What Do You Consider Evidence of the Supernatural?

[Hans Blaster]

I'm sure you heard of YEC believing in a 6,000 year old Earth and scientific atheism believing in 13.7 B yrs old universe and 4.5 B yrs old Earth.

No. Just "science" not "scientific atheism". Atheism isn't required for science, and science acceptance isn't required for atheists.

 

[Hans Blaster]

So not only is the energy needed, but that which the objects in our universe already have. Our sun, for example, probably won't use up all its fuel for a long time, but something could collide with it and release all that energy into a supernova. That would be the end of our planet and more. Probably our entire galaxy.

Supernovae don't destroy galaxies or even kill all life in them. We know of at least a half dozen supernovae in the fairly close parts of our own galaxy in the last 2000 years (about as far back as we have observational records). We're still here.

 

[Hans Blaster]

You grabbed a bunch of text talking about the power of a supernova, but fir some reason the article included a picture of an entirely different supernova of a different kind:

Supernova 1994D: NASA/ESA

That supernova at bottom left is not sitting in front of the galaxy NGC 4526. It's in the outer edge of that galaxy, 55 million light years away.

So let's talk about the Type Ia supernovae like SN 1994D:

Their luminosity is about 100 times smaller than the extreme example given in the article, about 2e36 J/s. The kinetic energy, which is not part of the EMS, is about 1e44 J. It would take a full year for it emit as much electromagnetic energy as it has in kinetic energy. Unfortunately, it is only close to its peak brightness for a week or two, so the total electromagnetic energy emitted is only a few percent of the kinetic energy. Not a good example of dominance of electromagnetic (or EMS) energy.

 

[Strathos]

The sun is too small to become a supernova under any circumstance. It would need to be 50 times more massive or so.

 

[driewerf]

scientific atheism believing in 13.7 B yrs old universe and 4.5 B yrs old Earth.

The age of the Earth and universe has nothing to do with atheism.

Oh yes Pitabread. All science that remotely contradicts the bible is atheist or evolutionist or atheistic evolutionist.
Geologists say the earth is 4.7 billions years old? Geology is atheist.
Astronomy says the universe is 13.7 billions years old? Astronomy is atheist.
But also all science that somehow supports these statements are somehow atheist or evolutionist or atheistic evolutionist.
Radio active dating says zircons are 3.8 billions years old:atheist or evolutionist or atheistic evolutionist.
Nuclear physics support radio active dating? atheist or evolutionist or atheistic evolutionist
Genetics support the ToE with stuff like pseudogenes, ERV's, fused chromosome nr 2? Genetics atheistic evolutionist.
Jamasbod007 expanded this even to archaeology and prehistory:"the stone age people from human history timeline based on evolutionary thinking."

 

[Ophiolite]

The sun is too small to become a supernova under any circumstance. It would need to be 50 times more massive or so.

And, unlike many humans when they age, it is losing, not gaining weight.

 

[Astrophile]

Deleted

 

[Astrophile]

Our sun, for example, probably won't use up all its fuel for a long time, but something could collide with it and release all that energy into a supernova. That would be the end of our planet and more.

The sun is too small to become a supernova under any circumstance. It would need to be 50 times more massive or so.

The minimum mass for a star to become a core-collapse supernova is 9-12 solar masses, corresponding to the mass of an early B-type star - see Supernova - Wikipedia

 

[Astrophile]

You had the neanderthals who lived in caves presumably in Africa and it took millions of years just to get out of living in caves. Those are what you claim as your ancestors, so what kind of cretin are you?

Neanderthals lived in Europe and western Asia, and were in existence between about 430,000 and 40,000 years ago, not 'millions of years'. They were also intelligent; they were social beings, proficient hunters and skilled tool-makers, they made jewellery, and may have used pigment to decorate or camouflage their bodies - Who were the Neanderthals? . Although Neanderthals contributed to the genome of modern Europeans, ancestral Homo sapiens originated in Africa and were not descended from Neanderthals.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

... You had the neanderthals who lived in caves presumably in Africa and it took millions of years just to get out of living in caves. Those are what you claim as your ancestors, so what kind of cretin are you?

Certainly not the kind who thinks Neanderthals lived millions of years ago...

You already ignored my question of where did the energy come from when in our physical 3-D world, it can't neither be created nor destroyed according to Newton and Einstein.

Einstein's General Relativity means that energy is not conserved over cosmological scales, and a 'zero energy' universe (where the positive energy of matter and radiation exactly balances the negative energy of gravitation) is also a physically possible solution.

You couldn't help but toss in ad hominems is your disdain of me that I now know you are a cretin.

If you think responding with a disgusting ad-hominem of your own is acceptable, you're mistaken. It seems we've seen your true colours.

 

[Strathos]

The minimum mass for a star to become a core-collapse supernova is 9-12 solar masses, corresponding to the mass of an early B-type star - see Supernova - Wikipedia

Eh, I was guessing based on half-remembered information.

 

[OldWiseGuy]

You have. That the Bible is such a thing is an act of faith, not an objective fact.

It's true that the wisdom in the bible is often contradicted. For example it is often better to receive than to give, in the short term at least. Of course the giver in this case is likely in a better state than the receiver, even after his gift.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

It's true that the wisdom in the bible is often contradicted. For example it is often better to receive than to give, in the short term at least. Of course the giver in this case is likely in a better state than the receiver, even after his gift.

That depends how rewarding you find your act of generosity to be

 

[OldWiseGuy]

That depends how rewarding you find your act of generosity to be

I don't worry about rewards, I just send the checks. I give to charity more out a sense of duty than of concern.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

I don't worry about rewards, I just send the checks. I give to charity more out a sense of duty than of concern.

By 'reward' I meant the potential feel-good factor of virtuous (or dutiful) action.

 

[OldWiseGuy]

By 'reward' I meant the potential feel-good factor of virtuous (or dutiful) action.

Yeah, I get that as well. I'm also thankful that I'm able to help others.

 

[jamesbond007]

The minimum mass for a star to become a core-collapse supernova is 9-12 solar masses, corresponding to the mass of an early B-type star - see Supernova - Wikipedia

Not a collapse, but more likely another star striking our sun like Tycho. I found out it happens every once every ten thousand years in space. It makes it more likely than our sun running out of fuel.

 

[Jonathan Walkerin]

Not a collapse, but more likely another star striking our sun like Tycho. I found out it happens every once every ten thousand years in space. It makes it more likely than our sun running out of fuel.

Something happening in a universe of hundreds of billions of galaxies once every ten thousand years does not make it more likely that our sun gets crashed before it runs out of fuel.

Where do you get these ideas ?

 

[jamesbond007]

Something happening in a universe of hundreds of billions of galaxies once every ten thousand years does not make it more likely that our sun gets crashed before it runs out of fuel.

Where do you get these ideas ?

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.

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

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 thang.

Sorry for the too long explanation, but started with what we see in outer space due to its accelerated expansion at the speed of light. We see entire universes collide with each other.

In another weird footnote, Sir Isaac Newton thought the world would end in 2060. Since he was Christian, I think he thought it was due to the second coming of Jesus. I don't think he mentioned any space collisions or knew such things happen.

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

Since it's been said but has been skipped over, I'll say it again: by it's own nature, the supernatural cannot leave evidence of itself because it is not a part of nature. Supernatural even means, from the Latin root supernaturalis, 'beyond nature'.