Astronomic events that never happened?

[Tristen]

3 hours ago, Justin Adams said:

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.

Not sure why "inerrant is a bit disingenuous". It is a tenet of faith, but I don't see why anyone believing in God couldn't believe He could influence an accurate account of His message.

Your other claims are mostly irrelevant to the doctrine - since God is involved in preserving essential doctrines, the language of the actual originals doesn't matter. If God wanted them preserved, He would have done so.

[Justin Adams]

23 minutes ago, Tristen said:

Your other claims are mostly irrelevant to the doctrine - since God is involved in preserving essential doctrines, the language of the actual originals doesn't matter. If God wanted them preserved, He would have done so.

They are not 'my claims'. And I do not subscribe to man's doctrine, or whatever you want to call man's ideas. There are few mentions of doctrine in the Bible, but men have invented thousands more of them.

As you point out, God can get the message across thank you. He does not need our doctrines now anymore than Yeshua needed them in His time on earth. The word 'religion' is mentioned a few times only.

And God obviously did want them preserved, because they are preserved.

You are getting dangerously close to calling me irrelevant by your haughty and dismissive statement that my claims are mostly irrelevant. It was unnecessary because it is an unnecessary statement. It is only your opinion. If I wish to say it, then it is not irrelevant to what I am saying.
"I don't see why anyone believing in God couldn't believe He could influence an accurate account of His message"
Now you seem to question my ability to believe. And my beliefs.  I think you are quite unsure of yourself really. If you actually read what I said... but. Oh well.

Edited October 25, 2017 by Justin Adams

[simplejeff]

9 minutes ago, Justin Adams said:

And God obviously did want them preserved, because they are preserved.

AMEIN and HALLELUYAH !    TORAH written in stone, TWICE!   .... do not think Yahweh meant to be ignored!?

Then, 

when Yahewh Himself writes TORAH in men's hearts,  DOES YAHWEH make a mistake? Does He "slip up" and make errors ?  NO!

How do the messengers of Yahweh put this :    in faith we do not abandon TORAH, rather we support TORAH !   (the way Yahweh means for it to be used,  NOT the way of the unfaithful scribes or religious teachers)

[Tristen]

11 minutes ago, Justin Adams said:

They are not 'my claims'. And I do not subscribe to man's doctrine, or whatever you want to call man's ideas. There are few mentions of doctrine in the Bible, but men have invented thousands more of them.

As you point out, God can get the message across thank you. He does not need our doctrines now anymore than Yeshua needed them in His time on earth. The word 'religion' is mentioned a few times only.

And God obviously did want them preserved, because they are preserved.

You are getting dangerously close to calling me irrelevant by your haughty and dismissive statement that my claims are mostly irrelevant. It was unnecessary because it is an unnecessary statement. It is only your opinion. If I wish to say it, then it is not irrelevant to what I am saying.
"I don't see why anyone believing in God couldn't believe He could influence an accurate account of His message"
Now you seem to question my ability to believe. And my beliefs.  I think you are quite unsure of yourself really. If you actually read what I said... but. Oh well.

It seems you are intent on finding ways to take my words personally. By "your claims", I meant the claims you provided about the original language.

I use the term "doctrine" to define what we believe. Yes, man can, and has, made up many doctrines. But there are also many doctrines derived directly from scripture.

 

"You are getting dangerously close to calling me irrelevant by your haughty and dismissive statement that my claims are mostly irrelevant."

You are "getting dangerously close" to ridiculous. I merely meant that disputes over the original languages are not relevant to what we currently believe because God preserves essential doctrine.

 

"Now you seem to question my ability to believe. And my beliefs.  I think you are quite unsure of yourself really. If you actually read what I said... but. Oh well."

I am struggling to understand how you could read so much personal offense into the words I wrote.

 

 

[one.opinion]

6 hours ago, Tristen said:

“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.

Read the quote again if you think you are adding an important caveat.

6 hours ago, Tristen said:

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?

Please provide supporting evidence.

6 hours ago, Tristen said:

How? You need more than speed to determine distance.

Yes, astronomers use a variety of techniques to estimate distance for most stars and galaxies. Parallax calculations can be used for the very nearest of stars, but only a very small fraction. "Distance laddering" refers to combinations of additional techniques that must be used for further objects. You can read more about distance laddering here: http://www.iop.org/resources/topic/archive/cosmic/

6 hours ago, Tristen said:

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.

Again, can you support these claims? How much does this stretching distort the time scale, 1%, 10%, 90%?

