Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
3 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,806 Year: 3,063/9,624 Month: 908/1,588 Week: 91/223 Day: 2/17 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?
Admin
Director
Posts: 12995
From: EvC Forum
Joined: 06-14-2002
Member Rating: 2.3


Message 241 of 297 (627380)
08-02-2011 9:57 AM
Reply to: Message 240 by IamJoseph
08-02-2011 9:37 AM


IamJoseph Suspended 24 Hours
Hi IamJoseph,
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.
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.
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.
Please, no replies to this message.

--Percy
EvC Forum Director

This message is a reply to:
 Message 240 by IamJoseph, posted 08-02-2011 9:37 AM IamJoseph has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 252 by IamJoseph, posted 08-03-2011 7:18 PM Admin has replied

  
Admin
Director
Posts: 12995
From: EvC Forum
Joined: 06-14-2002
Member Rating: 2.3


Message 243 of 297 (627583)
08-02-2011 9:42 PM


Moderator Comment
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.
Even though this is a science thread where positions must be supported by relevant evidence, moderators understand that creationist views are based upon sincerely held religious beliefs and try to treat these views with respect. But if IamJoseph's views have no Biblical foundation, and they have no evidential foundation, then the patience of this moderator to entertain much discussion about such views is in short supply.
IamJoseph should take this into account when his suspension expires.

--Percy
EvC Forum Director

Replies to this message:
 Message 255 by IamJoseph, posted 08-03-2011 7:48 PM Admin has seen this message but not replied

  
Admin
Director
Posts: 12995
From: EvC Forum
Joined: 06-14-2002
Member Rating: 2.3


Message 248 of 297 (627643)
08-03-2011 6:46 AM


Thread Not Closed: will remain open until 300 messages
Hello everyone,
Sometimes coordination between moderators isn't what it should be. Adminnemooseus and I will work to get back in sync.
I was already very actively moderating the thread, and it was my intention that it remain open until 300 messages, at which time I will request summations.

--Percy
EvC Forum Director

  
Admin
Director
Posts: 12995
From: EvC Forum
Joined: 06-14-2002
Member Rating: 2.3


Message 249 of 297 (627644)
08-03-2011 6:52 AM
Reply to: Message 244 by Chuck77
08-03-2011 3:12 AM


Re: Thread should be moved
Hi Chuck,
The Free For All forum is for threads that become impossible to moderate.
Why don't you check with IamJoseph (send him a PM) and see if agrees with you that his claims aren't science.
EvC Forum exists to examine the claims of conservative Christians that Bible-based theories are legitimate science. There is little to disagree about with any Christian who wants to concede up-front that creationism isn't science.

--Percy
EvC Forum Director

This message is a reply to:
 Message 244 by Chuck77, posted 08-03-2011 3:12 AM Chuck77 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 250 by Chuck77, posted 08-03-2011 7:03 AM Admin has replied

  
Admin
Director
Posts: 12995
From: EvC Forum
Joined: 06-14-2002
Member Rating: 2.3


Message 251 of 297 (627647)
08-03-2011 7:36 AM
Reply to: Message 250 by Chuck77
08-03-2011 7:03 AM


Re: Thread should be moved
Chuck77 writes:
Admin writes:
Why don't you check with IamJoseph (send him a PM) and see if agrees with you that his claims aren't science.
So, you're ok with his trying to respond the way he is then? So what's the problem?
You're failing to draw a distinction between what IamJoseph is claiming and how he is supporting what he claims. He has claimed throughout this thread that his position is scientific, for example, this from Message 231:
IamJoseph in Message 231 writes:
Light being the first product is a sceintific statement;
But he is using religious texts to support his scientific claims, and that's the problem.
Why don't you PM IamJoseph and ask him why he believes his claim of "light being the first product" is scientific? You could at the same time ask him why he thinks this claim is consistent with Genesis.

