leave.

A Moderator??   Do you know of any "moderators" here that are Scientists?

Do you need an arbitrary authority to affirm that something... is that something or... is not that something?  Do I need to call on a board member from the USDA to affirm that a Banana isn't a Strawberry?  

 

regards

[Enoch2021]

54 minutes ago, one.opinion said:

I think most readers here with two points here, but maybe not the third:

Say that one more time please?

 

Quote

1. Cosmological events at some location in space release electromagnetic radiation, which has traveled to earth and been detected by astronomers.

1.  There is NO "Vacuum of Space".

2.  HOW has the EM Radiation (Photons) Traveled...?

 

Quote

2. It is my belief that we do know how fast the electromagnetic radiation from these events travel from their sources to our planet.

1.  Key Phrase:  "I believe".  WHY do you 'believe' ... is what we want to know.

2.  Scientifically Validate the Speed...?

3.  What 'events'?  How do you differentiate the 'alleged' EM events and the interaction of these so-called events with atmosplane gasses...?  How do you know that the 'so-called' events couldn't/weren't produced on the earth then... excited the atmosplane gasses??

 

Quote

3. (This may be the "sticky" one) If the astronomers can actually determine the distance to the source of the radiation (and I believe they can), then they can get a pretty good handle on how long ago that energy was released.

I would characterize the presentation here somewhat different than 'Sticky'.

1.  Key Phrase (Again):  "I believe".  WHY do you 'believe' ... is what we want to know.

2.  See above interaction with atmosplane gasses.

 

Quote

If there are no biases anywhere in interpreting this information, I would argue that point 3 follows logically from points 1 and 2.

If there's no biases??  How bout No Coherent Points?

3 doesn't follow logically, mainly due to your 1 and 2 Premises being Trainwrecks.

 

Quote

and that radiation from events 1 million light years distant took 1 million years to arrive here.

De-Bunked earlier in this thread.

 

Quote

use a model (without any supporting scientific evidence that I know of) 

'models' are demonstrable Pseudo-Science.  And you unwittingly, just confirmed it...   

You're gonna love this ...If 'models' were "Science", why then would you need Scientific Evidence to SUPPORT IT.  

 

regards

 

[Tristen]

3 hours ago, Justin Adams said:

The Lord God might indeed inspire most of the writings in scripture, but too many men have been involved to make it completely infallible. That is why there are many scholars involved in making the first searchable database of all of the thousand of manuscripts and fragments. The changes are called 'variants' so you might want to take a look at this work. Keep an open mind.
[http://www.nola.com/religion/index.ssf/2011/03/changes_to_the_bible_through_the_ages_are_being_studied_by_new_orleans_scholars.html]

Hi Justin,

Just FYI - the quote you quoted was me quoting One (i.e. it was originally One's comment)

Theologically, Christians only consider the Bible to be inerrant in the autographic texts (i.e. the originals). Secondarily, we believe that God has preserved all essential doctrine throughout history. So provision is made in the Christian paradigm for minor copyist errors. We have so many manuscripts, that any intentional (or even unintentional) alterations are readily apparent through simple comparison; especially of the New Testament.

[Justin Adams]

14 minutes ago, Tristen said:

Hi Justin,

Just FYI - the quote you quoted was me quoting One (i.e. it was originally One's comment)

Theologically, Christians only consider the Bible to be inerrant in the autographic texts (i.e. the originals). Secondarily, we believe that God has preserved all essential doctrine throughout history. So provision is made in the Christian paradigm for minor copyist errors. We have so many manuscripts, that any intentional (or even unintentional) alterations are readily apparent through simple comparison; especially of the New Testament.

Oops. Asleep as the wheel again.
I don't dispute what you say. God can use donkeys if necessary. But to say inerrant is a bit disingenuous.

I have bee called a heretic for forwarding the ideas currently being batted around by scholars, that a lot of the originals were first in Yeshua's language of Aramaic. Josephus is pretty emphatic on that point.
No doubt you think otherwise, so I will not argue about it.

Even now, there are scholars translating the eastern Aramaic into English. The clergy and hard-liners are heavily invested in the Greek translations, but truth to say, it now becomes likely that even the Hebraic fist century texts were translated from Aramaic. Hebrew as a language had dissipated since the Babylonian captivity. Most all in Yeshua's time spoke Aramaic. Very few spoke Hebrew (except the Priests maybe) But Josephus was a priests and he says otherwise. Greek was quite foreign to them all at that time.

Edited October 25, 2017 by Justin Adams
spel

[Tristen]

6 hours ago, one.opinion said:

I think most readers here with two points here, but maybe not the third:

1. Cosmological events at some location in space release electromagnetic radiation, which has traveled to earth and been detected by astronomers.

2. It is my belief that we do know how fast the electromagnetic radiation from these events travel from their sources to our planet.

3. (This may be the "sticky" one) If the astronomers can actually determine the distance to the source of the radiation (and I believe they can), then they can get a pretty good handle on how long ago that energy was released.

