|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
Member (Idle past 4450 days) Posts: 415 From: Australia Joined: |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: What is the creation science theory of the origin of light? | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Larni Member Posts: 4000 From: Liverpool Joined: |
You entirely miss my point.
You need to support your position with evidence! You can't just say 'proof' and leave it at that. You do know what you need to do to support you assertions, don't you? For example: you assert the universe being finite but provide no evidence other than your say so. Edited by Larni, : for example.....
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
IamJoseph Member (Idle past 3696 days) Posts: 2822 Joined: |
quote: I don't believe I missed your point, nor did I lack adequate proof in my response. Science measures the uni and the earth. Nor is the evidence of a finite universe require proving: its expanding - which means it was not infinite 10 seconds ago. Hello? Science is marching towards genesis, and all of the distortions and manipulations are being exposed as bogus by a growing number of scientists - despite the career impacts this places on them. The entire attacks on Genesis stem from a cowardly premise of not wanting to expose Christianity and Islam, two non-original replacement theologies which have zero input of these issues. Its easier to attack the Hebrew bible, right? But in not a single instance has this obsessive drive attain any success whatsoever.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
IamJoseph Member (Idle past 3696 days) Posts: 2822 Joined: |
quote: There is no other reading of the verse than that the uni is finite. All other products are listed thereafter. The verse refers only to the heavens [the expanse with and/or without any galaxies]. Comparing with Egyptian texts is not acceptable, there are no cosmological accounts there which aligns with today's scientific premises such as the protocol of the first promordial items [light], followed by actions which anticipate a host of various life form species. The verse speaks only of the universe and nothing else is alignable here. One must apply intelligent and relevant input when discussing such heady subjects, and it must apply to all generations adequately. What we know today may not appy in 3000 years.
quote: There is total alignment here with our state of art science estimations. The 14B year and 5B year ages of the universe and the earth is well prepresented by the period for the separation of light; for our solar system by the critical focusing of luminosity [day and night], and for the age of the earth reflected by the separation of water from land. It must be remembered the notion of billions and millions never existed at this time, so epochs of time are inferred. But the principle and unfolding of the universe is correct.
quote: Allow me to illustrate the correct reading of the text, which is much distorted by the masses. Examine the verse 14 you quoted. This refers only to LUNIMOSITY [light being adjusted/critically focused on the earth]. Here, a 24 hour day does not apply before this event, namely it should be read as epochs of time and cosmic days. Human reflected historical time begins after the creational days, namely the Genesis calendar begins after these cosmic days as 5771 years today [chech it out!], whereby we have no names or history per se before this time.
quote: If you refer to how the vegetation can subsist without the sun's luminosity applying, it is a very good question. However, the answer and correctness I found resting solidly with genesis when the text are closely examined. It is qualified in the following chapter, namely genesis is saying the life forms [including vegetation] were in their completed form, yet they were not yet ALIVE [animated; able to move and live]. This is a variant and less considered view, however there is no alternative to it. A zebra is not a zebra till fully completed as a zebra. Analogy: a car when completed still does not move; it requires an external trigger, such as an ignition action by a key. The same applies to the life forms - they were completed but yet were not alive; its 100% logic. Genesis lists the trigger cycle which made the already completed life a living entity here: I will elaborate. Whn I am asking for scripture, I am asking for chapter and verse. Not its in Genesis. Can you provide the chapter and verse. I will ask again for the bits I need when I get to them Dont worry about digging into the previous questions. From what I can recall you provided the phrase "in the beginning" as your evidence that the universe was finite. I am going to assume that you mean Gen 1.1 (I use the KJB) Gen 1.1 In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth. Where does it say that the universe is finite? Is you God not omnipitant? Could he not create an infinite universe? As far as I can tell from the words "In the beginning", there is no reference to the universe or its size, shape or any other features. Is this the scripture (half of one line) you are putting forward as your concrete evidence that the universe is finite? If not, please provide the chapter and verse in Genesis where it describes the universe as finite. I would point out that many creation myths advise that there was a beginning. The Chinese and Egyption creation myths actually state that the universe had boundaries. The very opening first verse in Genesis declares the universe is finite - it had a BEGINNING. This was said before the term science was yet coined. When are you talking about. Are you saying that the time of creation was before the term science was coined? Or the time that Genesis was written? Who are you talking about when you say "this was said"? Are you talking about when God said this? Do you have an estimated time period for this? Firstly, your reading of the text is faulty. Genesis does not say planets appeared on the 4th day; the text has to be read more deeply. There is no such thing as nature - in actuality. I did not say planEts, I sid PLANTS. Gen 1.11 : And God said, Let the earth bring forth grass, the herb yielding seed, and the fruit tree yielding fruit after his kind, whose seed is in itself, upon the earth: and it was so. That was on the SECOND day. Gen 1.14 : And God