--Percy
EvC Forum Director

This message is a reply to:
 Message 250 by Chuck77, posted 08-03-2011 7:03 AM Chuck77 has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 253 by IamJoseph, posted 08-03-2011 7:26 PM Admin has seen this message but not replied

  
Admin
Director
Posts: 12995
From: EvC Forum
Joined: 06-14-2002
Member Rating: 2.3


Message 256 of 297 (627750)
08-03-2011 8:16 PM
Reply to: Message 252 by IamJoseph
08-03-2011 7:18 PM


IamJoseph Suspended One Week
IamJoseph writes:
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 is rule 1 from the Forum Guidelines:
  1. Follow all moderator requests.
I realize that you are understandably confused about how what you're providing does not satisfy what I am asking, but this is from the concluding paragraph of the Forum Guidelines:
Moderators do not have the time to engage in discussions about violations or to coach members toward proper participation.
Clearly describing your position, providing evidence for your position, giving explanations for how the evidence supports your position, these are all expected of participants at EvC Forum. That you have problems in these areas is not new news for you - providing these things has been a problem for you since your first moments here. Simply denying these problems and asking people to explain yet again where the specific lacks lie just compounds the problem. I already told you that you provided no explanation for how your excerpts supported your position, but you ignored that and repeated the excerpts with no explanation again. How is me explaining to you again what you obviously didn't understand the first several times going to help?
I know you don't get it, but it isn't within my available time or my ability to help you get it. Either what you're trying to say makes no sense, or you're unable to express yourself in a way that allows others to make sense of what you're trying to say. The same problems that keep others from understanding you also keep you from understanding others. Since English isn't you're native language I'm inclined to think the problem is yours.
I regret having to do this, but we try to avoid nonsense threads here at EvC Forum, and so I am suspending you for a week. When you return, if you want to remain around then describe the evidence for your position in your own words, provide links to the source of the evidence, and explain how the evidence supports your position.
Chuck77: Did you PM IamJoseph like I suggested? Do you understand what IamJoseph is trying to say? Can you step in and make it clear to everyone else?
Edited by Admin, : Alter title.

--Percy
EvC Forum Director

This message is a reply to:
 Message 252 by IamJoseph, posted 08-03-2011 7:18 PM IamJoseph has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 282 by Chuck77, posted 08-07-2011 7:39 AM Admin has replied

  
Admin
Director
Posts: 12995
From: EvC Forum
Joined: 06-14-2002
Member Rating: 2.3


(5)
Message 283 of 297 (628176)
08-07-2011 8:12 AM
Reply to: Message 282 by Chuck77
08-07-2011 7:39 AM


Re: Understanding Joseph
Chuck77 writes:
I think, im not sure. I never claimed to understand his arguments but I know it's harder to understand them when he's suspended and not explaining them due to his poor english that apparently really bothers everyone.
You just got here. IamJoseph has been here for 4 years and 2000 posts, and he is as incoherent today as he was when he first arrived. Moderator tolerance was exhausted long ago. Moderators discourage his participation, he goes away for a while, and when he comes back he is unchanged. The problems he has with communication and comprehension cause threads to become extended efforts at understanding what he is trying to say, instead of discussing the topic.
The Forum Guidelines that moderators enforce are neutral with regard to the creation/evolution debate. What is being singled out in this case is inarticulateness and incoherence and an inability to comprehend. These qualities are seen almost exclusively on the creation side of the debate, though they do occasionally appear in those of a science bent, Alfred Maddenstein being a recent example, but it does sometimes make it appear as if the religious side is being targeted by moderators.
You don't understand IamJoseph's posts, and neither does anyone else, but I'm wondering if the posts from the science side are as difficult for you to understand as IamJoseph's. If this is the case then you're left trying to make judgments between posts that don't make sense to you, and it is understandable that you would be left thinking there's a bias against the religious side.
EvC Forum exists to examine the claim that evolution and creation are equally scientific. Few in science would take any notice of the beliefs of religious fundamentalists if they didn't claim that their religious beliefs had scientific validity and that they should therefore be included in public school science curriculums.
Do these religious beliefs have scientific validity? That's what we're here to find out, but before one can discuss something one must know what one is talking about and be able to express it clearly.

