|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
EvC Forum active members: 65 (9164 total) |
| |
ChatGPT | |
Total: 916,427 Year: 3,684/9,624 Month: 555/974 Week: 168/276 Day: 8/34 Hour: 1/1 |
Thread ▼ Details |
Member (Idle past 4443 days) Posts: 415 From: Australia Joined: |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: What is the creation science theory of the origin of light? | |||||||||||||||||||||||
IamJoseph Member (Idle past 3690 days) Posts: 2822 Joined: |
quote: 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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
IamJoseph Member (Idle past 3690 days) Posts: 2822 Joined: |
quote: 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: 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: 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?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
IamJoseph Member (Idle past 3690 days) Posts: 2822 Joined: |
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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
IamJoseph Member (Idle past 3690 days) Posts: 2822 Joined: |
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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
IamJoseph Member (Idle past 3690 days) Posts: 2822 Joined: |
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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
IamJoseph Member (Idle past 3690 days) Posts: 2822 Joined: |
quote: That the first product was an irreducible and indivisible entity ['singularity']:
quote: That the universe age is calculated by light:
quote: quote: That light predates the stars, and that cosmic radiation is the residual 'glow' [light]:
quote: Your very welcome.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
IamJoseph Member (Idle past 3690 days) Posts: 2822 Joined: |
quote: 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: and here:
quote: And here:
quote: Go back and check.
quote: 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 do that. Go back and check.
quote: 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?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
IamJoseph Member (Idle past 3690 days) Posts: 2822 Joined: |
quote: 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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
IamJoseph Member (Idle past 3690 days) Posts: 2822 Joined: |
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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
IamJoseph Member (Idle past 3690 days) Posts: 2822 Joined: |
quote: 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.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024