said, Let there be lights in the firmament of the heaven to divide the day from the night; and let them be for signs, and for seasons, and for days, and years:Gen 1.15 : And let them be for lights in the firmament of the heaven to give light upon the earth: and it was so. Gen 1.16 : And God made two great lights; the greater light to rule the day, and the lesser light to rule the night: he made the stars also. That was on the THIRD day. From this scripture, the plants were created a day before the light that feeds tham was created. Also, the object that supplies that light, the sun, was created after the light itself. The order is wrong. Gen1.14 states that light was created to seperate night from day. We know that the rotation of the Earth provides the seperation of night and day. The sun was not created until Gen 1.16, AFTER the plants as I originally stated. If I have somehow mixed this up, let me know. Please provide the chapter and verse that refutes the above scripture. I supplied the definition of 'nature' that I was using when I made the original comment. Here it is again. Nature : The phenomena of the physical world collectively, including plants, animals, the landscape, and other features and products of the earth, as opposed to humans or human creations. Using that definition, my comment stands. Yes, absolutely everything has a purpose, and nothing is superfluous: else the universe would not exist. If water appears before life on this planet, and it is the result of a specific combination, it has a purpose - to the extent there is no alternative understanding of it. What scientific or logical reason can you put up to suggest there is no reasoning? You did not say purpose. You said INTENT. These are very different words. I agree that everything has a purpose. I do not agree that a water molecule intends to do anything. Intent implies intention. This suggests that the water molecule has a choice. I will move away from the sausage analogy because you seem to have a problem with it. We are discussing stars. As I explained, a star PRODUCES (cause) electromagnetic radiation that can be seen as light (effect). Are you suggesting that the light (effect) comes before the star (cause). To use your torch analogy. info from Page Not Found - Department of Physics and Astronomy "An incandescent bulb uses heat caused by an electrical current. When electrical current passes through a wire, it causes the wire to heat. The wire, or filament, gets so hot that it glows and gives off light. Everyday incandescent light bulbs have a filament made of tungsten. Since the hot tungsten would quickly burn away if it were exposed to oxygen, it must be placed in a sealed glass bulb which is either evacuated or filled with a gas that won’t let it burn. " I will point out cause and effect again. An electrical current passes through a wire (cause) and The wire gets so hot it glows and gives off light (effect). From what I can tell, you are suggesting that the effect comes before the cause? Evolution does not prevail w/o the seed factor listed in Genesis. The environment today is different from say millions of years ago - both modes cannot have the same impact. Biological factors have a lot to do with the actions on the earth, such as the separation of day and night, and land and water. Biolgy is merely the study and observation of the process directed in a program. The data in the seed [essence] of a male/femle host contains definitive programs aligned with their result. I will clarify what I mean by rambling. Can you provide the chapter and verse that you are referring to? "listed in Genesis" is a bit unspecific. 'Both modes'? Both modes of what? "Biolgy is merely the study and observation of the process directed in a program. " Can you clarify this sentence? Particularly the 'directed in a program' part. "The data in the seed [essence] of a male/femle host contains definitive programs aligned with their result. " I have no idea what this sentence means. Prior to light, laws were embedded where they never existed before; Light was created via a separation action, making it a new unique product: there was yet no fusion at this time, nor anything else - so there cannot be any other reasoning which applies. One can put this in scientific terms, but that would not be understood by all generations of humans - a feat in itself. this is your theory? What defenition of theory are you using? Can you supply the definiton of theory that fits this claim. This is the scripture I have that you may be talking about. Gen 1.3 : And God said, Let there be light: and there was light.Gen 1.4 : And God saw the light, that it was good: and God divided the light from the darkness. You have said : "Light was created via a separation action, making it a new unique product". I cannot work out how the scripture backs this up. Gen 1.3 states, let there be light. Then in Gen 1.4, God sees the light. This means that according to scripture, the light already existed BEFORE the seperation of darkness from the light. It appears that the seperation created darkness, not light. As you have not provided the chapter and verse you are reading, it is hard for me to be sure. there was yet no fusion at this time, nor anything else - so there cannot be any other reasoning which applies. There can be other reasoning that applies. How about the reasoning that the book we are getting our scripture from is just another one of the many myths and legends and cant be used as a scientific text. unless you are looking for new 250 year terms such as science and fusion. What is a 250 year term? Both light and fusion are based on laws; you ignored this fundamental scientific premise or rejected it: why is it called THE 'LAW' OF GRAVITY? When did i ignore or reject the laws of gravity? I am aware that light and fusion are based on laws. One of the Laws you seem to be ignoring is the Law of Causality. I answered correctly, going further, including that laws never existed at one time, which demands an initiating point: its alternative is in fact the non-answer. I have no limited grasp of science - I doubt you know something I don't. Fair enough that the current known laws did not exist at one time. I also agree that there must have been an inititiation point. We are in agreement at this point. You say that light being unique from all other products