Jump to content


Photo

Positive Evididence For Creationism


  • This topic is locked This topic is locked
67 replies to this topic

#61 jamesf

jamesf

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 317 posts
  • Age: 47
  • no affiliation
  • Theistic Evolutionist
  • syracuse

Posted 14 October 2007 - 06:49 PM

If SNRs happen every 25 years and there 265 SNR recorded that means 25x265= 6625 years.  If the earth is older there should be more SNRs recorded. 100,000x25=4000 SNRs should be recorded if the earth is 100,000 years old and this number should be higher if the earth's age is 4.5 billion years.

Bob Barclay

View Post


Fascinating. Afraid I didn't see an answer to my question. Although it seems that some creationsits here accept that the universe can be much older than 10,000 years (that sounds rational), although everyone seems to like Usher's calculations of the age of Adam for humankind.

Let’s first address yours then go back to my question. There are a number of reasons why it would be hard to find old supernova remnants.
1. They dissipate over time making them hard and harder to find. As you stated, they should only be visible after 100,000 or so years.
2. Furthermore, only the largest ones last long enough to be seen for more than a few hundred years. So only the largest ones will be visible from any distance more than a few thousand light years.
3. Any large close supernovae would have destroyed life on the planet. Therefore, the earth can not be in a place where there are very large old supernovae nearby.

Ok. So back to my question. Supernova are explosions that have been dated quite clearly by a lot of astronomers. As I noted, many are in the 30,000 to the 100,000 year range – with a few older. And as our telescopes get better, we see older and older ones (they are very dim).

How does young earth theory explain these? The dating is not that complicated since you can just track the material back to the origin and see how long it takes to get there. Does your theory propose that the supernova were created 6000 years ago to look like they exploded 50,000 years ago?

Personally, I just love this supernova that blew up 100,000 years ago and is relatively close (just 3000 light years away). I think everyone can agree it is really spectacular!

Posted Image

#62 rbarclay

rbarclay

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 184 posts
  • Age: 55
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Tower, Minnesota

Posted 17 October 2007 - 07:48 AM

Fascinating. Afraid I didn't see an answer to my question. Although it seems that some creationsits here accept that the universe can be much older than 10,000 years (that sounds rational), although everyone seems to like Usher's calculations of the age of Adam for humankind.

Let’s first address yours then go back to my question. There are a number of reasons why it would be hard to find old supernova remnants.
1. They dissipate over time making them hard and harder to find. As you stated, they should only be visible after 100,000 or so years.
2. Furthermore, only the largest ones last long enough to be seen for more than a few hundred years. So only the largest ones will be visible from any distance more than a few thousand light years.
3. Any large close supernovae would have destroyed life on the planet. Therefore, the earth can not be in a place where there are very large old supernovae nearby.

Ok. So back to my question. Supernova are explosions that have been dated quite clearly by a lot of astronomers. As I noted, many are in the 30,000 to the 100,000 year range – with a few older.  And as our telescopes get better, we see older and older ones (they are very dim).

How does young earth theory explain these? The dating is not that complicated since you can just track the material back to the origin and see how long it takes to get there. Does your theory propose that the supernova were created 6000 years ago to look like they exploded 50,000 years ago?

Personally, I just love this supernova that blew up 100,000 years ago and is relatively close (just 3000 light years away). I think everyone can agree it is really spectacular!

Posted Image

View Post


I did answer your question: with the amount of SNRs seen the earth is about 7000 years old. If the earth is as old as you claim we should be seeing about 4000 SNRs.

Also it is agreed by scientists that SNRs are visible for at least 100,000 years go so you are short a few thousand SNRs for your old earth theory.

Bob Barclay

#63 jamesf

jamesf

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 317 posts
  • Age: 47
  • no affiliation
  • Theistic Evolutionist
  • syracuse

Posted 17 October 2007 - 09:18 AM

I did answer your question: with the amount of SNRs seen the earth is about 7000 years old. If the earth is as old as you claim we should be seeing about 4000 SNRs.