--Percy
EvC Forum Director

This message is a reply to:
 Message 282 by Chuck77, posted 08-07-2011 7:39 AM Chuck77 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 284 by Chuck77, posted 08-09-2011 6:02 AM Admin has replied

  
Admin
Director
Posts: 12995
From: EvC Forum
Joined: 06-14-2002
Member Rating: 2.3


Message 285 of 297 (628384)
08-09-2011 9:12 AM
Reply to: Message 284 by Chuck77
08-09-2011 6:02 AM


Re: Understanding Joseph
Chuck77 writes:
I underatand it perfectly Percy.
If this is true then you could perform a wonderful service by acting as interpreter. It would be very helpful if you could post a message explaining IamJoseph's position and the evidence supporting it.
But sadly I doubt you can do this, because the evidence indicates you don't really understand IamJoseph. You've been arguing that IamJoseph's position isn't science and that he knows it isn't science, yet IamJoseph has stated unequivocally that he believes his position is science (Message 231: "Light being the first product is a sceintific statement").
What are your thoughts on the subject? You know there was no light theory but still promoted it. Why? You're the one who promoted this topic so you must have thought since there wasn't a light theory you were gonna get some far out replies, especially from the Bible quoters, me included.
As moderator my opinions about the validity of claims must be left aside. EvC Forum exists to examine the claims of both sides, and the examination of claims is not carried out during the thread proposal process by moderators. The responsibility of moderators is to enforce the Forum Guidelines and make sure that thread proposals are clear and rational and focused.
So maybe (like I said before) IMO it should have been in the "free for all" not Science.
Again, I suggest you ask IamJoseph if he believes his claim isn't science.
It is understandable that you feel moved to object to what you perceive as unfair treatment, but in defending IamJoseph you haven't been able to muster any statements that are actually true. I understand your sense of fairness is offended, but in order to actually make your case that IamJoseph has been treated unfairly you have to show that he didn't fail to follow the Forum Guidelines and that is isn't inarticulate and incoherent. That you claim you understand IamJoseph perfectly when the evidence is clear that you don't is more evidence of the difficulty everyone has understanding him. Communication is a two-way street, and IamJoseph is going to have to improve on making himself understood if he is to avoid the attention of moderators.
The Free For All forum is not for unscientific discussions but for threads that have attracted a great deal of interest but which have become impossible to moderate. As moderator I have not yet given up on this thread.

--Percy
EvC Forum Director

This message is a reply to:
 Message 284 by Chuck77, posted 08-09-2011 6:02 AM Chuck77 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 286 by Chuck77, posted 08-10-2011 12:37 AM Admin has replied

  
Admin
Director
Posts: 12995
From: EvC Forum
Joined: 06-14-2002
Member Rating: 2.3


Message 288 of 297 (628532)
08-10-2011 8:51 AM
Reply to: Message 286 by Chuck77
08-10-2011 12:37 AM


Re: Understanding Joseph
Chuck77 writes:
I do not understand Joe, BUT Im still stuck at as long as Joe thinks it Science( which you suggest he thinks it is) then it's cool for the thread to be here mas long as he thinks it's science, and not you?
As moderator I take no position on IamJoseph's claim that his position is scientific.
IamJoseph was suspended for one week because he refused or was incapable of moving beyond his claim that his position was scientific. That's all he's done, and he's posted 70 messages in this thread. He was asked, repeatedly, to support his assertion that his claim was scientific by providing evidence for his position. The opening post of this thread is very specific on the matter of evidence:
Butterflytyrant writes:
Please supply the scientific theory of how God created light when he said "let there be light".
Please include the testable elements of the process by which light was created.
include evidence supporting this theory.
I am trying to narrow IamJoseph's focus to a single part of his position: Light was the first thing in the universe. He's being asked to provide evidence, and I, in my position as moderator, am holding him to satisfying the requirement for evidence. If I do not do this then long experience with IamJoseph tells us that this thread could continue until the end of time and IamJoseph would still be repeating his claims while providing no evidence.

--Percy
EvC Forum Director

This message is a reply to:
 Message 286 by Chuck77, posted 08-10-2011 12:37 AM Chuck77 has 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