is a non-answer; I agree that light is unique from all other products. I was not advising that the light discussed in the Bible when God said 'let there be light' came from a star. I was using a star as an example. As far as I could tell, you were saying that light came before the star. Effect came before a cause. I think that you are getting this from a strict interpretation of the Genesis creation story. The genesis creation story does not fit with the example i gave. The example was targeted at a different point. This may be where we had a misunderstanding. I say why do you then say light is a product of fusion: wherefrom did light derive a transcendent velosity - from the far under-rated fusion - that is impossible!? Can you not see your own non-answer and non-science here? You will need to clarify a few things here. What do you mean by 'transendent velosity'? Also, I have explained how a fusion in a star creates light. Are you disputing atomic theory? Where there are no laws - there is no science. But more impacting is that laws and science never existed once - nor did the environment or nature. Understand the scenario which is relevant and impacting here, and open your mind to other POV's. There is no alternative the universe had to be initiated in a duality construct and an external precedent trigger factor applying. Your response was we do not know what laws applied - as if you have by that produced some scientific scenario which justifies your case - or negated mine. No sir. Let me rephrase some of this to see if I understand what you are getting at. 'Where there are no laws there is no science', does this mean that you are supplying this reason for not having a scientific theory for the creation of light. I should point out that I am not saying that this is a negative. This is fair enough. I have read some ideas recently about what existed before the current universe. These ideas are discussing a time that existed before the current laws so it can also be said that 'where there are no laws there is no science'. The scenario we are discussing is the big bang. You are suggesting that God saying 'let there be light' is part of the big bang. Which part I am not too sure.This sentence needs some clarification - " There is no alternative the universe had to be initiated in a duality construct and an external precedent trigger factor applying. " Is this a complicated was of saying that something had to cause the big bang? What is a duality construct? I also have put forward no case at all. I see significant holes in what you are saying. Also, I support the Big bang theory to a limited degree. I am not sure enough is known to be too sure. It appears that you support the Bif bang Theory also, you seem to be alligning the Genesis story with it. If this is true, then I would not be negating your case as we both have the same case. I supplied the definition of 'nature' that I was using when I made the original comment. Here it is again. Nature : The phenomena of the physical world collectively, including plants, animals, the landscape, and other features and products of the earth, as opposed to humans or human creations. Using that definition, my comment stands. Yes, absolutely everything has a purpose, and nothing is superfluous: else the universe would not exist. If water appears before life on this planet, and it is the result of a specific combination, it has a purpose - to the extent there is no alternative understanding of it. What scientific or logical reason can you put up to suggest there is no reasoning? You did not say purpose. You said INTENT. These are very different words. I agree that everything has a purpose. I do not agree that a water molecule intends to do anything. Intent implies intention. This suggests that the water molecule has a choice. I will move away from the sausage analogy because you seem to have a problem with it. We are discussing stars. As I explained, a star PRODUCES (cause) electromagnetic radiation that can be seen as light (effect). Are you suggesting that the light (effect) comes before the star (cause). To use your torch analogy. info from Page Not Found - Department of Physics and Astronomy "An incandescent bulb uses heat caused by an electrical current. When electrical current passes through a wire, it causes the wire to heat. The wire, or filament, gets so hot that it glows and gives off light. Everyday incandescent light bulbs have a filament made of tungsten. Since the hot tungsten would quickly burn away if it were exposed to oxygen, it must be placed in a sealed glass bulb which is either evacuated or filled with a gas that won’t let it burn. " I will point out cause and effect again. An electrical current passes through a wire (cause) and The wire gets so hot it glows and gives off light (effect). From what I can tell, you are suggesting that the effect comes before the cause? Evolution does not prevail w/o the seed factor listed in Genesis. The environment today is different from say millions of years ago - both modes cannot have the same impact. Biological factors have a lot to do with the actions on the earth, such as the separation of day and night, and land and water. Biolgy is merely the study and observation of the process directed in a program. The data in the seed [essence] of a male/femle host contains definitive programs aligned with their result. I will clarify what I mean by rambling. Can you provide the chapter and verse that you are referring to? "listed in Genesis" is a bit unspecific. 