Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
4 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,808 Year: 3,065/9,624 Month: 910/1,588 Week: 93/223 Day: 4/17 Hour: 1/1


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   What is the creation science theory of the origin of light?
IamJoseph
Member (Idle past 3668 days)
Posts: 2822
Joined: 06-30-2007


Message 228 of 297 (627342)
08-02-2011 5:43 AM
Reply to: Message 227 by Butterflytyrant
08-02-2011 5:37 AM


Re: *** ***
quote:
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.
Its not easy anymore is it? Your response shows you are sweating and deflecting to reduced it with ridiculing the question.
The fact remains, the premise of light being first is a reasonably logical one with reasonable scientific vindication, with none able to provide another equally reasonable alternative. Its getting close to check mate time.
Edited by IamJoseph, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 227 by Butterflytyrant, posted 08-02-2011 5:37 AM Butterflytyrant has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 229 by Panda, posted 08-02-2011 5:53 AM IamJoseph has not replied
 Message 230 by Butterflytyrant, posted 08-02-2011 6:07 AM IamJoseph has replied

  
IamJoseph
Member (Idle past 3668 days)
Posts: 2822
Joined: 06-30-2007


Message 231 of 297 (627350)
08-02-2011 7:27 AM
Reply to: Message 12 by Minority Report
06-29-2011 4:46 AM


Re: Scientific theory of Genesis
quote:
This question in it's current form is impossible to answer. Creationists believe that this universe & everything in it was supernaturally created by God out of nothing. So asking for a testable, repeatable scientific theory based on 'natural laws' to explain a 'supernatural creation' (in which these very laws were created), is entirely missing the creationists point.
Believing in a supernatural creation however does not make creation scientific theories impossible. Creationists can form scientific theories about the nature of light, fitting within a creation framework, such as how it could have seemingly travelled millions of light years in a 6000year old universe.
There is no science where there is no comprehension of texts. A correct reading of Genesis says billion and millions of years would be relevant with the actions listed in the text prior to the emergence of life: how long does it take to separate light from darkness and water from land? The later days are not 24 hour days either; the Hebrew calendar begins 'AFTER' these creational epochs of time: ever wonder why?
quote:
Creationists formulate theories based on the presupposition of creation, just as evolutionists formulate theories on the presupposition of naturalism.
Who can wear a straight face and say a universe maker for a manifest universe is less scientific than NATURE [?] for a manifest universe?
quote:
So perhapps you need to rephrase the question. Any question asking for a scientific theory of 'how' God created is pointless, as it involves the supernatural and is not testable & therefore no scientific theory can be formulated. If instead you ask 'If God did create light 6000 years ago, then how can we see distant starlight', then creationist may be able to formulate testable theories which can be debated here.
Science is based on laws [Gen v2]; laws are the #1 criteria applying in Genesis [all life frms were initiated in a dual-gender]. Light being the first product is a sceintific statement; the first grouping of life forms comes from Genesis - not from Darwin; the most accurate and oldest active calendar is from Genesis - guess why you cannot produce a 'NAME' of a historical human older than 6000? A 6000 year earth is an embarrassing view from Christians, whose understanding of Genesis is below par - at least well below the Jews. We have no scientific alternative to creationism according to the greatest scientists [including Newton; Einstein & Rogers]: why are you laughing?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 12 by Minority Report, posted 06-29-2011 4:46 AM Minority Report has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 238 by Admin, posted 08-02-2011 8:12 AM IamJoseph has replied
 Message 239 by Butterflytyrant, posted 08-02-2011 9:13 AM IamJoseph has not replied

  
IamJoseph
Member (Idle past 3668 days)
Posts: 2822
Joined: 06-30-2007


Message 232 of 297 (627351)
08-02-2011 7:31 AM
Reply to: Message 230 by Butterflytyrant
08-02-2011 6:07 AM


Re: *** ***
Hm. The age of your universe is calculated by jelly; not from residual light imprints? Very interesting but not funny.
Absolutely check mate is in order and you are sweating. Ridiculing what you cannot counter is a good indication.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 230 by Butterflytyrant, posted 08-02-2011 6:07 AM Butterflytyrant has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 234 by Panda, posted 08-02-2011 7:42 AM IamJoseph has not replied

  
IamJoseph
Member (Idle past 3668 days)
Posts: 2822
Joined: 06-30-2007


Message 233 of 297 (627352)
08-02-2011 7:34 AM


Why light cannot have a true definition.
If it is a first product, it cannot be described by aligning it with other products: those never yet existed. One cannot speak of energy or quarks here - these never existed yet - else you violate the finite factor of this universe. Is the message getting through at all!?
Edited by IamJoseph, : No reason given.

