What is the creation science theory of the origin of light?

So, from all this, what is your actual theory on light? After all, that's the purpose of this thread. Even if scientists were somehow wrong about light, it still doesn't make a creationist theory.

Such as?

I haven't figured out how to quote posts on this forum, so forgive my awkwardness in this reply. I will figure it out soon. {Quoting code tips sent via personal message - Adminnemooseus}You claim we can know the speed of light is constant. Really? How?IF the universe is 20-30 billions of years old and IF our ability to measure it is only 300 years old, I submit that there is insufficient data to know with assurance that it has been constant for 20-30 billion years. What was the speed of light 2 billion years ago? (On the other hand, there CAN exist sufficient data to show that it is changing. This is a point about sufficiency of data to prove a long-term or a short-term change. I am not arguing for or against CDK.)You claim that we know that redshift comes entirely from recessional speed. I claim that No, it is not possible to know that redshift is entirely from recessional speed. That is an assumption that we know is not entirely true. We know TODAY that gravity CAN cause redshift, so right off the bat your statement is overblown.Assuming redshift is entirely due to recessional speed also leads to some fairly incongruous conclusions, like the idea that the expansion of the universe (if it is expanding) is accelerating. Really? How? By what process?I said nothing about atheism. I simply said that "something (atheism, creationism, naturalism, Hinduism) does not become science merely because a scientist adopts it as his faith."The point I am making is that there is a lot more faith masquerading as science than many will admit.Edited by Adminnemooseus, : Quote tips note.

There's a lot less faith masquerading as science than you seem to think and also alude to.

Your reply tells me nothing about the creationist theory of the origin of light.This is a trait of all creationist arguments I have ever seen or heard.Please present your creation science theory of the origin of light.Thanks in advance.

But this topic is about YOUR theory about light. A scientific theory must make predictions (about how light will behave if you are right). For example, given your theory, what should we be observing? How would it differ from the current theory?

All the evidence we have from the past 100 years of testing and retesting says yes lightspeed is constant. Without any exception.Do you have any evidence to put forth that challenges this? Again, all the evidence we have from literally tens of thousands of observations and lab tests says yes redshift we seen from galaxies is entirely due to recessional speed (expansion of spacetime) and not due to gravity or some other source of energy decay. Explain Andromeda's blue shift.Do you have any evidence to put forth that challenges this?Edited by AZPaul3, : No reason given.Edited by AZPaul3, : clarity

Let us assume, for the sake of discussion in this thread, that modern theories of cosmology are wrong. There's no need to discuss or critique these theories here anymore because we know they're wrong.By making this assumption of the errancy of modern cosmology this thread is now free to focus on its topic, the creationist (or creation science, whichever one might prefer) theory of the origin of light. Specifically, what is the scientific creationist model, and what is the evidence that led to the development of this model?

---

--	Percy
	EvC Forum Director

So what does the creationist theory say as it pertains to the speed of light? How can we test this theory? What experiments can we run to determine if the speed of light has changed in the past, if that is what the creationist theory proposes? How does the creationist theory of light explain the relationship between the redshift of a galaxy and the distance to the galaxy as measured by standard candles (e.g. type Ia supernovae)? How does the creationist theory of light explain the changes in gravitational lensing due to dark matter:

quote:

---

In a method similar to taking an X-ray of the body to reveal the underlying skeleton, the technique, known as weak gravitational lensing, allows astronomers to see how light from distant galaxies is bent and distorted by the dark matter as it travels towards earth.

​

They can then map the dark matter structures, which make up 80 per cent of the universe.

​

The study leader Tim Schrabback said: "What we tested is how the structure of the universe grows with time. If the universe expands then the gravitational lensing changes because the distance between the objects has changed.
404

---

We aren't talking about faith. We are talking about the data that the creationist theory of light must explain within a testable framework, otherwise called a scientific theory. Let's ignore all of the modern theories that scientists have put forth to explain this data. Tell us how the creationist theory of light explains this data.