'Both modes'? Both modes of what? "Biolgy is merely the study and observation of the process directed in a program. " Can you clarify this sentence? Particularly the 'directed in a program' part. "The data in the seed [essence] of a male/femle host contains definitive programs aligned with their result. " I have no idea what this sentence means. Prior to light, laws were embedded where they never existed before; Light was created via a separation action, making it a new unique product: there was yet no fusion at this time, nor anything else - so there cannot be any other reasoning which applies. One can put this in scientific terms, but that would not be understood by all generations of humans - a feat in itself. this is your theory? What defenition of theory are you using? Can you supply the definiton of theory that fits this claim. This is the scripture I have that you may be talking about. Gen 1.3 : And God said, Let there be light: and there was light.Gen 1.4 : And God saw the light, that it was good: and God divided the light from the darkness. You have said : "Light was created via a separation action, making it a new unique product". I cannot work out how the scripture backs this up. Gen 1.3 states, let there be light. Then in Gen 1.4, God sees the light. This means that according to scripture, the light already existed BEFORE the seperation of darkness from the light. It appears that the seperation created darkness, not light. As you have not provided the chapter and verse you are reading, it is hard for me to be sure. there was yet no fusion at this time, nor anything else - so there cannot be any other reasoning which applies. There can be other reasoning that applies. How about the reasoning that the book we are getting our scripture from is just another one of the many myths and legends and cant be used as a scientific text. unless you are looking for new 250 year terms such as science and fusion. What is a 250 year term? Both light and fusion are based on laws; you ignored this fundamental scientific premise or rejected it: why is it called THE 'LAW' OF GRAVITY? When did i ignore or reject the laws of gravity? I am aware that light and fusion are based on laws. One of the Laws you seem to be ignoring is the Law of Causality. I answered correctly, going further, including that laws never existed at one time, which demands an initiating point: its alternative is in fact the non-answer. I have no limited grasp of science - I doubt you know something I don't. Fair enough that the current known laws did not exist at one time. I also agree that there must have been an inititiation point. We are in agreement at this point. You say that light being unique from all other products is a non-answer; I agree that light is unique from all other products. I was not advising that the light discussed in the Bible when God said 'let there be light' came from a star. I was using a star as an example. As far as I could tell, you were saying that light came before the star. Effect came before a cause. I think that you are getting this from a strict interpretation of the Genesis creation story. The genesis creation story does not fit with the example i gave. The example was targeted at a different point. This may be where we had a misunderstanding. I say why do you then say light is a product of fusion: wherefrom did light derive a transcendent velosity - from the far under-rated fusion - that is impossible!? Can you not see your own non-answer and non-science here? You will need to clarify a few things here. What do you mean by 'transendent velosity'? Also, I have explained how a fusion in a star creates light. Are you disputing atomic theory? Where there are no laws - there is no science. But more impacting is that laws and science never existed once - nor did the environment or nature. Understand the scenario which is relevant and impacting here, and open your mind to other POV's. There is no alternative the universe had to be initiated in a duality construct and an external precedent trigger factor applying. Your response was we do not know what laws applied - as if you have by that produced some scientific scenario which justifies your case - or negated mine. No sir. Let me rephrase some of this to see if I understand what you are getting at. 'Where there are no laws there is no science', does this mean that you are supplying this reason for not having a scientific theory for the creation of light. I should point out that I am not saying that this is a negative. This is fair enough. I have read some ideas recently about what existed before the current universe. These ideas are discussing a time that existed before the current laws so it can also be said that 'where there are no laws there is no science'. The scenario we are discussing is the big bang. You are suggesting that God saying 'let there be light' is part of the big bang. Which part I am not too sure.This sentence needs some clarification - " There is no alternative the universe had to be initiated in a duality construct and an external precedent trigger factor applying. " Is this a complicated was of saying that something had to cause the big bang? What is a duality construct? I also have put forward no case at all. I see significant holes in what you are saying. Also, I support the Big bang theory to a limited degree. I am not sure enough is known to be too sure. It appears that you support the Bif bang Theory also, you seem to be alligning the Genesis story with it. If this is true, then I would not be negating your case as we both have the same case.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Larni Member Posts: 4000 From: Liverpool Joined: |
The entire attacks on Genesis stem from a cowardly premise of not wanting to expose Christianity and Islam, two non-original replacement theologies which have zero input of these issues. Its easier to attack the Hebrew bible, right? But in not a single instance has this obsessive drive attain any success whatsoever. What are you talking about? That has nothing to do with the topic! To reiterate my point for the hard of thinking: you can't just say 'science prooves it' without backing it up with evidence. Can't you even see that?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Admin Director Posts: 13038 From: EvC Forum Joined: Member Rating: 2.1 |
Hi IamJoseph,
You asserted that "The universe could not have emerged with a singular, irreducible, indivisible entity" (in other words, that the Big Bang could not have happened) in Message 115 and over the course of several messages mentioned the following as evidence:
I think all you need to do now is explain how this evidence supports your claim that the Big Bang could not have happened.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
IamJoseph Member (Idle past 3696 days) Posts: 2822 Joined: |
quote: I did back it with evidence, which you are clearly abusing. The universe is estimated to be around 14B years old. Do you want me to prove that? Why not ask me to prove the P in prove?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Larni Member Posts: 4000 From: Liverpool Joined: |
Please read the above post by our glorious leader.
