The following are claims made by IamJoseph.
They are mostly from debates I have had with him but some are from other debates where people have advised they have not received an answer. He asked me to start the threads on whatever I wanted him to discuss in more detail.
I cannot seem to make head or tail of most of IamJosephs claims and he is making some claims that are outside my field.
Would it be possible for individuals who know about the subject matter to respond to these claims?
IamJoseph, here are the statements you have made that I wish to discuss.
According to Genesis, the universe is finite [there was a BEGINNING] - perhaps the first and most impacting scientific premise ever recorded.
Unless light was an already existing pre-product the sun's nuclear interactions would be unable to produce light. Even the BBT posits by default light was the first factor issued by an explosion: this also means the light pre-dated that explosion. Of all the processes which produce light, we find that the light alone has attributes not shared by any others: it is ageless and of a transcendent velosity greater than any energy input.
Genesis is from the Hebrew bible, which predates Christianity by 2000 years. The creation myths of the past were busted by Genesis. Today, there are only two scenarious for the emergence of the universe, and one of them is Genesis' Creationism. I know of no scientific alternative to it; do you?
The entire universe turns via intelligent laws and appears only as a work of wisdom.
the Genesis creation narrative - 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.
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.
A universe maker for a universe is a 100% scientific premise; its reverse is not.
LET THERE BE LIGHT, said as the first act of an action in the universe, is hardly unscientific.
LIGHT IS THE FIRST PRODUCT IN THE UNIVERSE.
A universe maker for a manifest universe is not myth - its reverse is myth, based on no science whatsoever.
There is no alternative to ex-nehilo; not because I am deficient in science, but because I am not - and thus I concluded the universe could not have emerged via our empiracal laws.
By a process of elimination, namely there is absolutely no other possibility how the universe could have happened, accept by a command by a transcendent force, as stated in Genesis, becomes the only choiceless conclusion. To prove this point, try to name an alternative? Here, it is not the straying from laws and empirical methodology which impacts - its the absolute lack of any possible alternatives available. Remember that when the universe began, there were no laws, no tools or elements, no energy, space or any such things as yet. This leaves only one option - the most disdained by science - ex nehilo.
the best proof of Creationism is science. The science and math best prove Creationism; there is no alternatives to it. True science minded folk must first be honest - the fear of boldly acknowledging scientific and mathematical veracity must not be denied as does all religionists.
For me, science proves there is no alternative to Creationism. Big bangs don't cut it.
Understand there are only two options as viable and credible for the emergence of the universe. One of them is Creationism. I know of no aternatives to it - do you? Someone suggested cosmology - which is an ubsurd premise, being part of Creationism. The two are: a Creator based creation, or not. In a finite realm, the former wins from a scientific POV.
I studied all the state of art sciences, pondered them deeply, and concluded: THERE IS NO SCIENTIFIC ALTERNATIVE TO CREATIONISM.
Its very simple to answer, and sorry to bust your bubble. I would nominate the lack of any scientific peer paper based on any scientific research which can offer any alternative.
I find it amazing an ancient document like Genesis is the first introduction of the FINITE factor (IN THE BEGINNING), and in specific context of the universe origins.
An expansion = an explosion.
I see no difference between an expansion and an explosion.
The BBT explosion obviously was not a random one - the result says so, namely trillions of complex products and processes were set in motion - silimultainiously too, which negates the notion of 'by accumulative' means.
I say the BBT is scientifically an impossibility and violates the most fundamental laws of science.
Genesis is 100% vindicated.
™ Version 4.2