6 hours ago, Tristen said:

Statements like “without any supporting scientific evidence” only reinforce the fact that you are not objectively considering the process.

It reinforces nothing of the sort, it is an observation that you haven't included any supporting evidence. You haven't presented anything other than conjecture.

[Justin Adams]

11 hours ago, Tristen said:

It seems you are intent on finding ways to take my words personally. By "your claims", I meant the claims you provided about the original language.

I use the term "doctrine" to define what we believe. Yes, man can, and has, made up many doctrines. But there are also many doctrines derived directly from scripture.

 

"You are getting dangerously close to calling me irrelevant by your haughty and dismissive statement that my claims are mostly irrelevant."

You are "getting dangerously close" to ridiculous. I merely meant that disputes over the original languages are not relevant to what we currently believe because God preserves essential doctrine.

 

"Now you seem to question my ability to believe. And my beliefs.  I think you are quite unsure of yourself really. If you actually read what I said... but. Oh well."

I am struggling to understand how you could read so much personal offense into the words I wrote.

 

 

No harm. No foul.
I hope my point is understood. Words have consequences and many meanings.
Any translation or vernacular that sheds light on words, can shed reams of information.
The Aramaic is poetic and lends its self to double entendre and humor. Yeshua was a Master of any language and if one understands the rather medicinal Greek, it seems that more than once, He was 'likened unto David' as David was His lineage. David was poetic and expressive. I am certain Yeshua was also. There is far more to our Lord God than mere doctrine. 

[Enoch2021]

13 hours ago, one.opinion said:

Yes, astronomers use a variety of techniques to estimate distance for most stars and galaxies. Parallax calculations can be used for the very nearest of stars, but only a very small fraction. "Distance laddering" refers to combinations of additional techniques that must be used for further objects. You can read more about distance laddering here: http://www.iop.org/resources/topic/archive/cosmic/

1.  'astronomy' isn't "Science" ...

Why?? Well they don't/can't follow 'The Scientific Method'... "SCIENCE" !!!!

"The scientific method REQUIRES that an hypothesis be ruled out or modified if its predictions are clearly and repeatedly incompatible with EXPERIMENTAL TESTS. Further, no matter how elegant a theory is, its predictions must agree with EXPERIMENTAL RESULTS if we are to believe that it is a VALID description of nature. In physics, as in every experimental science, "EXPERIMENT is Supreme" and *EXPERIMENTAL VERIFICATION* of hypothetical predictions is *ABSOLUTELY NECESSARY*."
http://teacher.nsrl.rochester.edu/phy_labs/appendixe/appendixe.html

SO...

Post One Formal Scientific Hypothesis EVER constructed in the entire history of astronomy...?

OR...

Show how you can have "Science" without Scientific Hypotheses...?  

 

"If it doesn't agree with EXPERIMENT , it's WRONG. In that simple statement is the *KEY to SCIENCE*".
Richard Feynman (Nobel Prize, Physics); The Essence Of Science In 60 Seconds.

Uh Ohh...

"Unlike the other sciences, astronomy is ENTIRELY OBSERVATIONAL. You CANNOT run EXPERIMENTS on things. You cannot manipulate the objects to see how they work."
http://www.astronomynotes.com/starprop/s2.htm

Ergo...Crocheting is more "Scientific" than astronomy.

 

2.  A variety of techniques are used to estimate distance to most stars and galaxies, eh?

a.  Are Stars, Suns?
b.  'Variety' and 'Estimates' should clue you in that this is nothing more than "Just-So" Story Telling. 

  

3.  Define Trigonometric Parallax...?
Show an example of calculating distance to a nearby galaxy, Andromeda for instance...?  Include rationale for EACH Step and Term...?

 

4.  "Distance Laddering", eh?  (You just post a 'link' AGAIN without a whisper of what the article is talking about (i.e., PARROTING without depth.)

So I'll just have to bring them up, K ?? ...

a. Define Standard Candles...?  Show an example of calculating distance to a galaxy using the method...? (One with Cepheid Variables and another using RR Lyrae Variables..?)
Include rationale for EACH Step and Term...?

b. Red Shift (Are you aware that I've already PUMMELED Red Shift into the Incoherent Oblivion, here and elsewhere ??) 

Define Red Shift...? Show an example of calculating distance to a galaxy using the method...? Include rationale for EACH Step and Term...?

 

regards

[Tristen]

22 hours ago, one.opinion said:

Read the quote again if you think you are adding an important caveat.

Please provide supporting evidence.