I'll say no more on the matter as I can't imagine I need to.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
IamJoseph Member (Idle past 3696 days) Posts: 2822 Joined: |
quote: No, those reasonings related to other points debated. The universe could not start with a pristine one and nothing else around - because an action can only result from an interaction with other items. It takes two to tango applies. None have argued the point intelligently, and the subject got drowned into other areas. The BB theorests have been looking for a GUT in vain. There is no ONE in the universe - technically speaking.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
IamJoseph Member (Idle past 3696 days) Posts: 2822 Joined: |
What do you want me to prove - specify it.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Admin Director Posts: 13038 From: EvC Forum Joined: Member Rating: 2.1 |
Hi Larni,
IamJoseph has responded, but not in any way illuminating. I do see IamJoseph as citing evidence, but it is usually of a common or general nature, and some portion of it is just unsupported assertions, but the problem is that he is unable to describe how the evidence he cites supports his position. I think your challenge will be finding the sense behind his confusing English.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Butterflytyrant Member (Idle past 4450 days) Posts: 415 From: Australia Joined: |
Hmmm Where to start...
Gen 1.1 In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth. There is no other reading of the verse than that the uni is finite. How did you reach that conclusion? What do you see in that verse that says the universe is finite? I would say it could go either way. God created a finite universe or God created an infinite universe. The God of the Bible being capable of anything would mean he could do either.
The verse refers only to the heavens With and or without any galaxies? The stars were not made until Gen 1.16, the third day : And God made two great lights; the greater light to rule the day, and the lesser light to rule the night: he made the stars also.So it would be without galaxies. Comparing with Egyptian texts is not acceptable, there are no cosmological accounts there which aligns with today's scientific premises such as the protocol of the first promordial items [light], followed by actions which anticipate a host of various life form species. Not acceptable? really? Acceptable to who? You get to use your favoured myth, why dont I get to use any creation myth I want? So the Egyptian creation myth contains no cosmological accounts that align with todays scientific knowledge. How about this... This is the Heiopolis Creation myth, take note of the order. Oh and this is circa 3000BCE.
quote: (Sources: http://www.aldokkan.com/religion/creation.htm; philae.nu – Mytologi i dtid och modern tid) Would that be acceptable now? How about you research it before you refute it. That is a creation myth, with all of the elements of Genesis, in the correct order for life, written well before the Biblical version. Does that cover all of your points? Notice it also covers the days of the week that you claim were first written in Genesis. I would say it is a better version. Most of this is also taken directly from stone carvings that can still be seen today in the original form. How about I show you some other creation myths that have scientifically accurate information. All are prechristian or prechristian influence.
quote: (source : http://www.indigenouspeople.net/creation.htm)
quote: (Source : High Speed Internet | Business Phone | Syracuse, Utica, Oneida, Rome)
quote: (Source : http://www.pitt.edu/~dash/chinaflood.html)
quote: (Source : Gensis & Babylonian Creation Myths Compared; http://www.sacred-texts.com/ane/blc/blc07.htm; Comparing the Genesis and Babylonian stories of creation) Each of those myths covers the same ground as yours.
There is total alignment here with our state of art science estimations. The 14B year and 5B year ages of the universe and the earth is well prepresented by the period for the separation of light; for our solar system by the critical focusing of luminosity [day and night], and for the age of the earth reflected by the separation of water from land. It must be remembered the notion of billions and millions never existed at this time, so epochs of time are inferred. But the principle and unfolding of the universe is correct. Are you telling me that the Genesis creation myth is alligned with the current theories of how the univese formed? I have one pretty glaring problem with that idea. In Genesis, the Earth is created before the sun. Gen 1.1 In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth. Then later Gen 1.16 And God made two great lights; the greater light to rule the day, and the lesser light to rule the night: he made the stars also. Current scientific theory has the planets being formed around the sun. The sun pretty much created the planets, including the Earth. That is a gross oversimplification but you can read the full story here : Page not found - Novan The Genesis story does not match scientific theory.
Allow me to illustrate the correct reading of the text, which is much distorted by the masses. Examine the verse 14 you quoted. This refers only to LUNIMOSITY [light being adjusted/critically focused on the earth]. Here, a 24 hour day does not apply before this event, namely it should be read as epochs of time and cosmic days. Human reflected historical time begins after the creational days, namely the Genesis calendar begins after these cosmic days as 5771 years today [chech it out!], whereby we have no names or history per se before this time. Wow. 'allow me to illustrate the correct reading of the text which is much distorted by the masses'??? There is a fair bit of arrogance dripping of that particular sentence dont you think? I assume what you meant to say was this : Allow me to supply my particular interpretation of the text that is in opposition to many peoples interpretation. As far as I am aware, there is no 'correct reading of the text'. There is a whole lot of opinions. The rest of the paragraph is your interpretation of the text to try to wedge it into current scientific knowledge. This is not Genesis matching science. This is you trying to shoehorn your theory into the current scientific model. You can argue your opinions about if the 24 hour day not applying to this event with the Answers in Genesis folks. Good luck with that. They have the correct interpreation too. I am not going to argue the theology with you. Once your team has worked it out amongst yourselves, let me know.
