Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
6 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,817 Year: 3,074/9,624 Month: 919/1,588 Week: 102/223 Day: 13/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   What is the creation science theory of the origin of light?
Butterflytyrant
Member (Idle past 4422 days)
Posts: 415
From: Australia
Joined: 06-28-2011


Message 180 of 297 (626113)
07-27-2011 7:41 AM
Reply to: Message 178 by Admin
07-27-2011 7:16 AM


Re: IamJoseph Suspended 24 Hours
Hello admin/Percy,
Sorry for wandering off topic so much.
I have repeatedly asked for IamJoseph to start a thread for his claims.
He seems to have some claims that could be explored.
I was actually a bit concerned I would get a suspension for debating his points on this thread.
He has points he wants to make, he just keeps making them in multiple other threads.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 178 by Admin, posted 07-27-2011 7:16 AM Admin has seen this message but not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 183 by IamJoseph, posted 07-30-2011 8:25 PM Butterflytyrant has not replied

  
Butterflytyrant
Member (Idle past 4422 days)
Posts: 415
From: Australia
Joined: 06-28-2011


Message 181 of 297 (626545)
07-29-2011 10:22 PM


Failed attempt to make new threads
Hello IamJospeh,
I tried to make anumber of threads with regards to comments I wanted to discuss with you further.
You can see them here Claims made by IamjJoseph that also dont really make sense.
and here Claims made by IamJoseph regarding physics and cause and effect
and here Claims made by IamJospeh ragarding Genesis as a scientific document
and here Claims made by IamJoseph regarding Evolution and Darwin
and here Claims made by IamJospeh regarding the legal system and laws
and here Claims made by IamJoseph regarding the Hebrew Bibles originality
and here Claims from IamJoseph regarding BBT and the Universe
adminPDs comments are on the first one.
If you want to put forward any support for any of these claims IamJoseph, you will need to make the threads yourself.
Until then, I will assume that you have just made it all up and have attempted to use repetition rather than evidence as your main method of argument.

Replies to this message:
 Message 182 by fearandloathing, posted 07-29-2011 10:35 PM Butterflytyrant has seen this message but not replied
 Message 184 by IamJoseph, posted 07-30-2011 8:32 PM Butterflytyrant has not replied

  
Butterflytyrant
Member (Idle past 4422 days)
Posts: 415
From: Australia
Joined: 06-28-2011


Message 212 of 297 (626884)
07-31-2011 6:42 PM
Reply to: Message 211 by IamJoseph
07-31-2011 5:48 PM


Re: Moderator Comment
Hello IamJoseph,
If you could look at the BB occuring - you would first see a light.
You have repeatedly told us that the first product of the Big Bang Theory is light. From the above statement you are saying that VISIBLE light was the first product.
Light occured. The HOW is gven as a command; 'SAID' referring to speech. At this point, at least according to the text's narratives, nothing else existed as identifiable. IOW, there was no fusion or environment; no energy, space or time. No tools or elements.
Light could not have occured by other elements or processes - these never existed at this point. Light is a result of seperation, by virtue of laws initiated for the first time in the universe, and their embedding in the mush [void] with specific attributes to attain a pre-directed result.
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.
From what I can unravel from your posts, you are suggesting that there was a mush that contained everything. God said let there be light and separated light from this mush. This command, let there be light is what you are saying is the first moment of the BBT. You are suggesting that visable light was the very first product of the BBT. Is that correct? So there were two 'things' right at the start, this mush and God. Is this right?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 211 by IamJoseph, posted 07-31-2011 5:48 PM IamJoseph has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 213 by IamJoseph, posted 07-31-2011 7:07 PM Butterflytyrant has replied

  
Butterflytyrant
Member (Idle past 4422 days)
Posts: 415
From: Australia
Joined: 06-28-2011


Message 214 of 297 (626963)
08-01-2011 1:19 AM
Reply to: Message 213 by IamJoseph
07-31-2011 7:07 PM