Yes, astronomers use a variety of techniques to estimate distance for most stars and galaxies. Parallax calculations can be used for the very nearest of stars, but only a very small fraction. "Distance laddering" refers to combinations of additional techniques that must be used for further objects. You can read more about distance laddering here: http://www.iop.org/resources/topic/archive/cosmic/

Again, can you support these claims? How much does this stretching distort the time scale, 1%, 10%, 90%?

It reinforces nothing of the sort, it is an observation that you haven't included any supporting evidence. You haven't presented anything other than conjecture.

“Read the quote again if you think you are adding an important caveat.”

It’s a very “important caveat”. The point is, we are not observing past “Cosmological events”, nor are we observing the historical path of “electromagnetic radiation” as it “traveled to earth”. All we are observing is “electromagnetic radiation” at the point of detection. So any story we generate about where the detected energy comes from is speculation, not fact. The ability to differentiate between what is empirical and what is theoretical is fundamental to understanding how conclusions are reached.

The fact is that we have detected ER on instruments on and around earth. We theorize that this energy originated in a cosmological event hundreds-of-thousands of light years away, and that the energy has traveled a direct, unimpeded path to our instrumentation.

Now I don’t personally disagree with any of this, but it is important to understand that the theoretical aspect of this proposal is utterly unfalsifiable – namely because; even if we could travel (and thereby observe) the distances, the claims themselves are about what happened in the past – and so have never, and will never, be directly observed.

We can be confident that there was a cause/origin (since causality is a natural law based in ubiquitous observation), but confidence in the precise nature of that cause requires faith (or else fallaciously Affirming the Consequent).

 

“Please provide supporting evidence.”

Of gravitational lensing, or dark matter.

This short article from Proceedings mentions both.

(http://www.pnas.org/content/110/29/11665.full.pdf )

 

“Yes, astronomers use a variety of techniques to estimate distance for most stars and galaxies. Parallax calculations can be used for the very nearest of stars, but only a very small fraction. "Distance laddering" refers to combinations of additional techniques that must be used for further objects. You can read more about distance laddering here: http://www.iop.org/resources/topic/archive/cosmic/”

So someone writes it on a web site, and you just believe it? But the actual research paper you provided states that they attained a range of distances between 178,000 light years and 250,000 light years. So really not as “accurate” as the web site would have you to believe. Sure, they use a variety of techniques, but all require basing conclusions on assumptions about things which cannot be verified.

 

“Again, can you support these claims? How much does this stretching distort the time scale, 1%, 10%, 90%?”

“Again”, you are failing to consider the process (and seemingly ignoring much of what I wrote). How do you “support” Cosmological Inflation? Inflation is a pure conjecture formulated to account for problems with the Standard Cosmology model. The only support for Inflation is that it reconciles facts to the model which were previously a problem. How much Inflation happened? The answer is; ‘However much is required to reconcile the facts to the model’. It’s an exercise in ‘finding x’. I’m sure the precise answer could be found in some riveting paper, but the point is, the process doesn’t involve measuring any actual Cosmological Inflation - you simply play with the amount till it fits the facts to the story. Likewise, the amount of Time Dilation that occurred in the past can’t be directly measured, it would simply be a matter of ‘finding x’ again – i.e. for your example, the proposed amount of time dilation in this part of space is however much would be required for the light from a 200,000 year event to reach a 6,000 year old earth (probably more, unless the event occurred shortly after the creation).

The whole game when making claims about the past is, ‘do the facts fit the model?’. Current facts can’t tell us what actually happened in the past (without us applying presupposition to their interpretation). Any and all facts that fit the proposed model therefore can be interpreted to “support” the model. For example, your 200,000 light year away event is consistent with, and therefore supports the creationist Time Dilation model. The only reason to reject this is if you presuppose a purely naturalistic reality (where no God plays any role in the passage of space through time). But apart from this faith paradigm, all models which are consistent with the facts are equally viable.

The models themselves are only generated when people with faith presuppositions try to imagine how the facts came about, given their own preferred version of reality. That is, they observe a fact and wonder how that fact could come to exist (usually in a reality devoid of God’s involvement – i.e. in accordance with the naturalistic, materialistic, atheistic faith presupposition). And that’s all I, and other creationists do – observe something and wonder, ‘how could that fact come to exist in the reality described by the Bible?’. That’s how all stories about the past are generated. Exactly no-one objectively follows the facts to their necessary conclusion. All interpret the facts through the lens of faith.

 

“It reinforces nothing of the sort, it is an observation that you haven't included any supporting evidence. You haven't presented anything other than conjecture.”

