[1) A supernova is observed. Scientists say the original event occurred 4000 years ago using various techniques. You'd accept that.
I reject #2 as science as it is unobservable. In order to study something in science one must observe the associated event.
28 comments
That would depend, of course, on how far away the star was that went nova. Light, travelling at 186,000 miles per second, can take many millenia to reach Earth. Looking at the night sky is actually looking into the past, since the light we see from the stars each night...
Em... unless you were alive 4000 years ago to see #1 happen, each are equally unobservable, which is where science's methods of observation and ability to draw reasonable conclusions kicks in. scientifically valid reason or concern, prove your fundie-ness), or you take both as fact. Which shall it be?
But #2 is observable in just the same way #1 is.
Duh Mickey - If it exploded a billion, billion kilometres away 100,000 years ago we are observing 'the associated event' right now!
The speed of light is 186,282 miles per second, to be within the nearest mile per second.
Julian - Note where ez-c said "as it happens". ;-) We wouldn't see Alpha Centauri nova until four years and change after it happened.it go until eight minutes after the fact.
SN1987 was observed. We saw the supernova happen. Then we saw the light spread out from it and light up the surrounding dust. We watched as the various nuclear products decayed and gave off their characteristic light colors right on schedule. Then the Hubble telescope measured the distance from the lighted dust to the supernova. Using high school trigonometry, we computed its distance as 169,000 light years away.
"Biblical creationists have tried to explain it with changes in the speed of light or "space warps" (argumentum ad Star-Trekum), but have never worked out the math to show how these things, even if true, would have gotten the results they're looking for. They seem to have no problem with inventing stuff whole-cloth without observation or even much thinking when they need to. "
Twas me that made the original comments. What amused me the most about this was that I clearly said, "A supernova is observed," only for mickey to tell me that apparently such things are *unobservable*, lol! I'm sure those photos of SN1987A must have been faked then ;)
"In order to study something in science one must observe the associated event."
They...are (?). That's what "a supernova is observed" means. The light from the supernova just takes time to get to us, so...
“I reject #2 as science as it is unobservable.”
“In order to study something in science one must observe the associated event.”
Confused?
So were we! You can find all of this, and more, on Fundies Say the Darndest Things!
To post a comment, you'll need to Sign in or Register . Making an account also allows you to claim credit for submitting quotes, and to vote on quotes and comments. You don't even need to give us your email address.