If you refer to how the vegetation can subsist without the sun's luminosity applying, it is a very good question. However, the answer and correctness I found resting solidly with genesis when the text are closely examined. It is qualified in the following chapter, namely genesis is saying the life forms [including vegetation] were in their completed form, yet they were not yet ALIVE [animated; able to move and live]. This is a variant and less considered view, however there is no alternative to it. [cut] The same applies to the life forms - they were completed but yet were not alive; its 100% logic. Genesis lists the trigger cycle which made the already completed life a living entity here: "Gen 2/ 5 No shrub of the field was yet in the earth, and no herb of the field had yet sprung up; for the LORD God had not caused it to rain upon the earth, and there was not a man to till the ground; 6 but there went up a mist from the earth, and watered the whole face of the ground. 7 Then the LORD God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul." More of your 'correct' interpretations huh. This does not fly either. You say that the plants were created but not alive. They were in some sort of stasis?Gen 1.11 And God said, Let the earth bring forth grass, the herb yielding seed, and the fruit tree yielding fruit after his kind, whose seed is in itself, upon the earth: and it was so. If they were "not yet ALIVE [animated; able to move and live]" then how were they yielding seed and yielding fruit? I would say that a plant needs to be alive in order to do this. "they were completed but yet were not alive; its 100% logic." The plants were held is stasis is 100% logical? Thats were your logic took you? Stasis? That idea is a huge leap in interpretation. Imaginative though.
Choice can only refer to an inherent directive program. Its like the function of our lungs; involuntary and aligning only with an internal directive program applying Are you applying this to a hydrogen molecule? Are you suggesting that the hydrogen molecule has the intent, makes a choice to bond with oxygen to make water?
Only a critical focusing of our particular star’s luminosity impacts here. Here, both the stars and its light could have existed, but no life existed on earth; this changed only when the star’s light [luminosity] was adjusted/focused to produce and allow life to exist, same as with the separation of water from land. Life could not emerge without such factors, as is seen with other planets which have light but no life. It is a bona fide scientific reasoning and premise, and I agree with it. There is no scientific reasoning or premise that says that the suns light"was adjusted/focused to produce and allow life to exist". The sun made no adjustments or focusing changes to allow life to exist. Our planet exists on an orbit that allows life. No adjustments or focusing required. It is true that the sun is a requirement for life on our planet. We agree on this point. What we disagree on is the method of creation and I disagree with your attempts to distort and imaginatively interpret Genesis to fit with scientific theory and then claim that this interpretation lends support to Genesis. I am suggesting the light could not be produced by an electrical current unless the light was pre-existing as its own force, and that there is no other conclusion possible. The means does not affect the product nor can it be seen as its cause. The electricity only induces the required state for light to be produced and made manifest, which means both the pre-existing light and the mode of its manifestation must be pre-embedded with attributes which allow this to occur. It is why a pineapple and an electric current will not attain the same result. I think I may understand what you are getting at. I think you are trying to tell me that light itself must have existed in some form for light to exist? I was talking about the specific cause and effect of one light source creating light. This was probably just a misunderstanding of each others arguements. I believe we are on the same page. I agree that the pre existing force of light as you put it would have had to exist before a torch would create it.
What I referred to by both modes is that both the seed and the environment cannot be equally responsible for the production of life. The seed from the host rules here; Genesis wins. There is no life w/o the seed factor. This is well kniwn as stated in the texts and requires no demand for proof: the text famously says a seed shall follow its own kind, while ToE says it is the environment which does the work. My position lies with genesis, and made from a fully scientific view. "Genesis wins." Seriously? Wins what? Certainly not this debate. Or any other debate I have read. As to this : "This is well kniwn as stated in the texts and requires no demand for proof" That which can be asserted without evidence, can be dismissed without evidence (Thank you Christopher Hitchens) The seed shall follow its own kind. So what. Farmers knew this thousands of years before Genesis was written. What does this prove exactly? "ToE says it is the environment which does the work" I dont know if this is general ignorance or some sort of a drastic oversimplification or what. But it certainly does not seem to fit as the opposition of this statement : "the text famously says a seed shall follow its own kind" "My position lies with genesis, and made from a fully scientific view." Fully scientific? Whose science are you using? How about we get back to the topic. Can you complete the following statement: My scientific theory for the mechanism of the creation of light that occured when God said 'let there be light' is : If you can, please do so. Edited by Butterflytyrant, : typo Edited by Butterflytyrant, : typo
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Alfred Maddenstein Member (Idle past 3995 days) Posts: 565 Joined:
|
IamJoseph is not the best of writers but the gist of what he is saying is abundantly clear: the Bible creation myth is more consistent in its premises than what pretends to be the latest science.