Re: Moderator Comment
IamJoseph,
It is really hard to pin down what you actually mean by what you say.
If you could look at the BB occuring - you would first see a light.
You made this comment to a human being. Homo sapiens and used the word YOU. If YOU LOOK at the BB occuring - YOU WOULD FIRST SEE a light. You must be able to see how this is a little confusing.
Lets try to narrow down what you mean. Please supply your definition of LIGHT. Be as detailed as you can. It would be good if you could supply some references regarding your sources for your definition. That way, if we dont quite understand some of what you say, we can go to the source and check it out ourselves. That will give us a place to start.
Yes. Basically, Genesis is saying, which I fully agree with as a logical process, is that at one time there were no laws or science - evidenced by the stars and planets, as well as gases and complex products also never existed at one time; this is vindicated by the fact the universe itself never existed at one time, thus the laws which allowed it to happen, and its products, also never existed at one time.
Ok, I am with you so far. You say that laws (I assume you mean scientific laws like cosmic expansion, Keplers Law, Law of Gravitation, Thermodynnamics, Newtons Laws etc) did not exist prior to the creation of the universe. This is fine. Saying science did not exist is not though. Science is the building of knowledge. Even discussing this as we are is science.
with regards to this bit - "thus the laws which allowed it to happen, and its products, also never existed at one time. "
The products. I thought you said that the products were all present. They were a "mush". Would you be able to provide the chapter and verse that describes this "mush" please. That would mean that something existed. A mush is something. What made the mush? Also, God is there. I would say that he is something as well.
[gs] This demands the question at what point did the laws usher in; this unique question is answered only in Genesis V 2, namely pointing to the event when science itself emerged. Since stars never existed at one time while the universe did, it stands to reason that the laws which allowed stars to happen never existed, then they existed, by virtue of the first star estimated as 400K years after BB point. This vindicates the Genesis provision that at one tme the universe existed, but it did not contain any identifiable products and was a mush/void [everything was one material; nothing was a separate individual product]. \[/qs\]
Again, science cannot begin or end. I think you mean that the subjects of scientific laws began to take effect. But I get what you mean. You say that the universe existed but had no stars. How much time was this? How did you work out how much time the universe existed for without having any stars?
Thereafter, an array of products are listed as examples, in a cherent, patterned and imacting order: Light [unversal impact]; day/night ratio [of our solar system impacts]; water separation from land [of our earthly impacts]. These appear fundamental factors for the emergence of the universal products, earthly products and of life itself on this planet, via anticipatory requirement and evidenced protocols; life would not happen without any of those factors and without those exacting protocols.
The day night ratio. How do you believe that this happened. Did God put the planet Earth at the right location in the solar system. Or did he create the sun and put it in the middle? How did he create this day night cycle? From looking at the solar system. It seems that Earth is one of many planets formed after the sun. Its distance from the sun can be explained. As can its rotation. I wont go into the details but these two things simply, logicaly and scientificaly explain the day night cycle. God is not required for this. Are you saying the day/night cycle way created prior to the creation of the Earth?
You have said that life would not happen if things did not go exactly according to the Genesis story. I disagree with this. I would say that life as we know it may not have happened. Looking at todays life and assuming that the entire universe was
created for it is a bit too arrogant for my tastes. It is also unscientific. In order to believe that this is true, you have to believe in a God figure you have no evidence of.
A book describing some of the thnings around us is not evidence for God.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 213 by IamJoseph, posted 07-31-2011 7:07 PM IamJoseph has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 215 by IamJoseph, posted 08-01-2011 3:31 AM Butterflytyrant has replied

  
Butterflytyrant
Member (Idle past 4422 days)
Posts: 415
From: Australia
Joined: 06-28-2011


Message 216 of 297 (627198)
08-01-2011 10:50 AM
Reply to: Message 215 by IamJoseph
08-01-2011 3:31 AM