If there are no biases anywhere in interpreting this information, I would argue that point 3 follows logically from points 1 and 2.

I agree (and have agreed in the past with you) that I do have biases. My bias in this case is that the information available to us is pretty straightforward, and that radiation from events 1 million light years distant took 1 million years to arrive here. Your bias is to look at the same information, but use a model (without any supporting scientific evidence that I know of) to have the information tell you something different than what it suggests.

“1. Cosmological events at some location in space release electromagnetic radiation, which has traveled to earth and been detected by astronomers.”

I would agree with this. However, with the caveat that the only facts-in-evidence are the detection records of the electromagnetic radiation. The exact nature of the cause of those facts is a matter of interpretation and speculation.

 

“2. It is my belief that we do know how fast the electromagnetic radiation from these events travel from their sources to our planet.”

This requires increasing the magnitude of speculation from what we can measure on earth, to what can occur in the putative millions-to-billions of light years between earth and the “events”. Even on earth, we know that various factors can influence the speed and direction of electromagnetic energy. Gravity is one such factor known to influence the path of ER. The standard Cosmology model proposes that ~80% of matter is dark matter. So what effect would all that extra gravity have on the path of ER through space over eons of time? Without actually traveling between earth and the proposed “events” (i.e. to directly observe the conditions of the journey) we have no actual way to determine the conditions of all that assumed space between us and the “events”. Even then, we could only presume to know the conditions at the time we observe them, not what they were in the past.

Note: I use the term “assumed”, not because I personally question what is there, but to emphasise the logical distinction between what is fact and what is interpretation (i.e. what is empirical and what is theoretical).

 

“3. (This may be the "sticky" one) If the astronomers can actually determine the distance to the source of the radiation (and I believe they can)”

How? You need more than speed to determine distance. Even the paper you provided got a range of “distances” equating to more than one-third the final estimation. The method was based on assumptions from previous, limited models. Again, without actually going out there and measuring the path length, we have to incorporate massive assumptions into any estimations of distance.

 

“then they can get a pretty good handle on how long ago that energy was released”

How “good” that “handle” is depends entirely on the presupposed model you are adhering to – i.e. it depends on what you are assuming about history.

In the Time-Dilation model, the ‘when’ is relative to where you are in space. If Einstein is right about linking time to space, and the Bible is right about God stretching out the heavens, then space gets older the further away from earth it has been stretched. So there is no problem with very old light from very distant stars reaching a young earth under this model.

If God wound the universe forward independently of time, then how “long ago that energy was released” cannot be calculated based on naturalistic assumptions or observations. Likewise if God created a mature universe in place.

 

“If there are no biases anywhere in interpreting this information, I would argue that point 3 follows logically from points 1 and 2.”

I have always conceded that the facts can be rationally interpreted to support the secular models. The bias is in the presupposition. The secular models remove God from the equation. But including God in the presupposition opens up possibilities beyond the scope of naturalistic thinking.

Neither of us can go back in time to observe what actually happened. Secularists choose to try and explain the universe without the need of God’s involvement – and formulate stories to facilitate that endeavor. I choose to believe what God says about the universe – and prefer models that conform to His Word (interpreted as written).

 

“My bias in this case is that the information available to us is pretty straightforward, and that radiation from events 1 million light years distant took 1 million years to arrive here. Your bias is to look at the same information, but use a model (without any supporting scientific evidence that I know of) to have the information tell you something different than what it suggests.”

Statements like “without any supporting scientific evidence” only reinforce the fact that you are not objectively considering the process. The only “supporting evidence” either of us has is that the facts can be logically reconciled to the model.

For example;

Given the intrinsic complexity of the universe, if God is not involved, then we would expect the universe to be and look very old. Therefore observations of “radiation from events 1 million light years distant” are consistent with, and thereby support, this model.

If God stretched out space and time, aging the universe through the stretching process, then we would expect that the further we look away from earth, the older the universe should be and look. Therefore observations of “radiation from events 1 million light years distant” are consistent with, and thereby support, this model.

If God created a mature universe, then we would expect the universe to look mature (aka old). Therefore observations of “radiation from events 1 million light years distant” are consistent with, and thereby support, this model. Likewise if God wound the universe forward, independent of time, at the creation.

It’s when we start to believing that only our preferred model has “any supporting scientific evidence” that we stray from objectivity – i.e. accepting our biased interpretation of the facts as the only valid use of the facts.

Facts don’t “suggest” anything beyond their own existence. What you think the information “suggests” is entirely dependent upon the faith presupposition through which you interpret it.

 

My “bias” is to have the Word of God as the highest authority in my life. I am responsible to my God to establish the Author’s intent independently of ancillary influences – i.e. to establish what it says, rather than try to make it say what I want when what it says is uncomfortable. I do not permit myself the right to reinterpret scripture when the world tells me it’s incorrect; especially when careful examination of the actual facts demonstrate such claims to be logically unjustified.