Also it is agreed by scientists that SNRs are visible for at least 100,000 years go so you are short a few thousand SNRs for your old earth theory.

Bob Barclay

View Post



Hmmm. I addressed your point giving three reasons why it is hard to find old SNRs. However, there are many old SNRs out there. Maybe you missed my question. I will state it again.

How does young earth theory explain all these old SNRs dated at 30,000 to 100,000 years? The dating is not that complicated since you can just track the material back to the origin and see how long it takes to get there. Does your theory propose that the supernova were created 6000 years ago to look like they exploded 50,000 years ago?


If the star that goes supernova is extremely large and is in relatively empty space, the remnant can survive longer than 100,000 years. So far the oldest claim is for one that is 4.3 million years old.

Posted Image

http://www.ras.ucalg...~stil/CGPS.html

http://www.ras.ucalg...shell_multi.gif

"We present the peculiar expanding HI shell GSH 138-01-94, discovered in the Canadian Galactic Plane Survey (recently expanded into the International Galactic Plane Survey). This shell is unique because of its unusual location, in the outermost regions of the Galactic disk. The properties of the shell are discussed, as well as possible origins. This leads to the interpreattion that GSH 138-01-94 is probably the remnant of a supernova explosion that occurred 4.3 million years ago in the outer Galaxy. As such, GSH 138-01-94 is the largest, oldest supernova remnant known to date."


Here is another old one.
Posted Image
http://galaxymap.org/images/27340.jpg

"This vast 2.6 million year old supernova remnant is usually simply called "the Gum nebula". Located at the collision between the Gould Belt and the Vela region, the Gum nebula is a major part of the local galaxy."
http://galaxymap.org...bin/gum.py?s=11

#64 Guest_92g_*

Guest_92g_*
  • Guests

Posted 17 October 2007 - 12:47 PM

How does young earth theory explain all these old SNRs dated at 30,000 to 100,000 years? The dating is not that complicated since you can just track the material back to the origin and see how long it takes to get there.


From a scientific point of view, its probably safe to say that YEC theory believes that the speed of light has changed in the past, and that calculations that indicate the earth is older than ~10k years are based on false assumptions.

This concept is supported by helium diffusion in zircons rates that indicate the earth is magnitudes less than 4.5 Billion years old.

So, whether you admit it or not, your dating techniques have some problems.

This thread has kind of drifted all over the place. I'm going to leave it open for a day or two, but it will be closed if it does not head back to the origninal topic.

Terry

#65 jamesf

jamesf

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 317 posts
  • Age: 47
  • no affiliation
  • Theistic Evolutionist
  • syracuse

Posted 17 October 2007 - 08:12 PM

From a scientific point of view, its probably safe to say that YEC theory believes that the speed of light has changed in the past, and that calculations that indicate the earth is older than ~10k years are based on false assumptions.

View Post



I could be wrong, but I don't believe the speed of light is used to calculate the age of a supernova remnant. I did not include the time for the light to get here when describing the age, although that would make them older yet. We were talking about how long before the the current apparent age the star exploded. It is like throwing a rock into a lake. The wave spreads away from where the rock went in, and it is relatively straightforward to calculate when the rock went in. Just look at the the diameter of the ripple and the speed of the ripple. Seems like Supernova remnants are very good evidence for an old earth since there are many older than 30,000 years and some in the millions of years.


If we are finished with the discussion that supernovas argue for a young earth (although I would love to see a direct answer to my question), I am happy to discuss any of the other lines of evidence.

I find the idea of the speed of light changing a fascinating notion. Since E=mc^2 you must be arguing that the energy from the conversion must have been higher in the past. If there was a 20% increase in the speed, then the energy would have been 41% higher? In thermonuclear explosions that power the sun more energy would be released too. How much faster would you like the light to be? It seems much more than 10% would fry the earth. Of course, there would be distortions to the shapes of galaxies and the like. I would like to see the evidence since there must be plenty for anything larger than a few percent change, but maybe that should be another thread.