Re: Moderator Comment
Hello IamJoseph,
I honestly cannot fathom what is confusing here. Obviously, it refers to what will be the first image/entity confronted if the BB point was approached or seen. It does not have to be a human 'seeing' - its only meant to be metaphorical and a means to prove what the first product in the universe was. I believe this is light, which emerged from a whole of matter, and thereafter other products also emerged out of that matter. Here, light is one of the first emerging products separated from the whole. Nothing else makes sense how it must have happened, and yes I got this from giving Genesis serious thought.
OK, so by light you do not mean anything that is described as light as we know it? You are just choosing the word light to describe it? Could you interchange the word light with any word?
if it refers to the first image/entity then you dont actually mean light as any standard definition of the word light?
Its metaphorical. So when god said "let there be light", he did not actually mean let there be actual light, he was just being metaphorical.
You BELIEVE this is light. You dont actually have any evidence of this. This is your belief. That is fair enough, as long as you are aware that it is no longer scientific.
I don't believe one can define light by its properties, any better than say a human can be determined by listing properties.
Light can and has been defined by its properties. Human can, has, is and will continue to be determined by listing properties.
My own personal view/conjecture is that light is independent of energy and heat, predating these, but becoming active when heat and energy is combined in a certain mode. I also see photons as a later development and perhaps being aligned with luminosity [vision friendly light]. However, these are only personal summations.
Again, think and belive whatever you want. As long as you are aware that this is no longer scientific.
but I do not wish to press the issue with any theological stuff. Everyone is aware Genesis V2 says everything was a void w/o form, and then products emerged via the action of laws and separations.
How do you translate formless void to mean a space filled with a 'mush' that contains everything. A space that contains absolutely everything is not a void. It is the exact opposite of a void as it not only does not contain nothing, it actually contains everything.
I won't use terms such as God, so how about an indefinable and indescribable source, as in precedent and transcendent with ultimate wisdom? Yes, I see no alternative to life on this planet without specific and critical actions which anticipated forthcoming life; no random or auto selection jargon applies. I see the earth rotations and revolutions, its tilted angle and distance from the sun, as focused, critical actions paving the way for life. How else!? This is what I see as the meaning of measured separations of the DAY [LIGHT] and NIGHT [DARKNESS] -as irrefutable conditions for life, and the same applying with the separation of water from land, as we get closer to earth. It appears the earth was once covered with water, then portions of the sea bed rose above the water levels as mountains and plains, catering to the manifold life forms anticipated; thus 'separating the water from the land'. Such actions are not negotiable and directly aligned with earth being life friendly. Atheism will deny it forever, but Darwin/ToE has major probelms in its omissions of these actions.
This shows a HUGE lack of knowledge about the theroy of Evolution. Also with athiesm. No evolutionary biologist would deny that the day night cycle has had a major effect on evolving creatures. It is not ommited. It is actually used as the major factor in many evolutionary changes. Bats using sonar to 'see' in the dark is an evolutionary change specific to the day night cycle. I have no idea how an athiet would deny that the Earth is life friendly. If they are alive, they would see that?
You have said that life would not happen if things did not go exactly according to the Genesis story. I disagree with this. I would say that life as we know it may not have happened.
But life did happen. And exclusively via the conditions you deny, exclusively on earth amongst all we can see in the known universe for 14B years.
you have a bit of a habit of putting words in other people mouths. I am not denying any of the factors that you have mentioned being a requirement for life. What I am saying is that life formed because of those factors. Your argument appears to be that the factors were created for life to happen. There is a VERY large difference in these positions.
Humans may well be the most powerful entity in the universe, possessing the most powerful weapon: speech. The imprints of 14B years say there is no life out there; the correct math says the vastness favors no life outside earth as well.
i hope we are not the best the universe could provide. that would be a little sad. I also disagree that speech is the most powerful weapon. i would say critical thought is. the ability to reason and think of something. The maths of us being alone actually does favour life out there. Drake had a good go at this. check it out here : Drake equation - Wikipedia
A book describing some of the thnings around us is not evidence for God.
The reverse applies.
The reverse applies? If that were true, then any religious book is proof of the existence of their chosen God.
A universe maker for a universe is a scientific premise; in fact it is questionable if there is any science outside this premise. What you are accusing me of doing is in fact the problem with ToE: it is observing things and not providing anything else aside from the observances and their process of actions - this is certainly not proof of a ficticious deity called NATURE. IMHO, complex actions and products, such as a car or PC align only with a car and PC maker; it is a powerful and cognigent scientifically based premise against ToE.
there are so many problems with this paragraph. A universe maker, essentially a magician, is not a sccientific premise. The next phrase : in fact it is questionable if there is any science outside this premise. I am going to assume that there is a language barrier here as you cant actually mean what that says.
What you are accusing me of doing is in fact the problem with ToE: it is observing things and not providing anything else aside from the observances and their process of actions
So you think the PROBLEM with the ToE is that it is merely observing things and providing observations and process of actions. I cant see how that is a problem because that is exactly what the it it supposed to be doing. That is what scientific study is, observing and providing a reasonable description of the process. That is hat science is supposed to do.
this is certainly not proof of a ficticious deity called NATURE.
I have written you a long post explaining how you are using the word nature incorrectly in another thread.
IMHO, complex actions and products, such as a car or PC align only with a car and PC maker; it is a powerful and cognigent scientifically based premise against ToE.
A car and a PC can in no way be used as examples in a debate about ToE. They are man made objects. The ToE only applies to living organisms. (even things like viruses that kind of stretch the definition of alive)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 215 by IamJoseph, posted 08-01-2011 3:31 AM IamJoseph has not replied