Replies to this message:
 Message 235 by Panda, posted 08-02-2011 7:43 AM IamJoseph has not replied

  
IamJoseph
Member (Idle past 3668 days)
Posts: 2822
Joined: 06-30-2007


Message 236 of 297 (627356)
08-02-2011 7:46 AM
Reply to: Message 15 by Minority Report
06-29-2011 5:47 AM


Re: Scientific theory of Genesis
You forgot to mention jelly is also ageless and massless and how scientists measure light by it.
This thread is now degenerated. I issue this response:
CHECK MATE JELLY BEANS.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 15 by Minority Report, posted 06-29-2011 5:47 AM Minority Report has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 237 by Panda, posted 08-02-2011 7:55 AM IamJoseph has not replied

  
IamJoseph
Member (Idle past 3668 days)
Posts: 2822
Joined: 06-30-2007


Message 240 of 297 (627379)
08-02-2011 9:37 AM
Reply to: Message 238 by Admin
08-02-2011 8:12 AM


Re: Scientific theory of Genesis
quote:
That the theory not be illogical goes without saying. What you have to do is provide the evidence and testable aspects of your hypothesis that light was the first entity in the universe.
That the first product was an irreducible and indivisible entity ['singularity']:
quote:
Age of the universeFrom Wikipedia, the free encyclopediaJump to: navigation, search
This article is about scientific estimates of the age of the universe.
The age of the universe is 13.75 0.11 billion[1] years (433.6 x 1015 seconds in SI units, or 13.75 Gigayears) within the Lambda-CDM concordance model.[2] This is however only the estimated time since the Big Bang. It is not known if something existed before the singularity that we call Big Bang, nor if time is linear, since the expansion estimated by Hubble's law assumed a linear expansion, and later work indicates there may have been variations.[3] The estimated changes in expansion are calculated to be both positive and negative, so Hubble and later estimates broadly agree.
That the universe age is calculated by light:
quote:
Light and the Age of the Universe - the Cosmic Microwave Background
http://www.thelightsideofscience.com/...universe-cosmic.html
Our main window to understanding the universe is light and the electromagnetic spectrum. Trapped here on earth, there is very little of the universe that we can actually touch and test with our own hands, but light provides an amazing tool. The Cosmic Microwave Background is perhaps on of the best methods we have of finding the age of the universe.
quote:
According to general relativity, space can expand faster than the speed of light, although we can view only a small portion of the universe due to the limitation imposed by light speed. Since we cannot observe space beyond the limitations of light (or any electromagnetic radiation), it is uncertain whether the size of the universe is finite or infinite.
Universe - Wikipedia
That light predates the stars, and that cosmic radiation is the residual 'glow' [light]:
quote:
The most precise estimate of the universe's age is 13.730.12 billion years old, based on observations of the cosmic microwave background radiation.[29]
In cosmology, cosmic microwave background (CMB) radiation (also CMBR, CBR, MBR, and relic radiation) is thermal radiation filling the observable universe almost uniformly.[1]
With a traditional optical telescope, the space between stars and galaxies (the background) is completely dark. But a sufficiently sensitive radio telescope shows a faint background glow, almost exactly the same in all directions, that is not associated with any star, galaxy, or other object. This glow is strongest in the microwave region of the radio spectrum. The CMB's serendipitous discovery in 1964 by American radio astronomers Arno Penzias and Robert Wilson[2] was the culmination of work initiated in the 1940s, and earned them the 1978 Nobel Prize.
Your very welcome.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 238 by Admin, posted 08-02-2011 8:12 AM Admin has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 241 by Admin, posted 08-02-2011 9:57 AM IamJoseph has replied

  
IamJoseph
Member (Idle past 3668 days)
Posts: 2822
Joined: 06-30-2007


Message 252 of 297 (627742)
08-03-2011 7:18 PM
Reply to: Message 241 by Admin
08-02-2011 9:57 AM