Edited by Alfred Maddenstein, : phrasing
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
IamJoseph Member (Idle past 3696 days) Posts: 2822 Joined: |
I made a pointed premise here [or was it some other thread?] the universe could not have initiated with a singular one entity, namely a irreducible, indivisible entity [a pristine 'ONE']. No one has yet responded to this issue, and instead deflected on numerous issues not connected with the point made at all - even my english has been attacked, and that I am not making any sense. It is a primal issue of discussion for the universe's occurence. Not very science minded responsa going on here. I'll pursue only little more than go buy some ice cream on the beach and talk with the magpies instead.
Edited by IamJoseph, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
IamJoseph Member (Idle past 3696 days) Posts: 2822 Joined: |
I don't make this premise in ridiculing mode or to downgrade science and great minds. I do say we cannot discard superior premises which are vindicated in thought and science because they are called theological: I know of no theology which can be discussed scientifically aside from Genesis. Genesis is not theological, predates the notion, is not discussing names or belief in its creational descriptions, but appears varied from every theological writings - consider it and reject it scientifically minus the phobia: it is humanity's most mysterious document by impact, period of time and cencus. There is only creation and non-creation; scientifically, there is only a universe with a universe maker - or not. Period. Just two premises.
Edited by IamJoseph, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
IamJoseph Member (Idle past 3696 days) Posts: 2822 Joined: |
quote: I did respond adequately and see my premise as correct, else we can discuss it forever. Its very clear, it could not go either way grammatically else it becomes superfluous [wrong reading]; the BEGINNING is directed at 'EVERYTHING' and when NOTHING yet was existant; all else appearing later. Later on we are told the definition of infinity in a most advanced and concise mode: this means not being subject to CHANGE. I ask that the stats in Genesis be seen from the POV the universe is absolutely finite as the preamble and protocol, as does Genesis, which is really incumbent in any discussion of the universe origins.
quote: Right, thus I put with or without, namely some may read as the entire universe and its future components and potentials were made instanlty and unfolded later in its due course, say via a command or directive program embedded, or as the universe as it is now. However one reads that part of it, it still refers only to the universe's emergence both readings. The term heaven, IMHO, is said in empierical mode, namely referring to the universe itself - my reason being it is adjacent to the physical earth in the same verse, and all factors which follow appear empirical only. The term universe was yet not coined or understood at this point. Elsewhere, we read the stars in the heavens being innumeral - an emperical statement.
quote: Unacceptable and a divergence. The Egyptian notes of first there was bubbling water, potter's wheel, etc is Zeus like myth as is its head butting deities and sun gods. The DAY & WEEK were introduced in Genesis, the world's first advanced alphabetical book: you are quoting an unstanding which is theorised as the text's inference only. This does not impact Genesis is declaring the universe as finite - the entire premise of the Hebrew bible which follows rests only on this factor - to the extent any other reading negates everything in its texts. Monotheism is ancient Egypt's antithesis of divine pharoahs and a far more scientific thought which changed our notion of the universe. Today's GUT [grand united theory] is in fact a derivitaion of Monotheism, but headed in a wrong direction: technically there is no ONE in the universe. Having said that, I do see Egyptian and other early notions of the universe as intelligent for its time - humanity had no means to think otherwise: if there was rumblings and thundering it must be the dieties are angry; this was an intelligent pondering for its time. I am not downgrading ancient Egyptian thoughts, just saying it was superceded and discarded by the Hebrew bible, as was Helenism and Romanism, and thereby also earning much of the wratch of dictators who saw one creator and laws of equality as their enemy. The Jews took the brunt of this disdain with numerous existential wars and villifications.
quote: Fantastic. I fully accept this. But why use this to negate Genesis when it aligns? There is wisdom in all nations and groups of humanity. This is true even if we find an earlier than Genesis writings which says the same thing, but which Genesis does not negate but accepts, such as the law NOT TO STEAL. Consider than many can understand the theory of relativity and quote it - but how many can edit and improve it?
quote: You've lost me here. Mentioning colors and 'above' losses it, marking the dif with Genesis. The stars on a canopy, seen in ancient drawings, is not Genesis but a discarded flat earth policy which persisted till medevial European times.
quote: LOL - are u serious - this is ubsurd paganism?! They antithetise the same grounds I refer to. I accept pristine, unqualifiable monotheism and scientifically inclined premises only which stand to scrutinity. You are quting what the Hebrew bible antithetised.