  
Butterflytyrant
Member (Idle past 4422 days)
Posts: 415
From: Australia
Joined: 06-28-2011


Message 221 of 297 (627285)
08-01-2011 9:21 PM
Reply to: Message 219 by IamJoseph
08-01-2011 7:59 PM


Re: Moderator Comment
Hello IamJoseph,
Q: IS LIGHT THE FIRST PRODUCT IN THE UNIVERSE?
As you have been unable to provide a definition of what you consider light to be, this is an impossible question to answer. It is like saying is 'x' the first product in the universe.
If you cannot tell me what X is, there is no way to answer the question.
here it is : Kent Hovind
Also, have you read my post re the definition of the word nature?
Edited by Butterflytyrant, : adding link

This message is a reply to:
 Message 219 by IamJoseph, posted 08-01-2011 7:59 PM IamJoseph has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 222 by IamJoseph, posted 08-02-2011 3:00 AM Butterflytyrant has replied

  
Butterflytyrant
Member (Idle past 4422 days)
Posts: 415
From: Australia
Joined: 06-28-2011


Message 223 of 297 (627321)
08-02-2011 3:24 AM
Reply to: Message 222 by IamJoseph
08-02-2011 3:00 AM


Re: *** ***
Hello IamJosep,
It appears that your entire argument rests on the definition of light. Yet you cannot suppy the definition.
Without a definition, it is impossible to support or refute your argument.
All you have at the moment is that light (so far undefined) is the first product in the universe because the Old Testemant says it is.
You are making connections with the BBT and saying this is also proof of your claims. However, as you can provide no defintion of light, there is no way you could support or refute its similarity with early BBT products or actions.
All you are saying is that you believe that light is the first product of the universe because your the Old Testemant says it is.
there are significant problems with this logic. Also, you have left the realm of science long ago.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 222 by IamJoseph, posted 08-02-2011 3:00 AM IamJoseph has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 225 by IamJoseph, posted 08-02-2011 4:17 AM Butterflytyrant has replied

  
Butterflytyrant
Member (Idle past 4422 days)
Posts: 415
From: Australia
Joined: 06-28-2011


Message 227 of 297 (627341)
08-02-2011 5:37 AM
Reply to: Message 225 by IamJoseph
08-02-2011 4:17 AM


Re: *** ***
Hey IamJoseph,
jelly was the first product.
Feel free to refute that.
Keep in mind though, I will not be supplying a definition of the word jelly.
You have said you are not using any theology to back up your claims so I wont need to.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 225 by IamJoseph, posted 08-02-2011 4:17 AM IamJoseph has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 228 by IamJoseph, posted 08-02-2011 5:43 AM Butterflytyrant has replied

  
Butterflytyrant
Member (Idle past 4422 days)
Posts: 415
From: Australia
Joined: 06-28-2011


(1)
Message 230 of 297 (627345)
08-02-2011 6:07 AM
Reply to: Message 228 by IamJoseph
08-02-2011 5:43 AM