That is because I understand the process by which the models are generated, and that all interpretations of facts pertaining to the past incorporate “conjecture”.  All the facts are consistent with my preferred model (i.e. every fact in the known universe). But you think that because all the facts are also consistent with your model, that your model is more valid; that the facts consistent with your model are more valid in terms of “support”. If I provide a fact that is consistent with my model, you will simply defer to the secular interpretation – and the conversation goes nowhere. Me providing some random fact to demonstrate consistency with my preferred model would therefore be pointless. The only way for you to see the truth about how much confidence is justified in any past claim, is to assess the process. And since you are the one who thinks the facts only “suggest” your preferred conclusion, that is what I challenge – by asking for a fact (or facts) that you think can only be interpreted to support your position.

That is the point of this thread (or at least of you pointing me here from another thread). I showed here that the fact of energy from distant events could be reconciled to several creationist models; without compromising the historical Genesis account.

 

[one.opinion]

20 minutes ago, Tristen said:

That is the point of this thread (or at least of you pointing me here from another thread). I showed here that the fact of energy from distant events could be reconciled to several creationist models; without compromising the historical Genesis account.

What you have demonstrated is that you will choose to use a "model", regardless if it is supported by anything but conjecture, to explain away anything inconsistent with your view of creation.

25 minutes ago, Tristen said:

“Please provide supporting evidence.”

 

Of gravitational lensing, or dark matter.

 

This short article from Proceedings mentions both.

 

(http://www.pnas.org/content/110/29/11665.full.pdf )

 

 

 

“Yes, astronomers use a variety of techniques to estimate distance for most stars and galaxies. Parallax calculations can be used for the very nearest of stars, but only a very small fraction. "Distance laddering" refers to combinations of additional techniques that must be used for further objects. You can read more about distance laddering here: http://www.iop.org/resources/topic/archive/cosmic/”

 

So someone writes it on a web site, and you just believe it?

Do you even realize the inconsistency of your argument? "Links are sufficient to support my point, but not yours."

But reading your link did reveal some interesting information.

"Gravitational lensing has also helped astronomers see many distant galaxies that would otherwise be too faint to spot. Because light takes time to zip through space, the farther away a galaxy is, the farther back in time it essentially is; therefore, observing these galaxies reveals details about the early universe. For instance, gravitational lensing caused by a galaxy cluster about 2,000 times the mass of the Milky Way revealed a galaxy that existed when the universe was about 500 million years old (2)"

I'm not certain this article is the best evidence supporting your model. I didn't read anything about how gravitational lensing supports the model of a 6,000 year old universe.

 

 

[Enoch2021]

20 hours ago, one.opinion said:

What you have demonstrated is that you will choose to use a "model", regardless if it is supported by anything but conjecture, to explain away anything inconsistent with your view of creation.

For the 6,785th Time, ALL 'models' are demonstrable Pseudo-Science...

Please show "models" in the Scientific Method...? (and not "Ball-Stick" Airplane 'Models' Either !!! lol)...?

"A *model* is used for situations when it is known that the hypothesis has a LIMITATION ON IT'S VALIDITY." 
https://www.thoughtco.com/hypothesis-model-theory-and-law-2699066

Allow me to translate: "Pseudo-Science"...There is no such animal as a Scientific Hypothesis with 'limited validity' it's tantamount to a woman being 'A LITTLE' PREGNANT !! 
REAL Scientific Hypotheses are either CONFIRMED or  INVALIDATED, PERIOD...End of Story!! 
Furthermore, Scientific Hypotheses do not exist in PERPETUITY or wait for more DATA !!! 'Data' comes FROM Experiments - (Hypothesis TESTS ).
A "Model" is conjured when the 'alleged' Hypothesis is UN-TESTABLE!!! That means, there never was an 'ACTUAL' Scientific Hypothesis to begin with !!

 

Quote

"Gravitational lensing has also helped astronomers see many distant galaxies that would otherwise be too faint to spot. Because light takes time to zip through space, the farther away a galaxy is, the farther back in time it essentially is; therefore, observing these galaxies reveals details about the early universe. For instance, gravitational lensing caused by a galaxy cluster about 2,000 times the mass of the Milky Way revealed a galaxy that existed when the universe was about 500 million years old (2)"

I didn't read anything about how gravitational lensing supports the model of a 6,000 year old universe.

Funny, I didn't read any "SCIENCE" in this quote (or article), Whatsoever.

 

btw: Any 'coherent' defense here: PUMMELING one.opinion's claims

???

 

regards