What Do You Consider Evidence of the Supernatural?

[pitabread]

Creation scientists knew about the expansion of the universe.

[citation needed]

(This is rhetorical, btw. I know you're just making this up.)

 

[Speedwell]

[citation needed]

(This is rhetorical, btw. I know you're just making this up.)

He's right. See, for example, Isaiah 42:5
"Thus says God, the Lord, who created the heavens and stretched them out..."
This all the evidence creation "scientists" need to claim the discovery that the universe is expanding--and all they'll ever have..

 

[Hans Blaster]

First, I worked for the company that built the Hubble telescope. In fact, for a time it was right next door to my office. After that, most of us didn't know its exact location (top secret). After launch, the colliding galaxies are one of the spectacular things the Hubble captured along with evidence for the black hole. What do you think were spectacular?

Creation scientists knew about the expansion of the universe. In fact, we know more about what is coming up while you don't. Why is that I knew about Tycho?

I really don't care what aerospace contractor (or subcontractor) you worked for. It's not relevant to the efforts of "creation science".

The Hubble Space Telescope did *not* discover colliding galaxies. They were well know prior to launch (and that's why the HST was targeted at them, because they knew where to look).

"Creation scientists" only "knew" about the expansion of the universe because proper astronomers and cosmologists wrote papers that they could read including the original work of Hubble (the astronomer) in the 1920s. Creation science has *no* predictive power, whatsoever.

I don't know why you knew about Tycho (the astronomer, the supernova, the supernova remnant, it is not clear from your post). All of the things "Tycho" are well known. Tycho was an important astronomer from the early modern period and is mentioned in many texts on basic history of science. (He's not as famous as Kepler, Copernicus, or Gallileo, though Kepler was his assistant and used much of his data to derive his planetary motion laws.) Tycho's supernova is the last supernova observed in our own galaxy and the supernova remnant is a frequently targeted object that has been studied extensively in the X-ray.

 

[Astrophile]

Tycho's supernova is the last supernova observed in our own galaxy and the supernova remnant is a frequently targeted object that has been studied extensively in the X-ray.

Tycho's supernova appeared in 1572, and Tycho himself died in November 1601. The last supernova observed in our own galaxy was Kepler's supernova of October 1604.

 

[Speedwell]

I really don't care what aerospace contractor (or subcontractor) you worked for. It's not relevant to the efforts of "creation science".

The Hubble Space Telescope did *not* discover colliding galaxies. They were well know prior to launch (and that's why the HST was targeted at them, because they knew where to look).

"Creation scientists" only "knew" about the expansion of the universe because proper astronomers and cosmologists wrote papers that they could read including the original work of Hubble (the astronomer) in the 1920s. Creation science has *no* predictive power, whatsoever.

I don't know why you knew about Tycho (the astronomer, the supernova, the supernova remnant, it is not clear from your post). All of the things "Tycho" are well known. Tycho was an important astronomer from the early modern period and is mentioned in many texts on basic history of science. (He's not as famous as Kepler, Copernicus, or Gallileo, though Kepler was his assistant and used much of his data to derive his planetary motion laws.) Tycho's supernova is the last supernova observed in our own galaxy and the supernova remnant is a frequently targeted object that has been studied extensively in the X-ray.

The important thing about Tycho is that he wasn't an atheist. Of course, he wasn't a biblical literalist Fundy, either, but you won't hear that part from the likes of our colleague James Bond.

 

[sjastro]

I don't know why you knew about Tycho (the astronomer, the supernova, the supernova remnant, it is not clear from your post). All of the things "Tycho" are well known. Tycho was an important astronomer from the early modern period and is mentioned in many texts on basic history of science. (He's not as famous as Kepler, Copernicus, or Gallileo, though Kepler was his assistant and used much of his data to derive his planetary motion laws.)

By today's standards Tycho Brahe was a workplace bully and made Kepler's life a misery.
Tycho didn't reach the fame of Kepler as he came up with the Tychonic system of the universe where the Sun, Moon and stars orbited the Earth while the five known planets at the time orbited the Sun.

​

Tycho's records however were invaluable and used by Kepler to formulate the laws of planetary motion.

 

[Hans Blaster]

Tycho's supernova appeared in 1572, and Tycho himself died in November 1601. The last supernova observed in our own galaxy was Kepler's supernova of October 1604.

Rats! I knew that.

There was a hidden supernova in the late 19th century that we know only from its remnant.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

If Hawking did comment on time travel in thebook it would likely be in the context of closed time like curves. These are compatible with general relativity and do not rule out the possibility of time travel. Hawking, however, proposed the chronology protection conjecture that would limit time travel to microscopic scales.

He may have said something about it in one of his other books - I'll have a look. For an entertaining overview of time-travel - how it works in sci-fi, how it might work logically, and how it could work while complying with known physics, check out Sean Carroll's Mindscape podcast How Time Travel Could and Should Work.

E.T.A. Hawking devotes chapter 5 of 'The Universe in a Nutshell' to the idea of time travel into the past. He looks at various theoretical options for closed timeline curves and concludes that, though theoretically possible, none of them are practical.

He finishes the chapter estimating the probability that Kip Thorne could go back in time and kill his grandfather as less than 1 in 10 with a trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion zeroes.

"You might wonder if this chapter is part of a government cover-up on time trave. You might be right." S.Hawking​

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

Chapter 10. I think he discusses invisible wormholes.

Nope, ch.10 is about unification theories, and wormholes don't even appear in the index.

When did he start believing in multiverse? One needs something to go back to.

He didn't believe in a multiverse. For him (and other physicists) it was just a possibility.

Also, do you believe one can travel into the future? You should now if you didn't believe it before.

We all do it all the time - at least one second per second; and the more and faster you move around, the faster you go into the future relative to homebodies. Special Relativity.