Re: *** ***
Hello IamJoseph,
First of al HAHAHAHAhhaha hahaha HAHAHA ahahhahah ha he hee.
Oh mercy.
Well. Thats better.
Sweating and deflecting. You are so far from anything like check mate.
You have not even supplied a valid premise to actually start a logical debate. Let alone even begun to introduce science into your posts.
You have as yet, not even entered the game.
Allow me to demonstrate by saying a few things in response to your reply.
1. Its not easy anymore is it? Your response shows you are sweating and deflecting by not proving that jelly was not the first product. The fact remains, the premise of jelly being first is a reasonable logical one with a reasonable scientific vindication, with none able to provide another equally reasonable alternative.
2. To put this in better perspective, the first point is that jelly as a created entity, as well as being one of the primodial products of the universe - is first recorded in a book I read.
Re its scientific theory. The term science yet did not exist; the book i read is the first allusion to the faculty of science and cosmology. Rather than use the term science, I would suggest the use of logic and coherence, and the absence of any alternatives applying. The book i read not only says jelly is the first product in the universe [plausable and logical], but also shows how it was created. According to the book i read, the universe is finite [there was a BEGINNING] - perhaps the first and most impacting scientific premise ever recorded. Next the book i read says there was the universe but no laws yet existed: It says that there was yet no form in the universe. Namely, nothing was identfiable and all was one mush. Here, there was no jelly and no peanut butter; no energy, space, time, matter. Of course we cannot imagine this state, but we cannot deny it either: if there was no universe once, then everything universe contained would also not yet exist - not even laws. This is scientifically credible and encumbent.
Next up we are told LAWS were embedded; namely, the 'formless' was turned to the 'formed'. This then is the point of science ushering into the universe, because science is based on laws. There was no science or laws before this point. It is 100% a viable premise, laws being a result of cause & effect. No alternatives can apply.
Next we get to what was created and in which order - and also how and why! The book i read then says the first created product was jelly. How? Based on laws being ushered in the universe; and by seperating jelly from all else [He seperated the jelly from the peanut butter]. Here, the 'seperation' is most impacting: when delved into, a created thing is nothing other than something seperated from other things - because all things already existed, only applied differently. We can accept jelly predating sandwich: a sandwich cannot produce jelly unless jelly pre-existed. The WHY factor of jelly is also clearly stated in the book i read: as a pre-requisite for life, jelly, and as enegy to drive the whole construct; jelly is agreless and the transcendent velosity, able to cater to all other universal components. This why factor becomes more clarified when we check the follow-up products listed in the book i read. These are:
Seperation of the day [introducted to humanity for the first time, as was the 'week'] and night. Here we see a focusing on our solar system instead of the universe, because of the subject matter - it is now addressing this planet and its life forms. Here, our jelly was critically focused to produce specifically sufficient sandwiches aniticipating a host of life forms. We get closer to earth with the next seperation of water from land - the pre-requisite for the variety of life and terrains.
Jelly could not have occured by other elements or processes - these never existed at this point. Jelly is a result of seperation, by virtue of laws initiated for the first time in the universe, and their embedding in the mush [void] with specific attributes to attain a pre-directed result. How else!?
My claim [view] is based on both the BBT as well the document which first recorded Jelly is the primodial product of the universe. The BB claims there was an explosion [bang]; this is analogous to LET THERE BE JELLY. The latter clarifies the former, while the former does not clarify what point jelly emerged from, instead either ignoring this factor or assuming it just happened by virtue of the bang. But we know that jelly, being part of a finite universe, never existed before. jelly can also be invisible to the eye [radiation, etc] w/o fusion.
One point of knowledge is that the universe could not have been initiated with a singular, indivisible, irreducible entity: it takes two to tango applies. This premise is from a book i read, and from the responses I recieve, it is a premise not sufficiently contemplated by the masses, and ridiculed as mythical theology - w/o any logical responsa why so. I have studied what others are resting their claims on, and after logical thought it arrived in the book i reads favor - and from a scientific POV.
Its a very appropriate answer, unless you are looking for new 250 year terms such as science and fusion. 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? 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.
You say that light being unique from all other products is a non-answer; 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?
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.
Now, do you see what I just did there?
I filled up a heap of space with unverifiable, illogical, unscientific, unsupported untested, unprovable word salad.
My debate begins from an a premise made from an unwarranted assumption. i have not got any verifiable sources to back up anything I say. Half of what I have said does not even make sense.
But remember, I have not given you the definition of jelly. So, my position is as solid as yours.
Feel free to keep trying though.
Edited by Butterflytyrant, : typo

This message is a reply to:
 Message 228 by IamJoseph, posted 08-02-2011 5:43 AM IamJoseph has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 232 by IamJoseph, posted 08-02-2011 7:31 AM Butterflytyrant has not replied

  
Butterflytyrant
Member (Idle past 4422 days)
Posts: 415
From: Australia
Joined: 06-28-2011


(2)
Message 239 of 297 (627375)
08-02-2011 9:13 AM
Reply to: Message 231 by IamJoseph
08-02-2011 7:27 AM


