SN1987A

[variant]

As long as you guys stop harping on SN1987A, I'll be happy; at least now I have a thread to QV you guys to, when you want an explanation.

There is a difference between you making stuff up and a worthwhile explanation.

Your "expatiation" in this thread is just you asserting truths that support your world-view without the scantest reason why we should care about your world-view.

 

[AV1611VET]

There is a difference between you making stuff up and a worthwhile explanation.

Your "expatiation" in this thread is just you asserting truths that support your world-view without the scantest reason why we should care about your world-view.

What you think of 'my worldview' is your prerogative.

I could say I believe Jesus walked on water and get the same response.

So what does it matter to you guys if some 'unknown author, who was nothing more than a bronze-age, ignorant, goat-hearder' made it up by placing prophesies in the Bible after-the-fact, getting a man to volunteer as the Messiah, or listening to me make educated suppositions?

If the Bible is just a book of myths to some of you; why are you harping on me 'making something up'?

In short, if I backed up every one of my premises with a verse from the Bible, would that change your mind?

 

[variant]

What you think of 'my worldview' is your prerogative.

I could say I believe Jesus walked on water and get the same response.

So what does it matter to you guys if some 'unknown author, who was nothing more than a bronze-age, ignorant, goat-hearder' made it up by placing prophesies in the Bible after-the-fact, getting a man to volunteer as the Messiah, or listening to me make educated suppositions?

If the Bible is just a book of myths to some of you; why are you harping on me 'making something up'?

In short, if I backed up every one of my premises with a verse from the Bible, would that change your mind?

You personally are making this particular stuff up to support your personal views.

I didn't say a word about the Bible, I am putting YOUR ideas on trial.

The fact that YOUR ideas are ridiculous ad hoc explanations to suit your reading of the Bible is the problem here.

 

[AV1611VET]

You personally are making this particular stuff up to support your personal views.

Yes and no ... I already showed you a book that explains part of this.

The alternative, as I see it, is to look at SN1987A as you guys look at it, and that's not going to happen.

I didn't say a word about the Bible, I am putting YOUR ideas on trial.

Good ... put my ideas on trial; that's fine with me.

You may not like my details, but hopefully you'll see my methods; and if you see them as 'nutty' ... that's fine too; as long as you see them.

The fact that YOUR ideas are ridiculous ad hoc explanations to suit your reading of the Bible is the problem here.

In just this thread, variant, which ideas are mine and which are Mr. Flemings?

Can you separate the two; or are you just wanting to ridicule me?

 

[variant]

Yes and no ... I already showed you a book that explains part of this.

The alternative, as I see it, is to look at SN1987A as you guys look at it, and that's not going to happen.

You showed us where you thought it said that.

Let us not let facts get in the way of your imagination.

Good ... put my ideas on trial; that's fine with me.

You may not like my details, but hopefully you'll see my methods; and if you see them as 'nutty' ... that's fine too; as long as you see them.

Your methods are the haphazard byproducts of your imagination yielding whatever fruit you decided was right before you began the process.

In just this thread, variant, which ideas are mine and which are Mr. Flemings?

Can you separate the two; or are you just wanting to ridicule me?

I am ridiculing the ideas you are presenting, regardless of if they are yours or someone who you believe.

 

[AV1611VET]

Your methods are the haphazard byproducts of your imagination yielding whatever fruit you decided was right before you began the process.

Again, variant, you are just repeating yourself.

I'm challenging you now to differentiate what ideas are mine, and what ideas are Mr. Flemings.

If you don't know, kindly stop with the 'this is YOUR idea' routine.

Thank you ...

 

[variant]

Again, variant, you are just repeating yourself.

I'm challenging you now to differentiate what ideas are mine, and what ideas are Mr. Flemings.

If you don't know, kindly stop with the 'this is YOUR idea' routine.

Thank you ...

Are you saying you've been plagiarizing?

The post I quoted started out very specifically with no references....

Just my thoughts on SN1987A, FWIW:

Are you calling yourself a liar and a plagiarist?

You'll have to forgive me if I assumed you were posting your own ideas after prefacing your post with a sentence that said exactly that.

Somebody is full of it, that much is clear here.

 

[AV1611VET]

Are you saying you've been plagiarizing?

The post I quoted started out very specifically with no references....



Are you calling yourself a liar and a plagiarist?

You'll have to forgive me if I assumed you were posting your own ideas after prefacing your post with a sentence that said exactly that.

Have a good day, sir; it's been nice chatting with you.

 

[Smithi]

Seeing as we are dealing with fiction in this thread, here is a much better piece of it, that also deals with a supernova and religion;

The Star
Arthur C. Clarke
1954;

https://sites.uni.edu/morgans/astro/course/TheStar.pdf

 

[AV1611VET]

Seeing as we are dealing with fiction in this thread,

What I see in this thread is ridicule by those who will probably ... sometime in the future ... ask another Christian to explain how light from a distant object in space can be seen from the Earth, if the Earth has only been around for some six thousand years.

It's like going around ridiculing those who believe light can travel across space, then demanding how you can see the moon.

 

[Smithi]

What I see in this thread is ridicule by those who will probably ... sometime in the future ... ask another Christian to explain how light from a distant object in space can be seen from the Earth, if the Earth has only been around for some six thousand years.

It's like going around ridiculing those who believe light can travel across space, then demanding how you can see the moon.

Gibberish. Makes no sense on any level.

 

[AV1611VET]

Gibberish. Makes no sense on any level.

Science is myopic.

 

[VirOptimus]

Science is myopic.

Science is a method, it is not something that can be ”myopic”.

 

[AV1611VET]

Science is a method,

Then it's a myopic method.

 

[VirOptimus]

Then it's a myopic method.

A method cant be ”myopic”.

 

[AV1611VET]

A method cant be ”myopic”.

Convince me otherwise.

Scientists can speak all day, and you can hear what they're saying.

But it's what they're not saying (because they can't) that makes them myopic.

 

[VirOptimus]

Convince me otherwise.

Scientists can speak all day, and you can hear what they're saying.

But it's what they're not saying (because they can't) that makes them myopic.

Firstly; scientist(s) are not the same as science.

Secondly; in science all is revealed and supported. Otherwise its not science.

So, I am right and you are wrong.

 

[AV1611VET]

Firstly; scientist(s) are not the same as science.

Secondly; in science all is revealed and supported. Otherwise its not science.

So, I am right and you are wrong.

Just to placate you, I'll put it this way then:

Science is incomplete.

Better?

 

[VirOptimus]

Just to placate you, I'll put it this way then:

Science is incomplete.

Better?

Thats incomprehensible.

What is missing?

 

[AV1611VET]

Thats incomprehensible.

What is missing?

Omniscience.