Thank you admin, your comment should help clear the air.This conversation is going quite well.I would like to try to establish a spreadsheet. I do a lot of this for work.One one side, the current scientific theory for an issue, with links to references and on the other, the current with creation theory with links to any references and scripture.This spreadsheet could be chronologically listed as much as possible.This would provide a very simple to navigate list of current theory.A group would need to provide their theory, and their evidence, for peer review. A totally fair and open playing field.Each time a theory is suggested, that theory can be discussed and debated upon in these forums. From what I have seen, the moderators here are strict but fair.once a debate has reached a conclusion, it would be possible to rate the theory giving it one of several agreed upon result.for example -Theory supported by significant evidence.Theory currently disputed on xxxxx groundsTheory refutedNo current theory establishedI know this would need some work.From the amount of reading I have done recently, it appears that creationists (particularly Young Earth Creationists) are muddying the waters and trying to make it seem as if they have an equal or greater amount of work supporting their positions. To the casual observer this seems to be the case. But with sufficient digging (I am a researcher, its my thing) a lot of it seems to be the same inofrmation over and over again, or information that has been refuted a number of times.I believe that it would be of benefit to the regular Joe who does not want to wade through all of this info to have a resource like this.It would be possible to look at an example like the theory of superposition. Science would have this listed as one of the group of theories behind the geological formation of the earth. Creationists would have flood geology listed on their side. Listed with these theories would have to be the supporting evidence. This supporting evidence would have to be reviewed and accepted or rejected by the opponent. The opponent would have to have a credible reason to refute the evidence.I think this would be a goodA casual observer being able to see a table, with a large amount of theory with supporting evidence on one side and large sections with "no current theory established" or "theory currently disputed on xxxx grounds" on the other side should help to educate the masses.What do you guys think?PS. I am still looking into the light theory question with the info i have received from some people.

Hi Percy,How many times do we have to tell you before you will understand. There is no creationist theory on how God created light. There never will be a theory. There cannot be a theory.Chuck77 stated in message 7 I stated in message 12 mr jack stated in message 14 catholic scientist stated in message 22 Kbertsche stated in message24 Yet after all this, in message 38 your still asking for a theory for the origin of light???? Let me ask you this. Do evolutionists have a testable theory for what happened in the billion years leading up to the big bang? I'm sorry I didn't hear you, what was that, you don't have a theory, why not? Well then that settles it then, evolution has no scientific basis without a theory to explain what caused the origin of the universe.Shame on you admin for even letting this question get promoted in this form.However.There are creationist theories about light, such as that proposed by Russell Humphreys in his book 'Starlight and Time, solving the puzzle of distant starlight in a young universe'. Also another by John Hartnett in his book 'Starlight, time and the new physics'.But these do not answer the actual question posed. So I run the risk of being told by you to stick to answering the question, for even mentioning them.

So it is not science. Yet you guys want to convince people to "teach the controvercy" in science class?

As this is a science forum, no, evolutionists won’t have a theory of the origin of light, as light is not a living organism and can’t pass on genes. Physicists do have very convincing and tested theories on where light comes from. Oh, evolution has got a very solid scientific basis and also a theory on the origin of species. Genes do change with every generation. All observed, even in labs.You don’t have a theory on how light originates, you don’t want to provide data, but you criticize biologists because they don’t study light?The object of this thread is to provide a creationist 'scientific' theory on where light comes from, not to criticize biologists who provide a theory on where existing species come from. Edited by Pressie, : Changed last sentence

Could you give us a description of what they described, as I can’t find any of their research in peer-reviewed scientific publications.Everybody can write a book if they have enough funds to get it published. The difficult part of science is to get your research critiqued by your peers and then getting your findings accepted by the consensus of specialists. Without that you don’t follow the scientific method. Without that it is not science. Just pseudo-science.You can write any nonsense without these important steps. But it still isn’t science, no matter how many times you pretend that it is science. It isn’t. It surely cannot be called a scientific theory without it. If you describe it as a theory in a scientific thread, you don't tell the truth.You did describe it as a "creation theory". Not scientific. Why do the people you referred to as writing those books keep on pretending that they do science?'Edited by Pressie, : Added a sentenceEdited by Pressie, : Added paragraphs

Well, if you don't have a theory about the origin of light (we kind of expected you to with the "let there be light" thing), you could at least present your theories and prediction about light properties.