Re: Scientific theory of Genesis
hello IamJoseph,
This is a little bit awkward.
I used your own arguments and you began to attempt to refute them.
They are your own arguments. I thought I was making that pretty clear.
Perhaps this is a bit of a wakeup call for you.
Your arguements have absolutely no validity.
None.
At all.
This has been pointed out to you on dozens of occasions by many different posters.
Do you really think that you actually have something here and evry person who reads it is just missing your point.
I personally have tried really hard with you.
I have tried to help you make your points as best I can.
But you have such huge and fundamental errors in your thinking.
the biggest one, the one pointed out with the jelly example is that you are trying to prove that an force you cannot identifyis the first product of the universe. You are trying to marry old Testemant theology with the Big bang Theory by saying that 'something' proves a link. But you cannot supply a definition of that something.
This is the keystone of your case.
You cannot actually show us how the light mentioned in Genesis is the light you are putting forward as the first product in the BBT. You cannot supply even a definition of what light is in relation to the Genesis story of the BB as seperate fields.
You have pretty much spent a lot of time doing absolutely nothing at all.
To be honest, I am a bit disappointed that I have wasted this much time trying to explain simple things to you for you to just shut your eyes, put your fingers in your ears and say LALALALALALA CHECKMATE.
This makes you look like a douche.
You are not winning any debate. It has got to the point where noone is bothering to discuss it with you as you clearly have nothing to offer.
Do you understand this? Do you actually understand that this is not any type of victory for anyone. You have not yet supplied a valid position for anyone to actually debate about.
Like I said in one of my other posts - you may as well have just mashed your face into the keyboard and then pressed submit.
ho can wear a straight face and say a universe maker for a manifest universe is less scientific than NATURE [?] for a manifest universe?
Here once again, you are displaying that you do not understand what the word nature means.
This is really getting beyond a joke now. I actually spent quaite a bit of time putting together a post trying to explain what this word actually means. I did not do this for fun. I did it for your benefit. I did it to actually help you make more sense. You however have chosen to remain ignorant.
Just in case you want to be the only one who has had any positive benefit from our discussions, in case you want to actually come out of this with one small piece of actual beneficial information, here it is again.
Hello IamJoseph,
I think you have just displayed the language barrier.
other posters can correct me if I am wrong in speaking for them but your description of what nature is in no way matches the definition of nature.
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.
It is a simple as that. It just means stuff that is not made by people. There is nothing about how it is created, by whom it is created, why it is creted etc. It is a word that describes all things not made by people.
That is the only factor. It is not vague. There are no abstract terms. Either a person made it or they did not. It is really that simple.
Mother nature is something different.
Mother Nature (sometimes known as Mother Earth) is a common personification of nature that focuses on the life-giving and nurturing aspects of nature by embodying it in the form of the mother. Images of women representing mother earth, and mother nature, are timeless. In prehistoric times, goddesses were worshipped for their association with fertility, fecundity, and agricultural bounty. Priestesses held dominion over aspects of Incan, Algonquian, Assyrian, Babylonian, Slavonic, Germanic, Roman, Greek, Indian, and Iroquoian religions in the millennia prior to the inception of patriarchal religions.
read more here : Mother Nature - Wikipedia
Natural process is also something different -
natural process - a process existing in or produced by nature (rather than by the intent of human beings); "the action of natural forces"; "volcanic activity"
There are no contradicting theologies here. Either a person made it or they did not. Theology does not enter into its description at all.
it is more a generic, non-denominational method for the allocation of observations and what they may be caused by, without resorting to a creator.
This sentence makes it clear that you do not understand the definition of nature. The description says nothing about a creator at all. A hard core creationist is just as capable of identifying a product made by a human being (an aluminium can) as opposed to an object not created by a human being (a rock). It is not non denominational as theology never enters its description. It is either made by a human or not. The Nile River is not made by a human. So it is part of nature. This does not mean that God did or did not make it. It just means that humans did not make it. A tree is not made by a human. Thus, a tree is part of nature. This does not mean that God did or did not make it. It just means that a human did not make it. A car is made by a human. The interaction of God is irrelevant. As it was made by a human, it is not nature.
There is no science behind nature, natural causes or ecosystem; there is only observation of a working process, also seen within the human body.
There is plenty of science behind nature. A raindrop falls from a leaf and hits the ground. In that one natural occurance there are many laws and theories. Gravity, physics, hydrogen bonds etc etc etc
There is plenty of science behind natural causes. Take an ice cube out of your freezer and put it in the sun. The ice cube turning to water has a normal, natural (as in without human action) scientific explanation. your comments regarding ecosystems leads me to believe that you dont actually know what an ecosystem is either. Any person can see ecosytems working out of their window. Ecosystems are equally valid regardless of any theological or non theological persepctive one might have.
We do not call a car's working observances as a natural cause; so why should rainfall or sunlight be given this allocation: both display complexity. It begs the question if we cannot physically prove the universe maker in a lab vase, does the logical premise of it also become discardable? I say the sound premise must apply and transcend what we cannot capture, especially so when we cannot physically capture Mr/Mrs. Nature!
Again, this is showing that you do not know the actual meanings of the words you are using. You have one correct statement in this post and it is that we do not call a car's working nature. It is not, a human made the car. A human did not make the rain and a human did not make the sunshine. So they are nature. Again, it does not matter if you believe that God made the rain or sunlight, or if you have a valid scientific theory about how it was made or if you think the fairys made it. If you believe that it was not made by a human being, then it is classed as nature. There is no need to capture Mr or Mrs nature (whatever that means) or come up with any description of its creation, theological or otherwise. The deciding factor of what is natural and what is not is if it is made by a human being.
I dont know if I can explain it any better than that.
This post, if you choose to take the english lesson, is the only post between us that has actually provided any intellectual benefit to either of us.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 231 by IamJoseph, posted 08-02-2011 7:27 AM IamJoseph has not replied