 

[klutedavid]

One of things I've discovered is the Big Bang Theory from the evolutionist side does not readily explain what happened before the big bang. It wasn't an explosion, but an expansion so where did all the energy come from? I think we both agree there was a beginning from discovering the CMB. With creation science, we have the start of the spacetime caused by God -- "In the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth." Genesis 1:1

This can be readily demonstrated by the fourth dimension and how the x, y, and z-axes follow. We usually call the fourth dimension time, but it also includes space with the other three dimensions that time can access. It becomes spacetime. Us humans, being in three dimensions cannot control time. We cannot stop it, but we can make it appear faster or slower. We can time travel into the future, but can't travel backward in time. It's strange how time can be started from evolution when it affects only the three dimensions.

Anyway, we have the universe, Earth, and everything in it as evidence for God or for evolution depending on what beliefs you hold.

I think what makes the argument stronger for God is that he also tells us that he created the electromagnetic spectrum (EMS) on the first day. "And God said, “Let there be light,” and there was light." Genesis 1:3

What we find is that the EMS contains all of the energy in the universe. Later, we find both Newton and Einstein stated the fact that energy can neither be created or destroyed, but only transferred.

Thus, my point is does the EMS show something that is supernatural? We cannot have anything like this just pop up in our three dimensional universe as it would have to be created before the universe started to expand. It is a tremendous amount of energy that isn't present in quantum mechanics. I do agree that what Newton and Einstein discovered is part of our natural world, but not the creation of the EMS.

So, I thought where did this energy come from? The creationists have an explanation.

I do not even understand the concept of the word, 'natural'. How am I to be expected to understand that extended concept of, 'supernatural'. Let alone, being able to supply hard evidence of either.

I seriously doubt, that science can comprehend this universe. It just keeps increasing in scale and complexity.

I thought by now, with the possible existence of Dark energy and Dark matter. We can at last, admit that our cosmic enquiry has been ultimately in vain. That is without adding the strangeness of subatomic physics into the mix.

Throw in the towel folks and return to the trees.

 

[pitabread]

He's right. See, for example, Isaiah 42:5
"Thus says God, the Lord, who created the heavens and stretched them out..."
This all the evidence creation "scientists" need to claim the discovery that the universe is expanding--and all they'll ever have..

Oh, I know. It's just another example of post-hoc rationalization, then trying to claim that creationists somehow invented this stuff.

If the universe was static, I'm sure creationists would find a way to spin the Bible that way instead.

 

[pitabread]

Throw in the towel folks and return to the trees.

You first.

 

[Ophiolite]

If the universe was static, I'm sure creationists would find a way to spin the Bible that way instead.

Hmm. If the universe was static they wouldn't want a spinning Bible, surely. Too contradictory!

 

[klutedavid]

You first.

I'm already up in the tree. We knew that when you left the branches it would end badly.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

I'm already up in the tree. We knew that when you left the branches it would end badly.

Get down from there - and stop picking the low-hanging fruit!

 

[Astrophile]

It started with reading about a lesser known Danish astronomer named Tycho Brahe whose works influenced Isaac Newton and Johannes Kepler. Apparently, he dedicated his life to watching the heavens and he saw a new bright object in the constellation in 1572. He thought it was an unusual new star, now referred to as Tycho star, but it was really a supernova.

Tycho (1546-1601) was famous in his own time; Giovanni Riccioli gave his name to the brightest lunar ray crater on his Moon map of 1651.

However, it wasn't the typical supernova or death of a star due to it running out of fuel or something natural. I think it was in 2011 that China's astronomers discovered it may have been caused by another star coming close and their attraction caused a supernova explosion.

2019
Historic Star Explosion's Trigger Discovered | Space

Prior to it, they thought it was a regular supernova (this is still 2019)
https://www.nasa.gov/image-feature/the-tycho-supernova-death-of-a-star

The explosion of Tycho's supernova was not due to an accidental collision of two unrelated stars. It was due to runaway nuclear reactions in a white dwarf that was accreting mass from a companion star in a binary system.

Our white dwarf won't likely run out of fuel anytime soon. It could be more likely that another star enters our solar system and gravity does it's thing.

A white dwarf is the degenerate core of a star that has run out of nuclear fuel. It is extremely unlikely that another star will ever come close enough to the Sun to exchange mass with it.

 

[AV1611VET]

What do you consider evidence of the supernatural?

1. Time divided into BC and AD.
2. Organizations such as the Red Cross and Salvation Army.
3. Hospitals built by Christian organizations.
4. Beautiful Christian artwork, edifices, statuary and literature.
5. IN GOD WE TRUST on our coins and UNDER GOD in our pledge of allegiance.
6. The Ten Commandments and other literature displayed in public.
7. Christmas & Easter
8. Symbols on bumper stickers and flags.
9. Public debates in the name of Christianity.
10. Crosses and billboards erected to testify of Jesus Christ.

 

[Astrid]

Goddidit is not an explanation.

Ha. A paltry quip readily overwhelmed by the power of Gish.

 

[Larniavc]

1. Time divided into BC and AD.
2. Organizations such as the Red Cross and Salvation Army.
3. Hospitals built by Christian organizations.
4. Beautiful Christian artwork, edifices, statuary and literature.
5. IN GOD WE TRUST on our coins and UNDER GOD in our pledge of allegiance.
6. The Ten Commandments and other literature displayed in public.
7. Christmas & Easter
8. Symbols on bumper stickers and flags.
9. Public debates in the name of Christianity.
10. Crosses and billboards erected to testify of Jesus Christ.

All of that can be true a God not be real.

 

[AV1611VET]

All of that can be true a God not be real.

Which came first, in your opinion? God, or those things I mentioned?