Jump to content


Photo

Third-Stage Supernova Remnants And A "young" Universe


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

#1 ChrisCarlascio

ChrisCarlascio

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 185 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 20
  • no affiliation
  • Creationist
  • Lakeland, Florida

Posted 29 August 2012 - 09:46 PM

If we see third-stage supernova remnants[1] and it takes more than 10,000 years for them to reach their third stage, how can the universe be about 6,000 years old? Thanks for reading.

[1] http://www.talkorigi...faqs/supernova/

#2 Bonedigger

Bonedigger

    Admin Team

  • Admin Team
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1023 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Creation, Vertebrate Paleontology-particularly mammals and especially Perissodactyls & Carnivores, Hunting, Shooting, Handloading, Weaving Chainmaille, Hebrew and other Biblically relevant languages, Astronomy
  • Age: 48
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Colorado

Posted 29 August 2012 - 11:44 PM

While I confess that my interest in Astronomy and Astrophysics stems from childhood, and my knowledge of them is rather limited due to other interests, I think your question dovetails right into the distant starlight question (how could light from billions of light-years away have reached the Earth in only 6000 years or less?). Although I am intrigued by and am further investigating (along with hundreds of other things) John Hartnett's model available here (http://creation.com/...el-time-problem), I tend to prefer Humphrey's white hole cosmogony as a starting point explanation (http://creation.com/...hstands-attacks). It allows for millions or billions of years of cosmological processes occurring while very little time passed on the earth due to gravitaional time dilation as the event horizon contracted and passed the earth. Of course, that kind of explanation is anathema to evolutionary cosmologists because it discards the "Cosmological Principle" (sometimes called the "Copernican Principle") that imposes the philosophical principle on Astrophysics that we are nowhere special in the universe, no matter what kind of ridiculous hyperspace-time geometry you have to concoct to maintain it.

I find it interesting that, in spite of its overabundant referencing, the talkorigins page you linked only briefly addresses Humphrey's cosmogenic model by claiming that it has been debunked (with the word debunked hyperlinked to a "Page Not Found" page on Hugh Ross's Reasons to Believe site), and a trueorigin.org page that provides several articles containing criticisms of Humphrey's model with Humphrey's own responses (http://www.trueorigin.org/ca_rh_03.asp). I find Humphrey's responses adequate and question Dave Moore's assertion that it has been "debunked" just because there have been multiple criticisms.

Of course, the first two paragraphs give the typical tone of any talkorigins article where he claims that YEC's "vehemently reject most of modern science". Yes, young earth creationists must refuse to ride in planes, drive cars, use computers, have surgery, use light bulbs, and all the other benefits that we enjoy from real (empirical) science because we reject the unobservable, fanciful storytelling that evolutionists constantly seek to equate with the former. But, then again, that argument is probably more appropriate for gilbo's "Bias" thread.Posted Image

#3 MarkForbes

MarkForbes

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 992 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:South Africa
  • Age: 35
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • Waverley

Posted 30 August 2012 - 02:34 PM

How do they know that it takes more then 10.000 years?

#4 ChrisCarlascio

ChrisCarlascio

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 185 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 20
  • no affiliation
  • Creationist
  • Lakeland, Florida

Posted 30 August 2012 - 03:20 PM

While I confess that my interest in Astronomy and Astrophysics stems from childhood, and my knowledge of them is rather limited due to other interests, I think your question dovetails right into the distant starlight question (how could light from billions of light-years away have reached the Earth in only 6000 years or less?).


I have Hartnett and Humphrey's books, but I haven't started reading them yet. I think I get their basic ideas, but this subject also needs more research.

I find it interesting that, in spite of its overabundant referencing, the talkorigins page you linked only briefly addresses Humphrey's cosmogenic model by claiming that it has been debunked (with the word debunked hyperlinked to a "Page Not Found" page on Hugh Ross's Reasons to Believe site), and a trueorigin.org page that provides several articles containing criticisms of Humphrey's model with Humphrey's own responses (http://www.trueorigin.org/ca_rh_03.asp). I find Humphrey's responses adequate and question Dave Moore's assertion that it has been "debunked" just because there have been multiple criticisms.


lol I also noticed that, but he must have found problems with the first model, because he has a second one now:

How do they know that it takes more then 10.000 years?


That would probably be the right thing to question, but I'd guess they'd say that it's an unobservable theoretical model based on physics and math. I was just wondering if there were reasons (apart from written history) for rejecting this model of aging SNRs.

#5 Bonedigger

Bonedigger

    Admin Team

  • Admin Team
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1023 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Creation, Vertebrate Paleontology-particularly mammals and especially Perissodactyls & Carnivores, Hunting, Shooting, Handloading, Weaving Chainmaille, Hebrew and other Biblically relevant languages, Astronomy
  • Age: 48
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Colorado

Posted 30 August 2012 - 04:50 PM

lol I also noticed that, but he must have found problems with the first model, because he has a second one now:


Interesting. Thanks for the video. I ran across Humphrey's newer model here but hadn't had a chance to read through it yet and didn't realize it was a little different. Ironically, I ordered the DVD for that video as well as Hartnett's book and DVD and a few other things last weekend and they should arrive any day. Looks like I've got a lot of reading ahead Posted Image

#6 MarkForbes

MarkForbes

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 992 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:South Africa
  • Age: 35
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • Waverley

Posted 31 August 2012 - 02:45 AM

...That would probably be the right thing to question, but I'd guess they'd say that it's an unobservable theoretical model based on physics and math. I was just wondering if there were reasons (apart from written history) for rejecting this model of aging SNRs.

And such models are convincing, because they are so consistent inside.... as long as ALL the assumptions are correct. But what if things just happened to speed up faster for some reason?

#7 ChrisCarlascio

ChrisCarlascio

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 185 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 20
  • no affiliation
  • Creationist
  • Lakeland, Florida

Posted 31 August 2012 - 03:24 PM

Interesting. Thanks for the video. I ran across Humphrey's newer model here but hadn't had a chance to read through it yet and didn't realize it was a little different. Ironically, I ordered the DVD for that video as well as Hartnett's book and DVD and a few other things last weekend and they should arrive any day. Looks like I've got a lot of reading ahead Posted Image


No problem. I also ordered that DVD and realized it was on YouTube a day later.

And such models are convincing, because they are so consistent inside.... as long as ALL the assumptions are correct. But what if things just happened to speed up faster for some reason?


Yeah, I agree. No way to know for sure unless you had observations recorded for that long. I just noticed TalkOrigins using that as evidence against a universe about 6,000 years old and was wondering if their was a response to that claim that people have thought of, but you're right, they probably made a lot of wrong assumptions when they made this model.

#8 MarkForbes

MarkForbes

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 992 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:South Africa
  • Age: 35
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • Waverley

Posted 01 September 2012 - 01:57 PM

Yeah, I agree. No way to know for sure unless you had observations recorded for that long. I just noticed TalkOrigins using that as evidence against a universe about 6,000 years old and was wondering if their was a response to that claim that people have thought of, but you're right, they probably made a lot of wrong assumptions when they made this model.

They most probably made one or more uniformitarian assumptions. And many of those assumptions look quite plausible at first hand (speed of light, speed of astronomic process etc. ). But what if they've been different in the past. Or if there are some events that may have influenced things.




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users