  
Butterflytyrant
Member (Idle past 4422 days)
Posts: 415
From: Australia
Joined: 06-28-2011


(1)
Message 247 of 297 (627639)
08-03-2011 6:00 AM
Reply to: Message 246 by Adminnemooseus
08-03-2011 5:08 AM


Re: Call for final comments - Closing soon
Hello all,
I started this topic because I read many claims from many websites advising that Creation Science was working on scientific evidence to support Biblical creation. Many of these websites specifically mention Creation and Genesis as their biggest area of study. Everyone here would be able to name the bigger groups. I included a lot of examples of this close to the beginning of the thread. I had actually wrapped up my question fairly quickly with tha help of individuals like Chuck77 who offered a very good answer. It is possible that there can be no theory for many reasons. It could be that Gods ways are so unknowable and powerful that he is outside any scientific enquiry, it could be that the whole Genesis creation narrative is metaphorical, or it could be that the Genesis creation narrative is a myth. I assumed that as these groups were claiming they were performing scientific research in the field I was interested in, they would at least have a hypotheses. But they dont. Noone does. I can assume that this is the case for the entire creation narrative. This makes it a bit hard to take the title "Creation Science" seriously.
The only reason the thread went on for so long is there was a latecomer who assured me that he had a solid scientific theory for the creation of light when God uttered the words 'let there be light'. After a huge amount of back and forth, this turned out to be a pretty disappointing dead end.
The only place this question could have been put is in the science thread. As it was asking for a scientific answer. Everyone knows what the non scientific answer is. I dont think there is anything wrong with asking creation scientists a scientific question. If I wanted a religious answer, I would have asked a priest. If they want to pose as scientists, they should expect to be asked scientific questions.
Not having anything coming close to a scientific explanation for creation seems to be a very large hole in the case for creation. It should also be a serious issue for any group claiming to be creation scientists.
Thank you for your answers.
cheers,
BT
Edited by Butterflytyrant, : No reason given.
Edited by Butterflytyrant, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 246 by Adminnemooseus, posted 08-03-2011 5:08 AM Adminnemooseus has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 254 by IamJoseph, posted 08-03-2011 7:33 PM Butterflytyrant has not replied

  
Butterflytyrant
Member (Idle past 4422 days)
Posts: 415
From: Australia
Joined: 06-28-2011


(1)
Message 259 of 297 (627779)
08-04-2011 6:30 AM
Reply to: Message 258 by Minnemooseus
08-04-2011 3:55 AM


Re: The creationist scientific theory of the origin of light
Hey Moose,
God was involved in initiating the process that is the mainstream scientific explanation of the origin of light.
Can you be a bit more specific? Do you mean a certain stage of the Big Bang Theory? If yes, which part.
Also, If this is the answer, it is still not an answer. It leaves the really important part, the actual creation, to magic.
It is agreeing with the current scientific model, but adding magic to it.
The same thing that is the mainstream scientific process of doing such.
What is the mainstream scientific process for testing magic?
It's he same evidence that mainstream science supplies to support their theory.
What evidence does mainstream science use for magic? What evidence do they use to support magic?
So, the creation science theory and the mainstream science theory is the same thing, except the creationist belief is that God was involved.
Thats a pretty big difference. One uses magic, so is no longer scientific.
So it is not a scientific theory.
Edited by Butterflytyrant, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 258 by Minnemooseus, posted 08-04-2011 3:55 AM Minnemooseus has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 260 by Alfred Maddenstein, posted 08-04-2011 9:08 AM Butterflytyrant has replied
 Message 273 by Minnemooseus, posted 08-04-2011 10:48 PM Butterflytyrant has replied

  
Butterflytyrant
Member (Idle past 4422 days)
Posts: 415
From: Australia
Joined: 06-28-2011


(1)
Message 262 of 297 (627803)
08-04-2011 9:41 AM
Reply to: Message 260 by Alfred Maddenstein
08-04-2011 9:08 AM