Re: IamJoseph Suspended 24 Hours
quote:
First, you're expected to support your position in your own words, not via cut-n-pastes. Your own words must be outnumbered by the cut-n-pastes by at least 10 to 1.
I did, by header statements placed before each response to the claims made, and by providing links and references from 'scientific' definitions. They do not need to surpass the link wordage with superfluous words if the point is made succinctly. I try to save my virtual ink:
quote:
That the first product was an irreducible and indivisible entity ['singularity']:
and here:
quote:
That the universe age is calculated by light:
And here:
quote:
Light and the Age of the Universe - Re Cosmic Microwave Background:
Go back and check.
quote:
Second, the cut-n-pastes you provided do not by themselves support your position, and you provided no accompanying explanation for how they might do so.
Yes they do. Where I asserted the SINGULARITY factor for example, the link provided affirms this. A science thread's participants should know a singularity refers to one indivisible and irreducible entity with no other products around. No energy, space or heat applies.
quote:
I think you should go off and think through how you're going to gather evidence supporting your position that light was the first entity in the universe, and additional evidence for how that light came to be, as well as thinking through how you're going to present that evidence to successfully make your case. To give you some time to do that I'm suspending you for 24 hours.
I do that. Go back and check.
quote:
Please, no replies to this message.
How can one learn without pointing out at least to a clarification of response - to charges made when one is also barred from responding - its not even scientifically possible?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 241 by Admin, posted 08-02-2011 9:57 AM Admin has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 256 by Admin, posted 08-03-2011 8:16 PM IamJoseph has not replied

  
IamJoseph
Member (Idle past 3668 days)
Posts: 2822
Joined: 06-30-2007


Message 253 of 297 (627744)
08-03-2011 7:26 PM
Reply to: Message 251 by Admin
08-03-2011 7:36 AM


Re: Thread should be moved
quote:
But he is using religious texts to support his scientific claims, and that's the problem.
You fail to include I back this up with 'SCIENTIFIC' reasoning and refs. I refer not to religious texts but the first recording of a premise - a significant factor and incumbent accreditisation. E.g. if I say the uni is finite, I back this up with:
The uni is expanding; it was not infinite 10 seconds ago. [Scientific, not religious, reasoning].
That light is measured by light [backed by science links and opinions, not religious texts].
A lie by omission is - surprise, surprise - a lie.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 251 by Admin, posted 08-03-2011 7:36 AM Admin has seen this message but not replied

  
IamJoseph
Member (Idle past 3668 days)
Posts: 2822
Joined: 06-30-2007


Message 254 of 297 (627746)
08-03-2011 7:33 PM
Reply to: Message 247 by Butterflytyrant
08-03-2011 6:00 AM


Re: Call for final comments - Closing soon
Pls tell us, without using any religious texts:
Which is the first recording dealing with a finite universe?
Which is the first recording Light was the first product in the universe?
Which is the first recording which introduced the DAY & WEEK?
Which is the first recording of life form groupings by category?
Pls provide your scientific links when quoting your sources. Thanks.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 247 by Butterflytyrant, posted 08-03-2011 6:00 AM Butterflytyrant has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 257 by Panda, posted 08-03-2011 8:20 PM IamJoseph has not replied

  
IamJoseph
Member (Idle past 3668 days)
Posts: 2822
Joined: 06-30-2007


Message 255 of 297 (627747)
08-03-2011 7:48 PM
Reply to: Message 243 by Admin
08-02-2011 9:42 PM


Re: Moderator Comment
quote:
Nuggin argued at one point that IamJoseph wasn't following the Bible. I read backward a bit through the chain of messages but couldn't find the details of this point, so I looked up the beginning of Genesis. The only part I clearly recall is, "Let there be light," and I thought God must have created light first since that's what IamJoseph is claiming. But after reading the beginning of Genesis I find that this isn't true. Here is the beginning of Genesis cut-n-pasted from one of a billion Christian websites, I don't know which version of the Bible this is:
Genesis writes:
Genesis 1:1 In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth.
2 The earth was without form, and void; and darkness was on the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God was hovering over the face of the waters.
3 Then God said, "Let there be light"; and there was light.
So God first created the heavens and the earth, and there was also water. Only then did God create light. IamJoseph's idea that light was the first entity in the universe cannot have a Biblical origin.
You make a good point - good because it is at least dealing with the issue, not because it is correct. A correct reading says a follow-up verse is the qualification factor, made ater a frst statement in any technical or judiciary writings.
The first verse says the universe and the earth appeared. Then it goes on to say there were yet no identifiable products in V2 [yes/no?]; then it goes on to say which was the first product in the universe, namely LET THERE BE LIGHT [yes/no?]. Otherwise, your demanding the first product in the universe be stated without mentioning the universe as existant. Is that logica!? Its like asking which sprinter came first at the olympics - before the universe existed!
Yes, I grant you it does say water and darkness already existed. But this is stated in context of the first product and qualified with the next verse. E.g. it does not say LET THERE BE WATER and DARKNESS, it says LET THERE BE LIGHT. The only grammatical conclusion is that water was also created the same way as was light, namely via the separation factor - but not precedently; else the text makes no sense - proof it is read incorrectly. However, I agree you have a reasonable point here, but one which does not negate my own.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 243 by Admin, posted 08-02-2011 9:42 PM Admin 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