#66 4jacks

4jacks

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 161 posts
  • Age: 28
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Maryland, Home of the Merry

Posted 18 October 2007 - 11:20 AM

The wave spreads away from where the rock went in, and it is relatively straightforward to calculate when the rock went in. Just look at the the diameter of the ripple and the speed of the ripple.


Hey James,
I'm not sure if you are aware of the ongoing debate on the measurement of the distance to objects in outerspace. If you aren't aware I could try to breifly fill you in on the basics. But basically, our measurements to anything out of our solar system become subject to huge amounts of error.

This of course will play out in the size of the ripple and the speed of the ripple. There just aren't any accurate means to measure these things on earth.

An anology would be for me to get some unknown liquid in a kiddy pool, and a rock of unknown density and size.

I tell you I'm going to throw the rock in the pool, and from observing the ripple you have to tell me all about it. You agree to it, and then I tell you the catch. You have to observe the whole thing from a Helicopter 2000 feet above the earth.

Needless to say, what you can tell me about that ripple is very limited.

#67 jamesf

jamesf

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 317 posts
  • Age: 47
  • no affiliation
  • Theistic Evolutionist
  • syracuse

Posted 19 October 2007 - 07:52 AM

4Jacks,
First let me tell you that I appreciate the friendly, open minded attitude you are showing even when we disagree. This can make these debates both fun and interesting. I hope we can continue this friendly attitude.


Hey James,
I'm not sure if you are aware of the ongoing debate on the measurement of the distance to objects in outerspace.  If you aren't aware I could try to breifly fill you in on the basics.  But basically, our measurements to anything out of our solar system become subject to huge amounts of error.

View Post


Actually, the movement of the earth around the sun allows us to triangulate the distances out to about 400 light years.
http://science.howst...question224.htm

Within 400 light years, there are more than 500,000 stars. This allows us to learn a great deal about the relation between the type of the star and its size with a great deal of certainty. Here is a great link to see the scale of things. Be sure to click on the zoom out and zoom in part and look at the number of stars (notice, we have around 200 billion in our own galaxy!)

http://www.atlasofth...com/250lys.html

From all this, we get a great deal of information about the size of our own galaxy and the distance to other galaxies. The distance estimates have been confirmed using a variety of independent sources beyond just triangulation. The Andromeda galaxy (about 2 million light years away) has stars just like those in our own galaxy. Because certain types of stars have very specific size (Cephied variables), and they are also found in Andromeda, Edwin Hubble was able to get a very accurate measurement of Andromeda. Again, this has been confirmed by multiple sources (e.g., the brightness of Supernova's etc).


This of course will play out in the size of the ripple and the speed of the ripple.  There just aren't any accurate means to measure these things on earth.

An anology would be for me to get some unknown liquid in a kiddy pool, and a rock of unknown density and size. 

I tell you I'm going to throw the rock in the pool, and from observing the ripple you have to tell me all about it.  You agree to it, and then I tell you the catch.  You have to observe the whole thing from a Helicopter 2000 feet above the earth. 

Needless to say, what you can tell me about that ripple is very limited.

View Post


I like your example, but afraid it doesn't work. In your example, I could tell precisely when the rock was thrown in the pool. The distance I observe it, the viscosity, and the size of the rock do not affect the prediction. One needs only know the speed of the ripple relative to the size of the ripple to predict when the rock was thrown in.

For example, if you have this picture at time one and time two, I can predict when the rock went in. The answer would be the same whether or not the ripple was 1 meter wide or 1000 meters wide, and would not matter what the size of the rock was or the viscosity. I can describe more if you would like.

Posted Image
http://www.emrgnc.com.au/ripple10.JPG

This is the beauty of these Supernova remnants. I can use them to date the time of the supernova by looking at the speed that the shell expands. I do not need to know how far away they are.

James

#68 Guest_92g_*

Guest_92g_*
  • Guests

Posted 20 October 2007 - 06:14 AM

This thread has taken a turn more about the age of the earth than evolution itself.

The discussion is fine, but a new thread needs to be opened to continue it.

Terry




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users