Re: The creationist scientific theory of the origin of light
Hey Alfred,
Now as far as magic is concerned Genesis teaches that it was God doing magic when creating the Universe, the Big Bang theory that magic was doing itself.
The first part I agree with. That Genesis teaches that it was God doing magic. I am fine with this. I think that this is a totally valid idea. I actually like this idea. Many posters have put this idea forward. This is much more fitting description of the God that I have read about. He seems to lose something when his actions are reduced to scientifically explainable actions. There are however, members of this forum and larger organisations who say that Gods actions in Genesis are scientifically explainable. That no magic has occured. Have a look through IamJosephs replies for an example. (If you can unravel what he is talking about, please send me a message and let me know)
The second part I dont agree with. The Big Bang theory using magic to create itself. Science does not resort to magic. A quite common answer in science is 'we dont know'. This answer is not a bad thing. If we knew everything, we would all be out of the job. I only know the basics of the BBT so I cant go into any depth about it. I do know that there are questions regarding the theory that are answered with 'we dont know'. There are no answers that involve magic.
To involve magic is to stop thinking.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 260 by Alfred Maddenstein, posted 08-04-2011 9:08 AM Alfred Maddenstein has not replied

  
Butterflytyrant
Member (Idle past 4422 days)
Posts: 415
From: Australia
Joined: 06-28-2011


Message 274 of 297 (627887)
08-04-2011 11:28 PM
Reply to: Message 273 by Minnemooseus
08-04-2011 10:48 PM


Re: The creationist scientific theory of the origin of light
Hello Moose,
It could be argued that introducing a creator is introducing magic depending on that creator. If the creator was a highly advanced form of alien life, then it would not be magic. However, if you are going to introduce the creator described in the Christian Bible, then thats pretty magical. It is the same as saying you are Merlin or Gandalf is the force tacked onto the beginning of the scientific theories.
It is a good hypothesis though. It is one of the better worded and sensible hypotheses put forward, for this I thank you.
Why do you think that a creationist needs to have his own theory? Why can't a creationist be allowed to accept the scientifically supported theory?
Because not all creationists have the same interpretation of creation that you do. There are a large number of creationists who would say that there is no way that the scientifically supported theory could be true as it does not fit with their version. A creationist is perfectly able and welcome to accept scientifically supported theory. Many do not. There are also some who do accept the theory but change it slightly (as I think IamJoseph was attempting to do) to match their theology.
The question was open to all creationists to give their answer as there appears to be a vast amount of different interpretaions of the same single line of text and how it fits into scientific theory (if at all).
You particular hypotheses is but one of many. You accept scientific theory and combine it with your faith in a way that allows both to coexist. A lot of creationists cant or wont do this.
The start of this topic said nothing of YECism. YECism conflicts with reality right from the Y. Who cares what their theory of the origin of light is.
This is an example. I am sure that they would have exactly the same thing to say about your hypothesis. You are suggesting that noone cares about what this creationist groups theories are. Are they any less valid than yours? I am an athiest so I tend to put all of them in the same basket. The topic was equally open to all stripes of Creationist, including Young Earth Creationists. I could argue that all faiths conflict with reality. I could say, who cares about what Mooses theory is?
Edited by Butterflytyrant, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 273 by Minnemooseus, posted 08-04-2011 10:48 PM Minnemooseus has seen this message but not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 275 by Coyote, posted 08-04-2011 11:36 PM Butterflytyrant has replied

  
Butterflytyrant
Member (Idle past 4422 days)
Posts: 415
From: Australia
Joined: 06-28-2011


Message 276 of 297 (627891)
08-04-2011 11:44 PM
Reply to: Message 275 by Coyote
08-04-2011 11:36 PM


Re: The creationist scientific theory of the origin of light
Hey Coyote,
Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic.
I accept this. But the appearence of magic, or not being able to distinguish technology from magic, does not make it magic.
Lets say I took an genarator and a large, overdone christmas display (complete with brightly lit santa, moving reindeer and 10 000 flashing coloured bulbs) to an island nation in 1800. I know these things did not exist at the time but this is just an example. The island people, who have not seen any of these things would see this as an amazing display of magic. It does not make it magic, they just cannot tell the difference.
Something being indistingishable from magic does not actually make it magic. So the aliens starting the universe, while indistinguishable from magic, does not actually make it magic.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 275 by Coyote, posted 08-04-2011 11:36 PM Coyote has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 277 by Coyote, posted 08-05-2011 12:19 AM Butterflytyrant has seen this message but not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024