quote: Absolutely. This includes evolution, aphabetical books, the world's most accurate and oldest active calendar, the first human cencus, the first historically identifiable mountains, rivers, nations, genealogies and earliest recorded 'names' of speech endowed modern man. You neglect that all your postings of other nations fail to give a single historical item or figurehead which is historically traceable! I hope that responding to your posts in good manner is not a run away from the thread's topic, namely the first recording that light was the first product separated from the lawless void. Remarkably, Genesis says light appeared 'AFTER' laws were ushered in and is the first product thereafter. It makes good sense - how else can it be - it just happened is hardly science anymore?
quote: False or incorrect. Your comprehension is the problem. I pointed out to you, v14 speaks only of LUMINOSITY - not the stars and moon. Namely, its texts refer only to 'great lights' [luminosity] from the stars and moon - this refers to a critical focusing of the light - the precise amount to sustain life. How else can it be read; how else can anything be scientifically acceptable? There is light everywhere in the universe but no life - so this refers to a critical focusing of the light only.
quote: The premise the earth is 6000 years old is a distortion of the Genesis texts, is what I was referring to.
quote: Yes, something like that, and this is correct understanding of how it must be. No such thing as a half life, as opposed to a completed life form. Nor can a life form be alive without being first completed and then ignited to come alive. Its not, as you infer, ridiculous. If you want to make a zebra or a car - first complete the damn thing!
quote: Your comprehension is challenging, but in a negative form. The notion of shurbs [growth output], yieding of seeds [repro], etc never occured yet and refers only to living matter now, is what Genesis is saying. Things were complete but static. Imagine a car factory where 100's of cars are completed and standing still ready to be ignited- its antithesis says wheels, brakes and car horns were made then the car drove and in time it became a car. Which is more plausible?
quote: It aligns with emperical things we see all around us. The entire universe turns via intelligent laws and appears only as a work of wisdom.
quote: I don't use the term intent here. I do say hydrogen behaves a certain way and interacts only according to the attributes inherent within it. And that such attributes are uniquely applied and seen - which infers only a directed program embedded in the void before such laws were inserted. Anything else is not science anymore. Its not random is also what I am saying. Pineapplies do not emulate hydrogen - not even randomly after billions of years. You may use the word intent or purpose, it does not negate the premise of anticipatory results and that nothing is superfluous in the universe.
quote: You contradict yourself in every sentence. Orbit inclines, rotations and revolving earth are conducive only to a critical focusing, whereby its light and darkness is conducive to anticipating life forms. Its not random by a ratio of 1 VS all other planetary bodies in the known universe. Of note, the text is contextual only to life forms and their sustainence, making only one reading coherent here.
quote: Yes, that is all I was saying. Whether one agrees or not, it remains a viable, scientific premise by Genesis and I happen to agree with it. I know of no other alternative to it.
quote: Ok. But are you also saying, aside from the misunderstanding, than Genesis is not saying something highly intelligent? Is the notion of light being pre-existing before its manifestation by any means, an unscientific premise? You have thus far rejected everything I said,with no acknowledgement of anything being right in genesis. I hold the exact reverse view.
quote: The seed factor rules. Science, when examined close up, aligns only with Genesis.
quote: A nice sounding statement but it does not apply here. That the universe is finite [with a beginningpoint], and that it is billions of years old [the separation factors listed before life emerged], and that the stars are unaccountable, is seen only in Genesis. If one examines the mechanism of the Genesis calendar, they can conclude only that the earth is not flat but a ball spinning and revolving around the sun, with the moon impacting on its seasons.
quote: The farmers affirm the Genesis texts - that what it means! The seed rules. Apples and barley come from their own seed kinds, as do zebras and apes.
quote: You ignored the glaring deficiency where the seed is not even mentioned in ToE, while Genesis claims it as the primal impacter here! Is evolution even possible w/o the seed factor - or the critical actions listed prior to the advent of life?
quote: Evidenced and manifest science, observable w/o waiting billions of years for verification.
quote: Please!
quote: According to the text, which I agree with: V1. The universe was created or it came into being; it never existed before, nor anything universe contained ever existed before, not even laws or science existed before. V2. The universe was inserted with laws [science], namely the formless was turned to form via directive programs which give new form products where there was none, with attributes embedded. No laws existed before this point; namely there was no science and no environment at one time. V3/4. The new products became identifiable and separated from the lawless void by virtue of the laws. The first product was LIGHT [the term SEPARATED is used]. A host of other products and actions followed, each corresponding with the attributes embedded within. The subject matter soon focuses on one planet after a background of the universe is described in what can be said are the first cosmological faculties from which science resulted, naely it propelled questions aligned to a finite realm. Abraham is said t be responsible for the first scientific equation, aka Monotheism, namely the kings of nations were not divine, nor was the sun the ruler of the universe. The latter is conducive to the sun being one of many stars, later affirmed by science. One may accept or reject; but one cannot say these are not scientific descriptions. Edited by IamJoseph, : No reason given.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024